Sorry, you're wrong.
Any organisation as big as a pie shop has done some dodgy things with money. It would be interesting to see the innards of The Reg laid bare for all, wouldn't it? This doesn't mean that it's above reproach or something, but what about a bit of a reality check here. Name your MORALLY PERFECT INSTITUTION for comparison, pulease. Or your morally perfect person for that matter. I'm waiting...
Bringing in hackneyed questions about Wikipedia's errors is just a red herring. This has been done to death. Reliability: Good but not as perfect as some people expect. If you want to criticise their funding process why turn your article into a FESTIVAL OF RECREATIONAL OUTRAGE. It works with some people who are addicted to this type of entertainment but really, it's not a good look. Just loading up with a general whatever bitch says more about the author than the subject.
Wikipedia remains a great information resource for quick general-purpose articles that are typically more accurate than you'd get from an hours googling and reading. If you want to dig deep you'd go elsewhere but it's usually enough. Maybe not 100% complete and accurate on everything, but hey, have you ever looked at the rest the freakin net!? Just in case you haven't, I can reliably inform you it's loaded, past bursting point, with corporate spin, untested beliefs and plain uninformed crap. Maybe we could have truth competition between El Reg and Wikipedia. I know who I'd back. I've seen a lot of opinionated crud and just plain BS in the Reg (along with a fair bit of good stuff.)
As for donations, it's a great thing that ordinary people contribute both their edits and small amounts of money to maintain, grow and improve it. And to own it. I do, and I don't expect perfection in return. Obviously if you have some kind of religious view that everything should be privately owned by rentseekers then it's obviously bad thing but for the rest of us it's a massive, handy, reliable resource. In this kind of article, The Reg seems to be falling into the conceit of the MSM: "We are the source of knowledge, the punters are clueless."