It would be very helpful if we could fit into an "other" category.  Wikisource and Commons are providing library and archive-like services, but are neither libraries nor museums.  They are creating an electronic community, but are not helping a neighbourhood.  It would be nice if we could find a lawyer to see what niche we fit into, as we don't have the money to actually argue our case to the agency that would be reviewing our application.

That said, I think our current statement of purpose on meta looks pretty good (at least compared to the examples from the old law)

-Jeffery Nichols (Arctic.gnome)


On 2010-01-25, at 10:52 AM, P Lahiry wrote:


>
> And I can see the appeal of the museum direction . . .

I'm not too sure how we would qualify as a museum, and legally novel
arguments will usually be a hard sell.  What I like about the Vancouver
Free-Net situation is that they are an internet based organization which
took its case to court ... and won. That makes for a very strong
precedent. Their application was based on "other charitable purposes",
not education.


The reason it was filed under "other charitable purposes" was because Free-Net was accepted on the grounds of acting as an electronic community (as well as electronic library). Specifically 2 of the 3 judges accepted that provision of access into the electronic highway was a charitable purpose. I think "advancement of education" would be a much better fit. I called up the Charities Directorate at the CRA and they agreed (although to be fair I don't how much I would rely on that).

Jit
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-ca mailing list
Wikimedia-ca@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca