Lodewijk

Am 18. September 2011 15:50 schrieb Fae <faenwp@gmail.com>:

Hi,

** Do you know of examples of WM-UK's charitable public benefit? **

Please go to the collaboration page at
<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charity_status_application/help_wanted>
to raise further good examples for our charity application team to
incorporate in our final proposal to the Charity Commission.

Text from the call for help on :wmuk copied below for information.

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

---- Text from uk.wikimedia.org [18 September 2011] ----

Call for help!

For the application to become a Registered Charity, we think we still
need more evidence as follows. Ideally please send a link plus a quote
or brief summary/abstract of the material (example at bottom), the
sooner the better, but by Wednesday September 21st at latest.

PUBLIC BENEFIT evidence of public benefit in some areas. The best sort
of evidence are: academic studies, reports in top-quality press,
quotes from top figures in their fields. The emphasis is on evidence
of specific and actual public benefit that does not amount just to
"the increase of knowledge". More evidence that lots of people use
Wikimedia is not needed; we need specific beneficial results of that
usage, other than increasing knowledge .

I think we have higher education covered, but primary secondary
education, public health, and other areas could use more. Also
academic studies from 2010/11 - I think we have the earlier ones
covered.

WMF: the record of the Wikimedia Foundation intervening in or
controlling policy and content areas.

WE ALREADY HAVE covered the following sources, among others: 2005
Nature WP/Encyc Brit study; PC Pro stories; Hansard quotes, WMF
fundraiser testimonials, the big stories from the NYT, Economist, New
Yorker, Guardian; Casper Grathwohl of Oxford University Press, How
today’s college students use Wikipedia for course–related research”,
by Alison J. Head and Michael B. Eisenberg. First Monday, Volume 15,
Number 3 - 1 March 2010., Are chemicals killing us? By S. Robert
Lichter, Ph.D, May 21, 2009 - Society of Toxicologists; “Early
response to false claims in Wikipedia”, by P.D. Magnus, First Monday,
Volume 13 Number 9 - 1 September 2008,
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2115/2027;
“How quickly are errors corrected?” by Stuart Andrews, PC Pro, 12 Jul
2007 http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/119641/how-quickly-are-errors-corrected
; The paradox of expertise: is the Wikipedia Reference Desk as good as
your library?

IDEALLY post in this sort of format: "Through user-generated efforts,
Wikipedia is comprehensive, current, and far and away the most
trustworthy Web resource of its kind. It is not the bottom layer of
authority, nor the top, but in fact the highest layer without formal
vetting. In this unique role, it therefore serves as an ideal bridge
between the validated and unvalidated Web." Casper Grathwohl, vice
president of Oxford University Press
http://chronicle.com/article/Wikipedia-Comes-of-Age/125899/

---- End ----

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