Myself and many others might argue the "unnecessary" bit...

But I don't think there are a lot of better options for Wikipedia to ask for money.

The Wikimedia Foundation already has enough money to run Wikipedia for decades if they stopped blowing money on other things: https://www.legalmorning.com/wikimedia-foundation-rich-one-c...

Let's be fair, the Wikimedia Foundation does many other worthwhile things besides keeping the English Wikipedia running. By way of example their latest full-project, Wikidata, was only started in 2012 and is already getting more edits than Wikipedia.

Thanks, good to know! This year's will be my last donation to Wikipedia.

Realized the same thing about a year ago about SPLC (splc.org). Once I realized how much cash they have I saw that my contributions would have more effect elsewhere. I like what splc does: help discriminate which groups are hate groups and which aren't, among others. But they simply don't need any more money IMO.

It's my understanding that by donating a small, but recurring amount such as $1/month, you are still helping organizations like SPLC or PP by adding to the numbers of their contributing supporters. That seems like a good alternative to cutting off support, which would free up the money for a more cash-strapped cause.

How does The Internet Archive get funding? From an outsider’s perspective, it should cost much more money to run (web crawler, storage space, responding to legal requests).

Seemingly via donations only: https://archive.org/donate

"The Internet Archive is a US 501c3 non-profit organization."

So, similar to Wikipedia.

Pray tell how you would argue it, keeping in mind the (supposedly) pretty beefy salaries being paid out and the enormous nest egg the foundation is currently sitting on.

Would you prefer the government to take your money by force and give it to Wikimedia instead of them 'begging' for money?