I would like to open up the issue of the WMF getting
involved in political
matters, such as copyrights and patents.
This has the potential to disqualify the Wikimedia Foundation from
501(c)3 status which would mean, not only, that we need to pay tax,
but also that we would then be severely restricted in the choice of
grant applications open to us.
According to
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
: "no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a
substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence
legislation (commonly known as lobbying)."
If the Foundation were to have any such involvement, we would need to
be very careful that our activities were aimed at educating people
about these issues as opposed to encouraging people to lobby about
them.
2) Advocacy is, by definition, never NPOV, so it
cannot happen within the
context of our content-based projects.
Political activism will reflect on the projects even if it does occur
outside of the context of them. For many people, there will appear no
difference between the Wikimedia Foundation campaigning for something
and "Wikipedia" doing so.
The WMF should stay out of general political issues, I
think - we should
seek out those which have a demonstrable impact on our work, and which are
agreeable to the largest number of people. Here are a few examples:
How is "agreeable to the largest number of people" to be defined? A
simple majority? Doing something like this which would deter even a
minority from wanting to be involved with Wikimedia projects is not
something we ought to be risking.
* Software patents. Various open source leaders have
just endorsed the
www.nosoftwarepatents.com initiative, and I can easily see the WMF being
one of the supporting organizations. Why does the issue matter so much?
Because a project like MediaWiki, the software which we use, can be made
effectively illegal through them.
Considering many of the developers of MediaWiki do not regard it a
Wikimedia project, the relation between the Foundation and software
patents is not as close as it might seem.
* Copyright terms. Pretty much everyone who's not
a corporation or works
for one agrees that our current copyright terms are ridiculous.
I personally feel this is an exaggeration. The GFDL is based around
the protection of copyright; it is not about removal of it.
* The Digital Divide. There are quite a few things we
can do which
directly relate to our wiki projects in order to bridge the Digital
Divide. One idea I like is refurbishing used PCs with Linux and putting a
Wikimedia Content Reader application on them. We could try to create a
decentralized, voluntary distribution network for such refurbished
machines. We can also run fundraising campaigns specifically to distribute
print editions, or to buy and distribute specialized small, cheap devices
which are likely to become mainstream in the near future. For developing
countries, solar or curb power would be good.
I'd completely support this last point. I don't view this as a
political activity in the same way as the other examples you cite.
Encouraging the distribution of Wikireaders is absolutely part of the
Foundation's mission, and should have no negative effect on our
charitable status.
Angela
(my personal views, not necessarily those of the Foundation)