I think we can safely assume that parent commenter was upset that their favorite Important Political Opinion was not presented as an absolute fact on Wikipedia.
If I've read correctly while poking around on this, that means they have about a years worth of operating money in the bank. You might argue that they should restrict their spending ( most of it appears to be salaries for their hundreds of employees ) or even their scope ( they operate a number of wiki resources, not just wikipedia ), but I can't see anything wrong with fundraising when they have 12 months of leeway rather than waiting until they only have 6 or 3 months operating expenses in the bank.
Their spending has 10x'd since 2010, yet their traffic and scope remains relatively the same. This reeks of mismanagement and overspending. That being said, I more-so dislike their wording they use to gather the donations more than anything else, as I said, it feels disingenuous. I'm not entirely sure what the original parent comment was on about when he stated they were; "biased, corrupt, etc.", but my gripe with the Wikimedia foundation is the profiteering of community-generated content, with dubious expenditures that don't seem to actually advance the wiki itself, via dishonest means (and don't say that nobody is profiteering just because they're a non-profit, I'm sure the money is ending up at least partially in someones pockets). In the same vein, I wouldn't donate to wikimedia for the same reason I wouldn't give money to a broke alcoholic, if the reason you need money is because you're spending too much on the wrong things, that's not really a cause worthy of anybody's money. (All of this being IMO, obviously)
