[infoseek12]

With a few prominent exceptions, the Wikipedia Foundation has been wise enough to enjoy the perks parasitism and not get in the way. However, their stated fundraising goal is amassing a large enough endowment that they can exist perpetually on it’s interest.

I sometimes worry if they ever achieve their goal they might not be wise enough not to kill the golden goose.

[toomuchtodo]

4% of $400M is $16M, more than enough to cover annual Wikipedia infrastructure costs in perpetuity. What would one consider “enough” if this is not it?

I think it’d be fine if they stated their endowment target to achieve perpetuity (as a donor, I want to give to orgs who think in 100 year or perpetual terms, instead of having to waste resources constantly to have to sing for their meal), but find it exceptionally poor taste to beg as if they’re going out of business. I assume this is because if donors knew they already had $400M in the coffers, donation volume would decline. I don’t believe greater transparency is unwarranted, considering both their non profit status and mission.

[defrost]

It's still the case that third parties can fork the wikipedia articles and host them at home or in local communities.

The concern you raise is that they become too big to fork a popular alternative, branching from just prior to exceeding some it sucks now threshold.

[chasil]

Any forking attempt that violates any terms of service will see a warchest arrayed against it.