2008/11/27 Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> And, in fact,
wikimediafoundation.org says
"nonprofit charitable
> organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit"
> instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would
> probably be better perceived.
I agree that the WMF fits the legal definition of a
charity, but when
one says "charity" the first thing that comes to my mind are
organizations that take donations (often including food or clothes)
for the primary purpose of redistributing most of them to the needy.
You know, the Red Cross, United Way, Goodwill, food banks, etc.
Obviously the WMF's mission and the use of their income is somewhat
different from that, even though promoting the dissemination of
knowledge is ultimately a charitable purpose.
So at least in my mind calling the WMF a charity feels less precise
and more confusing. Just my two cents. Your reaction may vary.
Same in Australia, really. A wider meaning for the word "charity" is
common in the UK, though.
- d.