Jim Schuler wisely stated:
Might depend on tax law. If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years since I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private foundations can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active discrimination.
But then also stated:
In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy of discrimination...
There actually *is* a fairly active policy of discrimination that's been carried out for the past few months.
Employees of public relations firms are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.
http://blog.bitepr.com/2006/08/jimmy_wales_on_.html
The IRS and the appropriate Attorneys General will certainly get involved when an organization operating with tax-deductible funding begins to administer itself in ways that run contrary to its stated public mission. The State of Florida's Division of Consumer Services was sufficiently concerned about Wikipedia's discrimination against
commercial interests (in light of the GFDL explicitly stating the license must not limit commercial use of the work), that it contacted Brad Patrick in late November.
The earlier comment by Earle Martin that "Wikipedia is a privately-operated members' club" is a sad statement of empirical evidence that the Wikipedia leadership has clearly lost sight of its being a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity that goes well beyond a private club.
(Still on a Wiki-break, but this list is just too fascinating.)
Gregory Kohs wrote:
Jim Schuler wisely stated:
Might depend on tax law. If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years since I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private foundations can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active discrimination.
But then also stated:
In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy of discrimination...
There actually *is* a fairly active policy of discrimination that's been carried out for the past few months.
Employees of public relations firms are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.
Wrong. Spam and POV hagiographies are banned, *regardless* of who posts them.
On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Kohs wrote:
Jim Schuler wisely stated:
Might depend on tax law. If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years
since
I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private
foundations
can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active discrimination.
But then also stated:
In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy of discrimination...
There actually *is* a fairly active policy of discrimination that's been carried out for the past few months.
Employees of public relations firms are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.
Wrong. Spam and POV hagiographies are banned, *regardless* of who posts them.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Missed the point, I see.
Jim
Employees of public relations firms are not a protected class under US anti-discrimination law.
Further, such employees, acting as individuals and not agents of their firms, are not restricted from editing Wikipedia.
What's been banned is a certain class of commercial speech; no publisher, even an "open content" one, is mandated to accept all speech from anyone, and in particular the protections of commercial speech producers are far more easily legally restricted.
This is a pretty weak legal claim, Greg. Please stop wasting people's time.
-george
On 12/5/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wisely stated:
Might depend on tax law. If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years
since
I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private
foundations
can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active discrimination.
But then also stated:
In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy of discrimination...
There actually *is* a fairly active policy of discrimination that's been carried out for the past few months.
Employees of public relations firms are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.
http://blog.bitepr.com/2006/08/jimmy_wales_on_.html
The IRS and the appropriate Attorneys General will certainly get involved when an organization operating with tax-deductible funding begins to administer itself in ways that run contrary to its stated public mission. The State of Florida's Division of Consumer Services was sufficiently concerned about Wikipedia's discrimination against
commercial interests (in light of the GFDL explicitly stating the license must not limit commercial use of the work), that it contacted Brad Patrick in late November.
The earlier comment by Earle Martin that "Wikipedia is a privately-operated members' club" is a sad statement of empirical evidence that the Wikipedia leadership has clearly lost sight of its being a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity that goes well beyond a private club.
(Still on a Wiki-break, but this list is just too fascinating.)
-- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:50:25 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
What's been banned is a certain class of commercial speech; no publisher, even an "open content" one, is mandated to accept all speech from anyone, and in particular the protections of commercial speech producers are far more easily legally restricted.
Further, the reason it's been banned is precisely because such speech is generally *not* in line with the foundation's stated mission, which is to provide a verifiably neutral free-content encyclopaedia. Arguably we would be more at risk from that interpretation of the tax law if we *allowed* such contributions.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:50:25 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
What's been banned is a certain class of commercial speech; no publisher, even an "open content" one, is mandated to accept all speech from anyone, and in particular the protections of commercial speech producers are far more easily legally restricted.
Further, the reason it's been banned is precisely because such speech is generally *not* in line with the foundation's stated mission, which is to provide a verifiably neutral free-content encyclopaedia. Arguably we would be more at risk from that interpretation of the tax law if we *allowed* such contributions.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not under US tax law.
Greg Kohs sent me a private reply in which he indicated that his public replies were not getting through. If a listadmin blocked him from posting to the list, can someone tell him so affirmatively?
Thanks.
-george
On 12/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Employees of public relations firms are not a protected class under US anti-discrimination law.
Further, such employees, acting as individuals and not agents of their firms, are not restricted from editing Wikipedia.
What's been banned is a certain class of commercial speech; no publisher, even an "open content" one, is mandated to accept all speech from anyone, and in particular the protections of commercial speech producers are far more easily legally restricted.
This is a pretty weak legal claim, Greg. Please stop wasting people's time.
-george
On 12/5/06, Gregory Kohs < thekohser@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Schuler wisely stated:
Might depend on tax law. If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years
since
I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private
foundations
can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active discrimination.
But then also stated:
In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy of discrimination...
There actually *is* a fairly active policy of discrimination that's been carried out for the past few months.
Employees of public relations firms are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.
http://blog.bitepr.com/2006/08/jimmy_wales_on_.html
The IRS and the appropriate Attorneys General will certainly get involved when an organization operating with tax-deductible funding begins to administer itself in ways that run contrary to its stated public mission. The State of Florida's Division of Consumer Services was sufficiently concerned about Wikipedia's discrimination
against
commercial interests (in light of the GFDL explicitly stating the license must not limit commercial use of the work), that it contacted Brad Patrick in late November.
The earlier comment by Earle Martin that "Wikipedia is a
privately-operated
members' club" is a sad statement of empirical evidence that the Wikipedia
leadership
has clearly lost sight of its being a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity that goes
well
beyond a private club.
(Still on a Wiki-break, but this list is just too fascinating.)
-- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On 05/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Greg Kohs sent me a private reply in which he indicated that his public replies were not getting through. If a listadmin blocked him from posting to the list, can someone tell him so affirmatively?
Appears to be on mod. I've let through the messages and cleared the moderation.
- d.
On 12/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Appears to be on mod. I've let through the messages and cleared the moderation.
How long do we have to tolerate the ravings of a banned user on this list?
It's clear that the community does not support his argument, .. and as far as I can tell all that allowing him to remain on the list is doing is allowing him to waste everyone's time including his own.
It's also the case that he's violated No Legal Threats several times now... or do we not care about people who are making legal threats against the foundation anymore?
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:16:53 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Greg Kohs sent me a private reply in which he indicated that his public replies were not getting through. If a listadmin blocked him from posting to the list, can someone tell him so affirmatively?
Perhaps it's best they aren't, he accused me of bigotry.
Guy (JzG)