If I've read correctly while poking around on this, that means they have about a years worth of operating money in the bank. You might argue that they should restrict their spending ( most of it appears to be salaries for their hundreds of employees ) or even their scope ( they operate a number of wiki resources, not just wikipedia ), but I can't see anything wrong with fundraising when they have 12 months of leeway rather than waiting until they only have 6 or 3 months operating expenses in the bank.

Their spending has 10x'd since 2010, yet their traffic and scope remains relatively the same. This reeks of mismanagement and overspending. That being said, I more-so dislike their wording they use to gather the donations more than anything else, as I said, it feels disingenuous. I'm not entirely sure what the original parent comment was on about when he stated they were; "biased, corrupt, etc.", but my gripe with the Wikimedia foundation is the profiteering of community-generated content, with dubious expenditures that don't seem to actually advance the wiki itself, via dishonest means (and don't say that nobody is profiteering just because they're a non-profit, I'm sure the money is ending up at least partially in someones pockets). In the same vein, I wouldn't donate to wikimedia for the same reason I wouldn't give money to a broke alcoholic, if the reason you need money is because you're spending too much on the wrong things, that's not really a cause worthy of anybody's money. (All of this being IMO, obviously)