Wikipedia is hardly a non-profit organization. From experience, I witnessed to their bias actions on biographies such as that of Wendy Diamond. I supposed if others pay ...oops..."donate"... for hosting/promoting their own businesses/fame, Wiki will overlook certain negative truths and the excuses given are rather ridiculous: A Youtube video proves Diamond's argument on a T.V. show has been dismissed as "could be an act", which was obviously not and even so, why is this act not allowed to be called an act, but had to be completed covered up?
Nonetheless, wikipedia is still a very good resource, one of the best online. This is one of the few examples where we can take full advantage of wikipedia's free offers while JUSTLY not be associated with it and have the freedom to even discredit its action.
What if it runs out of fund? I doubt it would. But even if it does run out, there are others that will rise, hopefully, with better ethics.
HAHAHA...
Wed 11/29: To all our readers in the U.S.,
We will get straight to the point: This Wednesday we ask you to protect Wikipedia's independence. Time is running out in 2017 to help us. We depend on donations averaging about $15. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. If everyone reading this gave $3, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come. The price of your Wednesday coffee is all we need. When I made Wikipedia a non-profit, people warned me I’d regret it. Over a decade later, it’s the only top ten site run by a non-profit and a community of volunteers. Has it crossed my mind how much we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be the same. We wouldn’t trust it. Most people ignore my messages. But I hope you’ll think about how useful it is to have unlimited access to reliable, neutral information. Please help keep Wikipedia online and growing. Thank you. — Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder