Just to dispel a oft-repeated notion, the Wikimedia Foundation is not really sitting on that much money. From the horse's mouth: > Our reserves vary throughout

Just to dispel a oft-repeated notion, the Wikimedia Foundation is not really sitting on that much money. From the horse's mouth: > Our reserves vary throughout the year but are generally around 1 year of revenue. The typical recommendation for stable and successful nonprofits is to have between 6 months and 2 years of reserves. (https://www.quora.com/Wikipedia-in-2015-Why-does-Wikipedia-ask-for-donations-even-though-it-has-a-huge-reserve-60M-of-value-cash-investments-etc https://www.quora.com/Wikipedia-in-2015-Why-does-Wikipedia-a...) It's only responsible for a non-profit to keep money for when people donate less or when a lot of money is needed. In fact it would be unwise to only ask for donations when you're on the verge of bankruptcy. Not to mention that no matter how efficiently you run an organization, at the size of readers served by Wikipedia you do need to meet the demand by spending more resources. I have to mention this because so many people use it as justification not to donate, "oh I don't want to fund fat cat Jimbo's private jet" or whatever, especially when the foundations is very transparent compared to other non-profits. That being said I do agree with the sentiment since Wikipedia uses the Internet Archive heavily to access citations that have long since 404ed and they both believe in access to information. Personally as a Wikipedia editor, I use the Internet Archive daily to access websites that are no longer online and to fight linkrot. It's invaluable for the functioning of the encyclopedia, especially when reacting to dead links as opposed to pre-emptively saving sources in Webcite or Archive.is. Wikimedia does appear on the donors acknowledgement page by the way (http://archive.org/donate/donors.php http://archive.org/donate/donors.php), though I'm sure you meant in a more hands-on manner.