In a message dated 3/5/2007 9:44:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, nobs03@gmail.com writes:
There are various techniques in the Internal Revenue Manual that could be employed; for example, reviewing the edit contributions of an employee of a non-profit organization, a reasonable estimate of manhours allocated by that non-profit organization over a given period of time would meet standards of proof to establish income from paid editing, as well as the activities of the employer, not to mention possible conflicts of interest, or violations of Wikipedia's internal policies.
<Many nonprofits begin for a reason, and experts in the field such as Jerold Panas, (_Making the Case_), talk about how it should be the cause and not profit or money that has importance for nonprofits. How would you include founders who don't even get paid in this witch hunt? What about for-profit corporations, which I would think is worse since it's just publicity and not a cause they're more likely after?
Wikipedia itself has backing from a public-benefit charity really, the Wikimedia Foundation. However, others in the nonprofit industry have talked about how it's money venture - to show self efficiency or something.
Vincent Bartning> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.