You're painting with a broad brush and your characterisation is greatly at odds with many of the functional non-profit organisations I know here in Australia:
* the St Vincent de Paul Society
* the National Heart Foundation
* Cancer Council of Australia
* Opera Australia
* Unicef
* National Disability Services
I could go on. My point is, non-profit organisations encompass a huge spectrum of activity. Many operate like any other company and pay wages for the majority of employees. I would argue that 'the mission' actually makes a non-profit more likely to succeed, as everybody knows what they're working towards and what team they're on.
The Australian "National Heart Foundation" for instance has killed a lot of people, fucked up shit.
But people love them cause they are functional. Lot's of PR.
The op topic (On topic to the parent link) was they are very broken internally. So much so they fail the the cause of good.
They do, and they don't, on topic is how good they are, is 500 million the red cross spent on 6 houses true, and right. What's the real story. Are NPO that bad really?
* the St Vincent de Paul Society
* the National Heart Foundation
* Cancer Council of Australia
* Opera Australia
* Unicef
* National Disability Services
I could go on. My point is, non-profit organisations encompass a huge spectrum of activity. Many operate like any other company and pay wages for the majority of employees. I would argue that 'the mission' actually makes a non-profit more likely to succeed, as everybody knows what they're working towards and what team they're on.
Wikipedia is a different beast entirely.