You might do well to clarify that you use MuscleWiki content with permission.
The way you phrase things on the site, I was left with the impression that you were in fact stealing the content while at the same time asking for donations, which is morally questionable at best.
I had to dig around in their copyright section before I found this:
> Some content may be used free of charge without prior consent. The .gif files, text, videos which can be found on youtube.com and muscle information can be used with the MuscleWiki branding and with links back to musclewiki.com.
A lot of the CSS properties documented on MDN (reference of all properties available [1]) come with interactive examples, for instance background-color and flex to pick two random samples. There are great introductions to CSS concepts in general on MDN as well (flexbox, grid).
Contributions to MDN are welcome. All you need is an account, and their reference reads more like documentation and less like an ad :)
> Keith Bergelt, OIN's CEO, commented on Microsoft's announcement in an interview: "This is everything Microsoft has, and it covers everything related to older open-source technologies such as Android, the Linux kernel, and OpenStack; newer technologies such as LF Energy and HyperLedger, and their predecessor and successor versions."
> We did the testing on the basis of the rules that came in December. After that, some changes were made to the rules. Those changes we have absorbed now, so there is no time to do beta testing for that. Other than that, we have done all other tests. So, we are fairly confident of the system.
Not saying the project and testing has been managed perfectly, but there has been time for testing unlike the title suggests.
Any large project will have bugs, especially with late changes and additions such as the ones described in the article. At least they plan to make relatively swift releases of new versions.
A pay-per-article would be a better fit for me as well.
Blendle [1] has had success with such an approach in the Netherlands where they have brought on board quality publications, letting users pay per article. They also let users ask for refunds if an article is not what it seemed, which punishes clickbait articles.
The way you phrase things on the site, I was left with the impression that you were in fact stealing the content while at the same time asking for donations, which is morally questionable at best.
I had to dig around in their copyright section before I found this:
> Some content may be used free of charge without prior consent. The .gif files, text, videos which can be found on youtube.com and muscle information can be used with the MuscleWiki branding and with links back to musclewiki.com.