First, you didn't answer my question. You may find the abstract idea of a Wikipedia that is perpetually endowed comforting, but you didn't actually describe a scenario where it was well functioning but ran out of money. I think the far-fetched-ness of such scenarios makes that abstract idea less enticing.
Second, the hoarding worry with charities still applies to those with limited possible scope. The idea is that such charities should not acquire perpetual funds because they become unaccountable; this doesn't rely on there always being more available orphans.
Third, why did you limit things to Wikipedia and Wiktionary? There are a bunch of other similar projects, extant and hypothetical, that the WMF would arguably be the best organization to run.
Second, the hoarding worry with charities still applies to those with limited possible scope. The idea is that such charities should not acquire perpetual funds because they become unaccountable; this doesn't rely on there always being more available orphans.
Third, why did you limit things to Wikipedia and Wiktionary? There are a bunch of other similar projects, extant and hypothetical, that the WMF would arguably be the best organization to run.