On January 8, 2017, the Senate subcommittee released its final report, titled “Backpage.com’s Knowing Facilitation of Online Sex Trafficking.” It pushed the theory that Lacey, Larkin, Ferrer, and their employees had invalidated their liability protections under Section 230: Rather than removing illegal and obscene content, the Senate said, Backpage had helped develop it, using clever moderation practices to “sanitize the content” and conceal it from the eyes of the law—all in the name of earning a few extra dollars. This, the subcommittee implied, put Backpage in the position of a content creator, not a mere content host.
It is not difficult to prove that WMF employees and their "friends" have been heeling certain content. I've got examples of it happening. (All you need to say is "Sarah Stierch" and "Steven Walling" to kick it off.)
That might be the secret to a successful civil action, of any kind, against the WMF. Show them "creating content" and placing themselves in violation of Section 230.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the chilling effect would be particularly damaging to sites like Wikipedia, which “don’t have the massive budgets to defend themselves that Facebook and Twitter do.”