I do see the point, and betting into dry sidepots is definitely one of those stupid issues where everybody seems to want to choke anybody who does it...   I think a lot of it has to do with intent though.  Bluffing into a dry sidepot with virtually no chance of winning the showdown is stupid, and can likely be collusion... but then we enter into the magical gray areas of intent and more importantly, personal interest.  Even without the horribly gray area of staking/backing (remember Hasan Habib and Tuan Le?), it's easy to see where protecting the short stack from busting may be in your best interest: or at least, a situation where somebody could conceivably believe it was to his/her advantage (big stack on the bubble against nits comes to mind.)  At that point, we run into that issue that happens so often in tournaments: what's best for ourselves may include benefitting another player, or screwing another one over.  Regardless, you (Lee) seem to be reasonable and I'm not really trying to start an argument over what is/isn't collusion, but I think that if we're just trying to explain what a 'dry pot' is, saying that betting into one is 'often unethical' or 'collusion' is unnecessary, vague, and possibly misleading.  You're totally right on it being situational: but I don't think this should be mentioned in this specific article.  Moreover, I wish I could figure out why I spent this much time on the way one entry was worded on one single Wiki entry )  

 :