|
|
|
|
|
|
by adriand
2729 days ago
|
|
|
This is a great comment and a really valuable perspective. I have to note, however, that financially precarious nonprofits can also veer off in bad directions, or become ossified, or whatever, and the result is they fail outright. A benefit to Wikipedia’s situation is they go directly to their user base for funds. When nonprofits are financially precarious or dependent and rely on small numbers of moneyed donors, they can just as easily go off mission and/or become corrupted. |
|
|
What you're describing is exactly the situation that Mozilla has been in for the last decade or so, and I always feel a little uncomfortable about it. The vast majority of their income is from search deals with one or two vendors.