Wikipedia and the foundation that oversees it is at a crossroads for thinking about how to pay for its future and the "so what" of taking certain kinds (sources) of money. It's a debate that is worth many nonrpofit's listen and it's the age old -- what's wrong with "tainted money" beyond that is there "taint" being enough of it.

As one paper noted:

"And so, much as how its base of editors and bureaucrats endlessly debate touchy articles and other changes to the site, Wikipedia's community churns with questions over how the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees the project, should get and spend its money.

Should it proceed on its present course, soliciting donations largely to keep its servers running? Or should it expand other sources of revenue -- with ads, perhaps, or something like a Wikipedia game show -- to fulfill grand visions of sending DVDs or printed books to people who lack computers? Is it helpful -- or counter to the project's charitable, free-information mission -- to have the Wikimedia Foundation tight with a prominent venture capital firm?And so, much as how its base of editors and bureaucrats endlessly debate touchy articles and other changes to the site, Wikipedia's community churns with questions over how the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees the project, should get and spend its money.

Should it proceed on its present course, soliciting donations largely to keep its servers running? Or should it expand other sources of revenue -- with ads, perhaps, or something like a Wikipedia game show -- to fulfill grand visions of sending DVDs or printed books to people who lack computers? Is it helpful -- or counter to the project's charitable, free-information mission -- to have the Wikimedia Foundation tight with a prominent venture capital firm?"

For a nonprofit, this is a good debate and one which staff and board should pursue regularly even if not facing the relatively huge challenges of Wikipedia.