On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's perfectly allowed, and we're allowed to take positions on specific bills - it is just that lobbying cannot be a 'substantial part' of the WMF's activities unless it switches its charity type. (Googling around, I was reading http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202 and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicp97.pdf ) -- gwern http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism

On 22 January 2012 19:24, Gregory Varnum <gregory.varnum(a)gmail.com> wrote: Geoff, the WMF General Counsel, was advising everyone involved in the media work surrounding the blackout to be even more careful than that and stay well clear of mentioning any individual politicians to avoid any possibility of trouble. Given the overabundance of caution that was shown during the whole thing, I don't think we need to worry.

On 22 January 2012 18:00, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote: What is highly questionable is if it a remotely worthwhile use of money. If Google's lobbyists can't impact SOPA and the like what makes the foundation think our can? -- geni

Actually, they're pretty similar. Don't forget that Google and Sergey Brin's foundation are major income sources. On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette <philippe(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:

Google (and facebook and twitter etc) are large corporate organizations with profits heavily on their mind (by law, they are responsible to their shareholders). While they clearly have good reasons to be opposed to SOPA and PIPA there reasons are not exactly the same as ours and in my opinion we would be hurting ourselves to rely solely on them for any kind of advocacy work we do ( work that is clearly spelled out in the strategy guide as important for issues like SOPA). A corporate group is going to try and get the best outcome for their shareholders and their company and that outcome is NOT necessarily the best outcome for us (for example exemptions for themselves but not websites like Wikipedia). An example is actually mentioned in the article (The OPEN act). The OPEN act is highly divisive, we don't know if we'll support it or not yet (or just 'not oppose' it) and we can't rely on google and others to align with what we we're thinking. James On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote: Ah. Thanks Sue for the clarification. I indeed missed that on en.wp, maybe communicating that they were employed for consultation during the blackout might help, internally or even externally? This is the first I heard about the extent of their involvement, it would be great if this could be communicated better. Regards Theo

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: I havent seen it mentioned on the mailing lists, and I dont recall reading it in the IRC office hours. I didnt see all of the discussion on enwiki. Does someone have a link to the enwiki discussion about engaging a lobby firm? The first mention I saw was on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&di… -- John Vandenberg