zlacker

Oh please, the mentions of having to seek alternative funding models like subscriptions and ads are clearly meant to raise the image of a site on the brink of unsustainability to potential donors

>>Macha+(OP)
The implied subscription threat is a complete red herring. They should be ashamed for even mentioning it in their fundraising messages.

Wikipedians wouldn't work for free for a subscription service. The whole project would fork to a new host. The Wikimedia Foundation's own mission statement says, "The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/mission/

>>akolbe+q3
Much the same applies to the Mozilla Foundation.

You can't contribute donations to Firefox; you can only contribute to the Mozilla Foundation, which spends most of the money it gets from donations on things that aren't Firefox.

>>Macha+(OP)
Sure. And if you accept those images or not is your thing. Their banners are super annoying at only 2% conversion rate. What will it be without those banners?