On 19 September 2011 15:54, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Lodewijk wrote " I can imagine that whether Wikipedia is publicly beneficial is not really into question" ... actually ... it is.
This is not about reality but law. In this case we need to prove that Wikipedia is of public benefit. As Fae notes, WMUK raises funds which it uses in part to fund Wikipedia. If we can prove that Wikipedia is useful then WMUK can prove its value (in UK charity law). (Most people would think that increasing knowledge is of public benefit, but not according to UK charity law.)
I think it is fair to say that increasing knowledge isn't necessarily in the public benefit. We don't increase knowledge, though, we make existing knowledge available to the public. I think that *is* innherently beneficial to the public. That's why "In Re Shaw" isn't applicable to our application in the slightest. That case is about research into a new alphabet and I think most people would agree that the proposed research isn't likely to benefit the public (since it's a ridiculous proposal that will never actually be implemented in a million years).