zlacker

Yes, it's in a whiny tone. The fact that it will go down is your interpretation. An alternative interpretation could be "98% of people get asymmetric value out of Wikipedia, please make it less asymmetric".

In fact, if they stop begging, what percentage of their users will contribute? Will it remain at 2%?

>>jevgen+(OP)
What else would "We ask you, humbly, to help...We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online" mean if not to raise the possibility to go down is present?

>>sokolo+t1
That they are a non-profit funded by donations, maybe? Just a wild guess. /s

>>jevgen+(OP)
You mean, what percentage of users will pay for using a website advertised as "The Free Encyclopedia", written by unpaid volunteers?

Just saying. If the WMF were working flat out on serving the volunteer community it would be a different matter. But it's taken on a life of its own, with Wikipedia as its cash cow.

>>_glsb+n2
"...to stay online" is relevant in that clause.

>>sokolo+BX
Which is still true.

>>akolbe+rl
No, I'm asking how many people will donate, if everybody thinks that it's not urgent and somebody else will?