Wikipedia is clearly a useful source of information and opinions, but it is badly let down by the lack of transparency of its editorial process, which allows the website editors (aka 'the Community') to use anonymous identities. Because of this, it is possible to spend a lot of time and effort adding factual content to an article, within one's area of expertise, only to find that the self-appointed editor of the article, whose identity is never publicly disclosed, vetos the additions by deleting or hiding them, in order to preserve a sense of proprietorship. In essence, the process favours the select few who are able and willing to devote substantial time to their editorial policing role. In this sense, Wikipedia is closer to political activism than scholarship. Furthermore, the claim that all content is subject to strict editorial oversight is clearly false - the volume of information on Wikipedia is simply too large for this to happen. The reality is that all kinds of rubbish is published, while elsewhere diligent efforts to add useful information are rejected without right of appeal. I have donated in the past, but will not do so again until transparency standards improve.
