Footnote: after some naval-gazing, I have to conclude that all of these assumptions are based to some extent on the axiomatic belief that market-based approaches are the best way of managing a cultural communications medium.
And hey, maybe somebody will figure out that whole micropayment thing too. But at least now there are increasingly concrete demonstrations that they were never the only solution, which is fortunate since they don't seem to work.
I'm actually more optimistic now that we can escape from ads as the only choice than I've ever been before. I'm hoping that this is the last year or two that cstross could make this post and have it still seem a reasonable concern.
Charities and non-profit foundations can hardly be considered outside of the market model. Wikipedia is, in fact, an anecdote you'd point to if your goal was to debate that market forces result in collective good.
How that relates to market models producing collective good depends on which one you subscribe to. Many proponents (dating back to Adam Smith) argue that it's the profit motive in particular that makes the market model produce good outcomes. There's also a lot of skepticism of even voluntary collective production in much of the libertarian literature; e.g. the Israeli kibbutzim or the 19th-century "utopian socialist" communes aren't viewed favorably. Wikipedia has a sort of voluntary-collectivism feeling to it as well, from that perspective, though it's more limited in that you don't have to actually move to Wikipedia and live there; you can just contribute some content now and then.
I hesitate to bring up the BBC licence fee because it is still a very consumptive model but as an expat Brit in the USA I often wish I could still pay it for the privilege of accessing the BBC content.