[NoZebra120vClip]

When I give money to a charity, I don't expect anything in return, I'm entrusting that money to them for purposes that they see fit. I choose a charity based on its works and mission.

If people have chosen to donate to the WMF because they think all they do is run the English Wikipedia, and haven't done their due diligence, then that's not the WMF's fault. Sure, I suppose that a constant stream of hitpiece articles raises awareness, but they're so biased that it should only be the first step on a long process of due diligence.

Biased negative reporting on charities often proves useful to the people who wish to support such causes. So if you run an exposé on how evil empires carry water for X, Y, and Z, then be prepared to attract people who love X, Y, and Z, and enthusiastically begin to support that evil empire.

[superkuh]

Right. So if I run a charity for, say, helping low power FM community radio stations and I collect a bunch of money, and then give it to a political group advocating for legalization of cannabis, you'd think that was okay because you don't expect anything in return? It'd be your fault for not knowing I'd changed my charity's mission from the previously publicized LPFM community project to diversify out into legalization efforts. It'd be too bad that no one wrote an article updating you on the change in my hypothetical charity's "mission". And if they did do so, would you call it a hit piece?

[NoZebra120vClip]

Yes, that'd be ok. Yes, it'd be my fault.

"Hit piece" is a value judgement on the negative tone and bias of the article. Another possibility is a "puff piece" in High Times for example, extolling the virtues of the charity's newfound cause.

However, you've nearly constructed a strawman, because nobody would expect an LPFM charity to diversify into cannabis, yet nothing the WMF does is inconsistent with their mission from the start. They've simply expanded, globalized, and broadened in scope; that's the way I see it.