This isn't about whether or not Wikimedia needs contributions (which it obviously does) or how it's run. It's about its having been created to give back, not to accumulate money for no particular purpose other than to accumulate it as it appears to have done and be doing on an ongoing basis.
There certainly are organizations that can justify huge balances as necessary to support their current operations and future known and potential needs, but even their accumulation of money is in danger of becoming money for money's sake rather than for purpose's sake, which appears to be the mode Wikimedia is in.
and how would you see Wikipedia "giving back"?
I haven't got a clue about how Wikimedia might "give back", i.e. spend their money...couldn't even begin to hazard a guess without reading their charter to see how they're
allowed to spend it.
To me the service Wikimedia provides IS "giving back".
True, but their accumulation of vast sums of money for no particular purpose is NOT IN KEEPING with their "giving back", and, in fact, I'd call it taking...and in the grossest way.
I am a "member" of and contribute to a several organizations like Wikipedia who provide "free" services to the public. From serving on the board of one of these convinces me the financial realities for such organizations inevitably dictate that unless they have and maintain substantial assets and reserves they either go out of business or switch to a pay for access or advertising model and the free public services disappear.
Every entity needs a cushion, but there's a point at which enough is enough.
And I"ll go out on a limb and say that it seems to me that a
well run organization that's fulfilling a
valid and
relevant need should be self-sustaining and not need to accumulate a mattress-full of money when a much smaller cushion would suffice.
Remember, too, that some percentage of Wikimedia's accumulated funds came from students and others who are broke if not poverty stricken, but were kinda cowed into giving when their gratitude for the benefit they derived from Wikipedia ran head-on into Wikimedia's aggressive fundraising.
Perpetuating that is unconscionable!
I suggest that we table this discussion for five or six years, at which point either Wikimedia will have spent A LOT of their money within the scope of their charitable purpose, or, if nothing changes radically, they'll have $250,000,000 (that's
a quarter of a billion dollars) socked away for us to "argue" about.
