Jimmy Wales wrote: The strings attached may be more like a load of spaghetti. There are enough arguments to make us suspicious of this kind of funding source, without even getting into the issue of how thay get *their* funding. I tend to look at some of these sources as some kind of corporate welfare that perpetuates "corporate welfare bums". "Curious" political views are essential, no matter where they fall in terms of traditional political spectra. Similarly, Wikipedia does well to accomodate and document offbeat views without taking sides. Volunteer organizations change when they have government funding. There may be no explicit strings, but that does not protect from the implicit unspoken ones. When I'm travelling by car I make a point of visiting small local museums. There's a big difference between museums that are government controlled or operated, and locally controlled museums. Last summer I visited museums in Ludington, Mich. and Hardin, Mont. The only significant government support that they had was property tax concessions from local governments. Hardin didn't even charge an admission fee. Both were excellent facilities. Government facilities often have an air of advanced sterility. This diminishes when municipal operations are based in small towns. Many volunteer operation have a cluttered appearance, and seem sorely lacking in expertise. They leave you with the feeling that you just want to pitch in and help even though you're a thousand miles from home. There's a lesson to be drawn from this kind of situation. Exactly. If we have objective measures that show us that it doesn't provide any significant resources, then we don't even need to go into great detail about the more complicated social and moral arguments. If there is no benefit, we don't need the cost. Ec