Hoi,
There are some people who repeatedly argue that we raise way too much money. Given a set of assumptions an argument can be constructed to make this point. In my opinion there is little merit to the argument. We do need money to operate the Wikimedia projects and a positive outcome per year enables us to do more.the next year. I have some ideas about raising money and raising expectations.
Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Internet Archive have projects to document all scientific papers / output. The Internet Archive provides an important service to the Wikimedia Foundation and we can integrate the two projects, reduce costs and have the WMF pay the IA for its services. Closer ties with the Internet Archive provide many other benefits. One of these benefits is that we can bring the Wikipedia references into a modern age.

For Wikidata there is a technical limit in what we can achieve on the current platform. Because of Wikidata the WMF is a very big fish in the data pond. We need to (imho) pick up the challenge and develop our own software. This will cost significantly and it demonstrates that we accept that Free software is not Free as in Beer. With the IA as a partner, we may find a partner in this endeavour.

The notion that we raise too much money, the notion that there is no urgency is a fallacy. It is all too easy to identify how our service is lacking and where we can improve our service. The arguments why the WMF raises too much money assumes that there is only one project, their project and they consider that its status quo suffices. The question is, sufficient for who,for what and for how long.
Thanks,
       GerardM