It's The Register, and The Register has Things They Hateses, e.g., Google, and apparently, Wikipedia.
On neutral topics The Register can be fun and even informative, but when it comes to Things They Hateses, no rumor is too unsubstantiated, no conclusion too tenuous, and no argument too bizarre to be crammed together haphazardly into a nasty little ball of hate and called "an article."
They Hateses It, and It They Hateses, and that's good enough for them.
Apparently The Register think that because people don't get paid (and in fact are specifically not allowed to get paid), that the editors of Wikipedia are somehow being hard done by.
Seems ridiculous - very much a biased piece against Wikipedia, not well researched, and not particularly cogent.
So far as I can tell, it's not so much "The Register thinks" as "Orlowski thinks" - much though I tend to enjoy reading his articles, a small dump truck full of salt is pretty much always required.
The improvement from one star to four on the efficiency-as-a-charity thing and the innovative things they're doing with the money led me to have a more positive impression of wikipedia at the end of the article than I did beforehand; hopefully a decent percentage of readers will feel the same way.
On neutral topics The Register can be fun and even informative, but when it comes to Things They Hateses, no rumor is too unsubstantiated, no conclusion too tenuous, and no argument too bizarre to be crammed together haphazardly into a nasty little ball of hate and called "an article."
They Hateses It, and It They Hateses, and that's good enough for them.