zlacker

>>nickpa+(OP)
This is a hit piece by someone who hates Wikipedia. It should be ignored. If and when someone with far less bias writes an article on Wikimedia finances, I might be interested.

>>tchaff+yl
Is it true or false that Wikipedia re-donates money while claiming to be in danger of shutting down? If the claim is true the source doesn't matter.

>>ohCh6z+Ka1
Is it true or false that the author is heavily biased against Wikipedia? If the claim is true, then no one has an obligation to respond to one-sided accusations made in bad faith with zero intention to report on any details that would paint Wikipedia in a favorable light.

I would be just as uninterested in an article from Wikimedia themselves on how great they are.

I already said what I would be interested in: factual reporting that makes a reasonable and unbiased effort to uncover all the facts and give the full context. Everyone has the right to ignore "reporting" and "sources" that do not fulfill even the bare minimums of journalist integrity.

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

>>tchaff+Js1
But that's simply not true. An article from wikipedia refuting their re-donation with proof would go a long way regardless of their own pro-self bias.

Likewise even more evidence of their re-gifting from a source that hates them has value.