I should also note that it’s not just about proving public benefit – it’d be very useful to prove that Wikipedia not only has a public benefit, but does not have a “private benefit”, and does not harm the public. To do this, we need good examples of:

· How quickly we remove advertising from articles, how we spot it, etc etc (to cover private benefits)

· How quickly we remove libel from articles, and what processes we have in place to ensure that people aren’t harmed by Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Roger Bamkin
Sent: 19 September 2011 15:54
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

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.)

On 18 September 2011 21:56, Fae <faenwp@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, I agree it is confusing; however as WM-UK contributes a
significant sum of money from the UK fundraiser (more than half) to
WMF and organizes events that promote the use and improvement of
Wikimedia projects, that these outcomes have public benefit in the
context of our UK charity's mission is as important to demonstrate as
our direct activities.

Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

--

Roger