From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation"
versus the use of the word "charity":
Some charities, however, have the word "Foundation" in their official names. Examples of these are the Yele Haiti Foundation, the New York Foundation for the Arts, the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation. Despite their names, all of them are charities; they rely on donations from others to sustain themselves and the programs and services they offer. On second reference, any one of them should be referred to as a "charity," not a "foundation."
Source: http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/phrases-gone-astray-2/
It appears that nobody appears to actually follow this rule (including the "New York Times"), but I find the nuance interesting. I imagine one would perform better than the other during fundraising; perhaps there's hard data on that.
MZMcBride
On 26 April 2011 20:22, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
It appears that nobody appears to actually follow this rule (including the "New York Times"), but I find the nuance interesting. I imagine one would perform better than the other during fundraising; perhaps there's hard data on that.
This varies between local dialects of English. The word "charity" is much more freely applied to anything tax-deductible in the UK than it is in Australia or (as far as I can tell) the US, for example. I wouldn't sweat it hugely.
- d.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation" versus the use of the word "charity":
Is the WMF only a charitable organization?
I think WMF is much more than that.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foundation http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charity
It's not exactly the same to me.
-- Fajro
Also, I dislike the concept of charity and agree with the views of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
MZMcBride, 26/04/2011 21:22:
From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation" versus the use of the word "charity":
Something to consider is that the WMF has a global audience. In Italian, for instance, a translation for "charity" doesn't even exist: all foundations are non-profit, have tax exemption etc.; there's no distinction in Italy between "public" and "charitable" foundation. By the way, English Wikipedia articles on the topic are very confusing.
Nemo
MZMcBride, 26/04/2011 21:22:
From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation" versus the use of the word "charity":
Something to consider is that the WMF has a global audience. In Italian, for instance, a translation for "charity" doesn't even exist: all foundations are non-profit, have tax exemption etc.; there's no distinction in Italy between "public" and "charitable" foundation. By the way, English Wikipedia articles on the topic are very confusing.
Nemo
Actually, a trust or a corporation funded by a trust may not qualify as non-profit; for a variety of reasons.
Fred
Fred Bauder, 26/04/2011 21:08:
MZMcBride, 26/04/2011 21:22:
From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation" versus the use of the word "charity":
Something to consider is that the WMF has a global audience. In Italian, for instance, a translation for "charity" doesn't even exist: all foundations are non-profit, have tax exemption etc.; there's no distinction in Italy between "public" and "charitable" foundation. By the way, English Wikipedia articles on the topic are very confusing.
Actually, a trust or a corporation funded by a trust may not qualify as non-profit; for a variety of reasons.
Where?
Nemo
From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation"
versus the use of the word "charity":
Some charities, however, have the word "Foundation" in their official names. Examples of these are the Yele Haiti Foundation, the New York Foundation for the Arts, the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation. Despite their names, all of them are charities; they rely on donations from others to sustain themselves and the programs and services they offer. On second reference, any one of them should be referred to as a "charity," not a "foundation."
Source: http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/phrases-gone-astray-2/
It appears that nobody appears to actually follow this rule (including the "New York Times"), but I find the nuance interesting. I imagine one would perform better than the other during fundraising; perhaps there's hard data on that.
MZMcBride
There isn't any "rule" more a suggested guideline with respect to "On second reference".
Foundation is not a legal term; a charitable exemption could be granted to either a trust or a corporation. If it is "founded" a corporation might be funded by a trust established by the founder.
However; there a sense in which Jimmy Wales founded and funded the Wikimedia Foundation, but not with vast funds.
Fred
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Foundation is not a legal term
"Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted with "public charity".
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000509----000-.... http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=137894,00.html
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Foundation is not a legal term
"Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted with "public charity".
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000509----000-.... http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=137894,00.html
Yeh, I think we'd have to look up more than that to actually clarify all this. Bottom line: the terms are ambiguous except so far as they are legally defined in one context or another. Although the NYT's journalist did have a point. The Ford or Rockefeller Foundations were funded; Wikimedia Foundation is not.
Fred
On 04/26/11 7:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Foundation is not a legal term
"Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted with "public charity".
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000509----000-.... http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=137894,00.html
Yeh, I think we'd have to look up more than that to actually clarify all this. Bottom line: the terms are ambiguous except so far as they are legally defined in one context or another. Although the NYT's journalist did have a point. The Ford or Rockefeller Foundations were funded; Wikimedia Foundation is not.
I mostly agree with the NYT article except at the end where it defines a charity on the basis of where it gets its money. Being a charity really depends on what it does with its money. It depends on the common law concept of charitable purposes and the 1601 Statue of Elizabeth.
Sure enough Wikmedia employs a misnomer when it calls itself a Foundation. Whether an entity is "public" or "private" has more to do with its funding sources.
Ray
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org