Isn't 100% of Wikipedia's money from donations? Maybe they don't need to raise money every year, but eventually they do need people to donate. MIT doesn't, they have other sources of funding. That was the point of the comparison.
The problem with Wikipedia is that even though they're getting 10x more money than ever, their operating costs are always growing, and they're constantly increasing the amount of money they spend like a runaway train....or so I've read.
Wikipedia is part of a non-profit whose purpose is to spread free information in the world, while MIT is also (supposedly) a non-profit which takes thousands of hundreds of dollars from its students. Not sure if Wikipedia has any other sources of income, but whatever they may be, they're not even close to the potency of MIT.
