You shouldn't write anyone a free license to collect as much money as they can by monetizing the Wikipedia brand. The money has to actually serve a need and be

You shouldn't write anyone a free license to collect as much money as they can by monetizing the Wikipedia brand. The money has to actually serve a need and be spent in a way that benefits the reader. And there have been germane questions asked about that, even by Wikimedia's own outgoing director: http://www.dailydot.com/business/sue-gardner-log-rolling-corruption-wikimedia-chapters/ http://www.dailydot.com/business/sue-gardner-log-rolling-cor... The reason most of the Wikimedia Foundation's expenditure goes on salaries these days is that they have vastly expanded their staff. Staff expansion isn't bad, but it shouldn't be an end in itself, and the staff hired should be qualified and deliver value for money. And here even Jimmy Wales admitted that their cost/benefit ratio needs a lot of improvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=623290066 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_W... The main thing to bear in mind is that donations are not needed to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free, as the fundraising banners say. There is more than enough money for that; it's a very small part of the Foundation's expenditure today. It used to be different: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4#t=275