On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/11/27 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
> "Wikipedia is a charity" ?
People always say "non-profit" when
describing WMF, is it a charity?
The two terms are different. (In the UK, the WMF would probably be
considered charitable, I don't know what the requirements are in the
US.)
The bottom of every page on en:wp says it's a charity!
(I put that text there, after precise phrasing was worked out on the
comcom list. If it's wrong we should change it ...)
And, in fact,
wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable
organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit"
instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would
probably be better perceived.
I agree that the WMF fits the legal definition of a charity, but when
one says "charity" the first thing that comes to my mind are
organizations that take donations (often including food or clothes)
for the primary purpose of redistributing most of them to the needy.
You know, the Red Cross, United Way, Goodwill, food banks, etc.
Obviously the WMF's mission and the use of their income is somewhat
different from that, even though promoting the dissemination of
knowledge is ultimately a charitable purpose.
So at least in my mind calling the WMF a charity feels less precise
and more confusing. Just my two cents. Your reaction may vary.
-Robert Rohde