If they cared about long term sustainability they wouldn't use that money to fund a web of charities.
If they were expecting hardships in the distant future you would obviously expect them to cut down on unnecessary spending to focus on keeping the website up and running. Is that happening?
Part of being a nonprofit is that instead of being obligated to drive profits to investors, you must carry out the focus of your mission statement.
Money is fuel. It should not ever become such a constraining resource and saying they can get by with less is trivializing the way they conduct operations and the impact the are obligated to peruse.
I don’t see this argument being made as it relates to for-profit companies. Is a nonprofit unworthy of fundraising because they have “enough” already? Who defines that? Are they not worthy because they bring value to society rather than individual shareholders? Nonprofits still operate as businesses and they also want to see growth. I’m not sure how any reasonable person would see a problem with that.
Why do you pretend that I am arguing they are not allowed to ask for money?
My problem is that they lie about the state of their organization and use that money for things totally unrelated to what their mission should be.
I really do not care that they have 250 Million in assets, but I do care that they are still using alarmist "Wikipedia is about to die" messaging to raise funds and then use that money to fund unrelated and undisclosed charities. I am asking for honesty and accountability.
