It's very simple to demonstrate the project was run fairly; the requirements are:
1. No funds are spent for a purpose other than those stated
2. When Wikimedia accepts Bitcoin donations, the funds are donated to them.
I agree it's easy to judge if it succeeds. But what if they never want our coins? Or if wikimedia only accept a one-off donation? Was it not enough funds? Unasailable technical hurdles? Bad will from wikimedia? Laziness on your part? etc... I just want to close off some of those doors.
Just to be clear - I don't doubt your dedication or integrity for a moment. However this is the internet and so extreme caution is always best.
Will it help if we rephrase it as two separate goals?
1. Get enough funds to credibly approach Wikimedia (tentative target: 200 BTC)
2. Get enough funds to convince Wikimedia (target: Unknown)
You may not yet have enough information to optimally contribute to the 2nd goal, but you can contribute to the 1st, also important, goal.
Sure - if you get some acknowledgement from wikimedia that they will agree to serious / technical talks if we can pledge 200BTC that's fine. If it's just a vague "I think this is enough" then I'll remain sceptical.
One final point. Charity donation is more maleable that you are giving it credit for. Of course money talks, but it doesn't have to literally be cash undeneath someone's nose to have value. Being a respected representative of a wealthy community *is* tangible value to charaties - and they know this! Don't be afraid to talk yourself up!