The words "donors" in that wikipedia page have remained unchanged since the original page shell in May 2006. Considering also the NYT article explicitly discusses donor vs. donors, I view the wikipedia characterization more as editorial convenience than evidence.

That said, my common sense tends to agree with you. Is there evidence elsewhere?

The article uses "donors" several times. I think while it's amazing if one person is willing to sponsor, it's even more amazing if there are many out there who believe in a brighter future for them. That actually makes me happier, knowing that it's donors and not a donor.

"When asked how the conversations that led to the Promise unfolded, Brown demurs. “That, and the identity of the donors, are things I just will never talk about,” she says. "