Hum yes. We wanted Wikimedia Medicine, than where not able to get permission to us Wikimedia so changed it to Wiki Medicine, NY state did not like Medicine (and if we wanted to use it we needed permission from some medical board) so abbreviated that as well giving us Wiki Med. NY state added the Foundation Inc. bit.
The hope is to one day operate under the name Wikimedia Medicine. Hopefully with a bit of paper work this can be achieved.
I'm confident to see soon a Wikimedia Medicine as the model for some other thematic organizations, and I am curious how it will evolve. Maybe I will never understand what is a "foundation" in the US. In the Netherlands or Germany, we distinguish between an association (with members) and a foundation (without members, only the board members). In the US, it seems, both can be a "foundation" and decide wether to allow members or not. Kind regards Ziko
PS: I did not invent the abbreviation "thorg", and I only learned later that "thorg" exists in the Marvel and WoW universes. :-)
2012/12/29 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Hum yes. We wanted Wikimedia Medicine, than where not able to get permission to us Wikimedia so changed it to Wiki Medicine, NY state did not like Medicine (and if we wanted to use it we needed permission from some medical board) so abbreviated that as well giving us Wiki Med. NY state added the Foundation Inc. bit.
The hope is to one day operate under the name Wikimedia Medicine. Hopefully with a bit of paper work this can be achieved.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Ziko van Dijk, 29/12/2012 17:36:
I'm confident to see soon a Wikimedia Medicine as the model for some other thematic organizations, and I am curious how it will evolve. Maybe I will never understand what is a "foundation" in the US. In the Netherlands or Germany, we distinguish between an association (with members) and a foundation (without members, only the board members). In the US, it seems, both can be a "foundation" and decide wether to allow members or not.
Members are not really the point, those are things which can vary a lot across countries and different kinds of foundations in the same country. In extremely general terms, I think it can be safely said that a foundation exists for the sole purpose of preserving its assets for a scope, while an association is a group of persons with some common scope. [Of course I know nothing on the topic and terms/forms can be stretched so much... but no less than Machiavelli (1511) supports this according to my etymological dictionary, and he's even more esteemed in USA than Italy/continental Europe. ;-)] See e.g. the WMF whose sole scope is preserving and increasing the value of the trademarks and whose board is self-appointed and self-perpetuating.
Nemo
Med is a very common abbreviation for Medicine. And what we at Wiki Med
are working on is different than the Wikimedia Foundation. I doubt any more confusion than usual will occur.
Am looking into what it would take to change it back to Wiki Medicine.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org