Making some suggestions. My suggestions are in bold print:
50 Reasons why not to donate to The Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia):
1. It's taken over google and is almost always listed first before other websites.
2. Next on the list in a google search after Wikipedia are the endless spammy mirrors which make money off of Wikipedia content.
3. It has filled the web with misinformation.
4. It is now filling the world with falsehoods. <==== same thing....Maybe we need another?
5. Libel on Wikipedia even when removed from Wikipedia lasts forever on all the spammy mirrors who don't have to follow Wikipedia policy, because the content is already considered free under the GFDL. This is currently no way to remove this content without suing all of these organizations
6. Wikipedia tells search engines not to follow any external links, except those to its favored sites such as its for-profit site, Wikia. It would seem Wikipedia is pushing traffic to Wikia, for...whatever reason....
7. Wikipedia promotes certain sites such as amazon.com in links and in return, Amazon.com gives Wikia huge amounts of venture capital, which would seem to violating Wikipedia's non-profit status, given Wikipedia's close ties to Wikia.
8. Wikipedia sometimes blacklists linking to sites merely because the sites criticize Wikipedia.
9. Wikipedia also sometimes blacklists linking to competitors of their major donors on completely made-up charges, such as when they blacklisted overstock.com
10. Imagine a website full of the worst scum of society. Then imagine them all pretending to be intellectuals. That’s Wikipedia. Not just administrators, but most everyone there. <===this one is very weak. I'd either reword it or drop it...
11. A large percentage of their administrators are under the age of 15 and therefore not liable for criminal prosecution in most parts of the World. Who were you planning on suing?
12. If you’re a renowned expert using your real name on Wikipedia and some administrators (e.g. kids) decide they don’t like you and ban you, then Wikipedia writes about you and ruins your reputation.
13. Wikipedia is openly trying to put real encyclopedias out of business. Or at least, that's what Jimbo Wales has said.
14. Wikipedia gives its software out for free, enabling attack sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica that would otherwise be stuck as blogs to become monstrous wikis that take over google.<== I think that ED does a great service by showing just how horribles Wikis can be....but that's beside the point...
15. Wikipedia even itself is an attack site in its articles and its writings about former users they don’t like, including labeling real people as "banned" on google search engines etc.
16. Wikipedia and corporations that donate massive amounts of money into it go around intimidating any serious critics of Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does not publish annual financial statements. What are they trying to hide?
17. What gets on wikis is determined not by what is right, but by the people who have enough time to edit war and work up the ranks to administrator and higher. Wikipedia would seem to be more of a role-playing game than an actual encyclopedia.
18. Administrators are anonymous and obviously some people would secretly have more than one administrator account. What do they have to hide? Conflicts of interest, perhaps? No one knows for sure.
19. Jimmy Wales doesn’t manage the wiki properly.
20. Jimmy Wales used to run a soft-core porn site. However, with Wikipedia, he pretends to support free expression of women and children. Is it possible that both statements are true?
21. Wikipedia has tons of very gross and sexual pictures in it, even child pornography. However, since it is uncensored, any child can access this information without any parental control.
22. Wikipedia gives poor synopses for movies, books, etc. They don't give any details unless its spoilers whereas places like yahoo movies do it right.<====very weak. I'd cut this one.
23. They wouldn't let someone use Poo Bum Dicky Wee Wee as their username, which makes light humor on the finding by the Wiki Scanner that someone from the Australian government vandalized an article by adding "Poo Bum Dicky Wee Wee" to it.<==also weak.
24. Citizendium is slightly better run than Wikipedia and so would be more worthy of your donation.<==only slightly? Not convincing. Let's cut this one.
25. Wikipedia has gone to painstaking detail to host articles about Brazil, Israel and Saudi Arabia practice apartheid. If that's how you want your country described for the rest of the world, get out your checkbook.
26. Wikipedia is liable to get sued because of their practices of publishing unauthorized biographical information and your donation would just be paying their legal fees and not helping an encyclopedia.
27. People have been stalked and harassed in real life because of Wikipedia.
28. The harassment by Wikipedia editors has even caused some people to have mental breakdowns.
29. Wikipedia's tracking of people is basically IP addresses so any hacker who has a problem with your edits can then find your computer and hack it. Is this a good thing?
30. Most people deeply into the community hate any new changes to the site and enjoy reverting things that aren’t vandalism all day.<==how does this make people not want to donate to WP? I don't think that it does...
31. Almost all edits on articles are vandalism, fighting over content, and reverting, rather than improving articles. Why does this need to be funded when Universities DO need funding for serious study?
32. Wikipedia will never remove old revisions and at best they hide them so a lot of their money is spent on the hard drive space to retain all text from vandalism, reverting, and edit wars This is a waste of your money.
33. Wikipedia compresses all the vandalism and garbage within old revisions all together at once so not only is it hard drive space but even more expensive processing power that uses their money.<== I would combine number 32 and 33 together, since it's basically the same thing
34. Governments and organizations pay people to edit toward their bias into articles. Are you going to fund the system of adding bias by giving money to run it? Don't you already fund this with your taxes?
35. There are reports that even administrators trusted with the highest powers are paid.
36. Wikipedia falsely considers an internet troll to be someone who disagrees with an administrator and then lets real trolls run loose, ignored by or sometimes even supported by the administration. <==again, very weak. Why would people funding WP care about this? I wouldn't
37. The administrators have the power to change history but all are anonymous by default. Who is accountable? Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation insist that they are not. So, who is?
38. Wikipedia is not going to help children in third world countries because the bulk of its content is in the languages of first world countries and pretty much nothing is in the rest. Wikipedia never considers the fact that people in third and fourth World countries might actually have parts of human knowledge that they don't. Why fund another neo-colonialist operation?
39. Wikipedia administrators sometimes give insulting and libelous messages as their reasons they ban you.<==Yes, but do the donors really care about this? Probably not, I would guess...
40. Most of their administrators are drunk with power. However Jimbo Wales refuses to address this problem. Why fund somebody's power trip?
41. The dispute resolution process is designed so that administrators can ban any editor long before the editor can get someone to do something about their complaint. Do you want to fund the 21st century's answer to the Salem Witch trials?
42. Wikipedia makes most of its administrative decisions in secret on its IRC channels and then back on its website its administration disavows any connection between itself and its IRC channels. What do they have to hide? Why are giving money to an organization that can't work out its problem in public?
43. Whenever you edit a wiki article, you have to watch it for the rest of your life and fight people to make sure the edit sticks, or admit you wasted your time because your edit will eventually be removed. This goes double if you are a World-renowned expert in the field discussed in the article. Some 15 year old is going to change your statement to what he saw on the Discovery Channel last night. Why does this need to be funded?
44. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view was originally designed by Larry Sanger for experts to write and article and a neutral party review it, but instead what’s called neutral is whatever the majority of the people on the site believe. If they all think that the Earth is flat, that's what the neutral point of view says. Why give your money to promote ignorance?
45. One of the main administrators, SlimVirgin, sockpuppeted on the account “Sweet Blue Water” and instead of a userpage stated it’s a blocked sock puppet, the userpage is deleted and protected from recreation. The administrators also refuse to keep a sockpuppeteer tag on SlimVirgin’s userpage, despite everyone else who socked has one.<==very weak. Why would anybody giving money care. Better to talk about her lying about her past inspite of the evidence currently available. What does she have to hide? is much more effective...
46. The “let’s change reality” type of Wikipedia thinking spilled into real life and made Pluto no longer a planet.<==um, I don't think that this can be clearly proven. I would drop this one.
47. The software design allows for if one person doesn’t like another, they can go through all their enemy’s old edits and stalk them for the editor’s personal information and things to revert.<<===Isn't that a good thing?? at least, I think so...Again, why would donors care about this?
48. Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia’s administrators always considers criticism of Wikipedia or its administrators as a personal attack and trolling. However, they themselves refuse to allow financial statements of their foundation be published. They even changed the bylaws to make this possible. Give your money to a "foundation" that provides financial statements.
49. Although Wikipedia pretends it doesn’t use voting, Wikipedia makes all its decisions based on a vote of all the non-banned accounts that bother to vote, which they call consensus. The ones that are bothered to vote most are lunatic extremists and these are who run Wikipedia from administering, to policy making, to article decisions, and even are the ones who vote for the arbitration committee and the arbitration committee are the ones who get to decide all the big decisions and they have a track record of making horrible decisions. No one is accountable for any of these decisions. Why are you funding this?
50. Jimbo Wales tries to use Wikipedia to rewrite history and claim himself as sole founder of Wikipedia. However, it is not clear what is the current relationship between Bomis (his softcore porn operation who initially funded Wikipedia), the Wikimedia foundation and Wikia (a for-profit organization whose board has several members who are on the board of the Wikimedia foundation) and Wikpedia; Indeed, it is not at all clear where the Wikimedia foundation begins and where Wikipedia stops. Go fund a real foundation with clear accounting, clear goals with no connections to venture capital and softcore porn. Why spend your money on soebody else's tax shelter?
some idea for discussion...