>>> They can’t very well make money on a site that was created through the free labor of its contributors

Two incorrect things right here:

a) there are lots of sites that run ads on community content, some even charge membership fees on top of that

b) only content is created by unpaid contributors. Hardware, bandwidth, admin team, software team, etc. all cost money. The fact that the content is free doesn't mean running Wikipedia is free - it's far from it. That's like saying making a talk show is free if it doesn't pay for the interviews.

>>> Money is not an issue of survival for Wikipedia

It's incorrect again - the fact that Wikipedia has money doesn't mean it doesn't need it. Just as the fact that you have enough air to breathe right now doesn't mean you won't die very quickly if the air flow stops. Wikipedia would die too if the money flow stops. Fortunately, it does not, and it's the great thing, and it in no way means money flow is not vital - just as the abundance of air doesn't mean it's not vital for you.

>>> is in “survival” mode.

Here you engage in distortion, making it sound like Wikipedia claims it's "in survival mode". The claim is the donations are necessary for continued survival, not that there's already a financial crisis now. In fact, since the kind contributors continue to contribute, there is no crisis. This is a good thing.

Moreover, the only reason this is the case is that people in the past mostly were not listening to people like you. So you build your case on the fact that almost nobody would join your cause.

>>> Wikipedia’s core software is essentially unchanged since 2001

This is wildly untrue, to the point that betrays complete unfamiliarity with the platform and it's development. Which is much more puzzling given that most of the information about it is not that hard to find if desired.

>>> Yet all of the money spent on programmer salaries has produced no measurable change to the site’s quality.

This again is false. The very article you're reading belies this claim, but there are many more improvements (including whole mobile platform, which of course did not exist in 2001).

>>> These grants have been described as “corrupt” by the WMF’s ex-director Sue Gardner. who said,

This is an obvious lie, Sure Gardner said that the process doesn't provide enough protection against corrupt practices, not that the grants are corrupt. The difference as between "this lock is not strong enough" and "you are a thief". It is bewildering that you distort the quote in the same phrase as you provide it and expect the reader to miss it.

>>> Your donations are going to golden chairs.

This is false. Ask somebody who has been in Wikimedia office if there are any golden chairs there.

>>> I guess parks and libraries would be a lot less popular if you had panhandlers at the doors.

You would prefer wikipedia to tax you and have corrupt politicians distribute the budgets instead of direct voluntary donations? That's s strange mindset that prefers to be forced to do something instead of having a choice to do it at their own free will - or not do it and write an article full of distortions and inaccuracies if so inclined.

I could spend more time to point more incorrect statements and fallacies in the text but I think this is enough.