Sneaky, aren’t you?
OMG, way nicer. Ooh, check out those curves.
Hey, thanks! What’s your name, again? 
Okay, seriously, this thread is getting a bit too silly for me. I love all you bastards, though.
Nice hooters, GIGO.
Nice catch. 
Looks like you were wrong since they went and changed it to 2006.
We are again under the bootheel of oppression. 
Just to enter the tiniest shred of reality, the requirement that the copyright date be explicitly listed was dropped. In 1989.
Today it’s a meaningless formality or reminder.
You misunderstand. The original notice only covered works up to 2005. That meant that, technically, anything posted after 2005 was not covered by the copyright declaration, hence the change. As Exapno posted it’s no longer a legal requirement, but it’s still another level of protection. As such, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s “meaningless”. After all, his own cite has one.
In your first post, you said 2005 is not an expiration. If that’s the case, how can anything, technically, posted after 2005 not be covered by the copyright declaration. Sounds like an expiration to me…
No. You have to understand that each post here is a copyrightable work all on its own. The declaration “Copyright © 1984-2005” says, in effect, that anything published between those two dates is copyrighted as of its publication date. The copyright on each individual work then runs from its publication date until the time of its expiration, per the chart Exapno linked to. Anything published in 2006 is not covered by the declaration–prior to 1989, this would have meant that such material was not protected.
You guys make me proud to be a member of this Community. Yes you do. 
Again, the copyright date is a start date. For material posted and copyrighted 2005, it is protected for 95 years (since the Reader is a corporation). IOW, it will be copyright until the year 2100.
Material posted in 2006, however, will be copyright until the year 2101.
This is true whether or not the date of copyright is listed at the bottom of the page.
Posting the date is “another level of protection” in only the most legalistic of senses, although since the chart referenced was prepared by the most legalistic of lawyers, it needs to be said. It also needs to be said that if you tried the “innocent infringer” defense out on material from the Dope that doesn’t have the 2006 copyright date on it, you would be found in violation of copyright with the same exact speed as you would if you infringed a page with the date on it. IOW, it’s not a defense applicable to this situation.