The article mentions both the endowment ($100M) and also WMF's funds on hand ($300M?). So the main point is still valid.
Wikipedia's fundraising strongly implies that they need your $3 to keep the site online.
WMF has $400M which would be enough to keep the site online for up to 40 years with no further donations.
Thus, their fundraising is misleading and deceptive. I bet 9 in 10 donators won't donate if they knew WMF has $400 million in the bank -- isn't it morally wrong if you paint a deceptive picture of your finances?
Wikipedia's fundraising strongly implies that they need your $3 to keep the site online.
WMF has $400M which would be enough to keep the site online for up to 40 years with no further donations.
Thus, their fundraising is misleading and deceptive. I bet 9 in 10 donators won't donate if they knew WMF has $400 million in the bank -- isn't it morally wrong if you paint a deceptive picture of your finances?