I'm not asking if misleading people about donations is nefarious (I'd call it "dishonest" personally), I'm asking if you think the causes they donate to are nefarious.
Judging by the deep partisan slant on [2], "extreme environmentalists" could mean literally anything.
> Judging by the deep partisan slant on [2], "extreme environmentalists" could mean literally anything.
You can say the same for the generalities that Tides uses to describe their mission. "Immigrant Rights" for instance could mean anything from helping legal immigrants get access to resources, to funding caravans of illegal aliens from Central America through Mexico and into the US to make false asylum claims. Depending on which type of immigrant rights we're talking about, support will vary greatly. That goes for every single claim they make, so without seeing the actual specific programs it's hard to make a clear judgment, which is by design.
But more importantly, if people want to donate to those types of causes they should do so directly, not have to worry about donations made to Wikipedia being funneled into these sorts of things. If it's not legally fraud, it should be.
I'd be pissed if my $5 went to a Just Stop Oil kid throwing tomato soup on a Van Gogh. I'd call that kind of switcheroo nefarious.