This thread (or rather, this whole topic) is more about funding/business model than anything else, yet gp points to the slight decline in the number of active editors that is quite easily explained by other factors (see other replies) as evidence that Wikipedia is “not doing that well” (cerntainly not financially, so in what way exactly and how is that relevant?). Now that’s something hard to follow.
The thread is about whether a for-profit service for Wikipedia is a good idea. The healthy finances show this is completely unnecessary for keeping the lights on, while the "slight" decline in editors (a huge drop relative to where it should be with continued exponential growth) shows that the health of the community is much more concerning. That suggests that the decision should be informed much more by its impact of community healthy than its impact on finances. The more Wikipedia becomes an organization monetizing the work of volunteers, with that money spent on cancerous overhead while the contributor tools languish for decades without meaningful improvement, the fewer people will want to volunteer.
