[WikiEN-l] "Taxman denies Wikipedia UK charity status"

[Gwern Branwen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Thought I might link the latest Orlowski 'article'.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/

"Wiki-fiddling isn't a charitable activity, according to the UK tax
man. Revenue and Customs is denying tax privileges that go with
charity status to Wikimedia UK, or Wiki UK Limited, as it's officially
registered."

Any article that start with an insult, you know it's going to be good!
(Also, some carelessness - is the capitalization really so hard to get
right?)

Worth noting also is the quiet little redefinition - something isn't
charitable activity unless it can get tax breaks.

'Wikimedia requested that because it is "disseminating knowledge", the
operating company should receive charitable tax perks, stating its
objective is to "aid and encourage people to collect, develop and
effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and
historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows
everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content... [blah blah]"'

Scare quotes, belittling phrases ('charitable tax perks'? seriously);
the second quote is neutral, but one could be forgiven for not even
noticing that due to the insert of 'blah blah'. A more charitable
person would understand that all those terms are very specific and
there for a reason. Of course, a more charitable person would be
writhing in utter shame that they are Orlowski.

"Alas, the tax man didn't agree that merely curating and publishing
the world's most intensely-edited [citation needed] compendium of
Lightsaber combat and female pornographic film actors doesn't count as
education."

Not particularly stylish a variant of this hoary old criticism; and
not even correct. We amputated our lightsaber coverage with a chainsaw
and shot the bloody stumps over to Wookieepedia a long time ago.
(Although I'll admit to not knowing how meritorious our porn coverage
is.)

'"The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement
of education and has not been accepted as such in law... If the object
[should] be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a
charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education,"
Customs responded in declining the request.

Harsh, or what?'

Perhaps. But then, as an American unacquainted with British charity
laws, this sounds to me like 'we've never supported encyclopedias, and
we have no mandate to start now'; which while arguably unfair and
silly isn't particularly harsh. 'Just doing my job, ma'am.'

"The problem could be solved if, as everyone expects, Wikipedia
becomes a commercial operation that doesn't need charitable status.
Bono-backed VC company Elevation Partners has chucked $1.35m at
Wikipedia, and the Mozilla Foundation provides a workable legal
precedent: a non-profit with a commercial wing. License changes are
currently being mooted."

This is actually my favorite paragraph in the entire piece. There's so
much to like about it! There's a subtle touch in saying 'Bono-backed'
- - it's utterly irrelevant, of course, but it immediately brings
associations of Hollywood and sneering liberals and ineffective social
policies and aid expenditures and staleness. There's a foisting of
views; 'everyone expects' Wikipedia to become a commercial operation?
Indeed.

And then there's that last line. Again we have an exquisite word
choice. The license changes could be 'voted upon', or less
informatively, 'discussed' or 'considered'. But instead we have
'mooted', with its connotations of snootyness and academia. Not to
mention that we are clearly led to believe the license changes will
facilitate such conversion, by sheer juxtaposition if nothing else.
(Although I have been educated stupid by my readings of the GFDL and
CC licenses, and so cannot appreciate just how CC-BY-SA will enable
the enrichment of Elevation Partners, that they may continue to light
their cigars with Benjamin in the manner to which they have accustomed
themselves.)

"But for now, the fiddlers could find ways of making the operation
look more edukashnul and that. We suggest Wikia UK establish a British
School of Fiddling, in which the public can be tutored in the
labyrinthine layers of bureaucracy required to have their edits to
"the Encyclopedia anybody can edit" rejected."

And a final salvo. I take off some points here for invoking fiddling
twice; it's not stylish, as it was already used in the lead. Three
times in an article is just tedious. 'edukashnul' gets some points for
having no apparent target - at least, I can't figure out who the
spleen is directed at. The government? The chapter? The Foundation?
Otherwise, good rhetoric in the figure of a School of Fiddling.

A jolly enjoyable read! My day would surely have been less enjoyable
without Orlowski's latest. With enemies like these, who needs friends?

- --
gwern
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.5)

iEYEAREKAAYFAkn3yUAACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oJ1rwCdEcT7WSSv5zJLwSxecACK/fdG
ZlkAoJdXObm8kdkkLhIyjSXgWTdeUiXL
=rnd/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----