Just to briefly correct a couple of items in this post:
> 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
When we drafted our objectives, compliance with charity law was one our top priorities,
along with complying with the Foundation's requirements and allowing us to do those
things to support free content that we were founded to achieve. The explanatory notes here
- written at the time the objects were agreed - are interesting to read in light of
developments:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_Association#Object
This clause has been written with one principal "Object", summarising our work,
and a number of subsidiary "means", giving examples of how we intend to fulfill
this Object. This format was chosen so that we could most easily demonstrate that our
activities are "exclusively charitable" whilst describing what we will do and
allowing flexibility in the range of our future activities. We considered the Charity
Commission's example Objects when drawing up these. The principal Object combines the
m:Mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, as per by the m:Requirements for future chapters
with the phrases used to describe our charitable purposes in the Charities Act 2006, viz.
"the advancement of education", "the advancement of culture" and
"the advancement of heritage".
We continue to believe our objects are charitable and are seeking advice on how to reverse
this decision. This is only the first step in the process!
Regards,
Andrew Turvey
Secretary, Wikimedia UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge(a)telus.net>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, 30 April, 2009 07:24:13 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "Taxman denies Wikipedia UK charity status"
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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l