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

[Ray Saintonge]

Gwern Branwen wrote:
> 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!
>   

Insult to whom?  Tax collectors are always fair game, and I would 
suggest that "wiki-fiddling" is an ironic twist of the tax man's views.

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

Tax breaks derive from charitable activity.  That's exactly how I read 
him.  Where's the redefinition?

> '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.
>   

"Blah blah" = "More legalese follows".

Maybe the drafters had specific reasons in mind when they employed these 
words, but they obviously failed to take into account what it would take 
to satisfy Inland Revenue when they used them.  "Charitable tax perks" 
is certainly a term of colloquial art that could be used to generally 
describe the benefits received by any registered charity.
> '"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.'
>   

Some Americans can be just as unacquainted with British ironic writing 
as with British charity laws.  The result is certainly harsh, but that's 
what you get when you apply rules strictly, and legal precedent tends to 
favour a more traditional interpretation of "educational"
> "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.
>   

Innovation in education does smack of "sneering liberalism", and such 
talk is bound to add one more painful knot in conservative jockstraps.
> "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.
>
>   
Could it be that traditional "edukashun" is the problem.  That word 
alone strengthens my view that government is the real object of the 
criticism.  You're just shooting the messenger.

Ec