Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Call for help:...

Info: Edinburgh wikimeet on...

Fae

18 Sep 2011 18 Sep '11

3:50 p.m.

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/2…; “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 ----

Show replies by date

Lodewijk

18 Sep 18 Sep

10:21 p.m.

New subject: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

What I find a bit confusing is whether you are looking for Wikipedia's Public Benefit proof, for Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia UK. I can imagine that whether Wikipedia is publicly beneficial is not really into question - whether WMUK is, is a whole different game and discussion. In that case, I would rather focus on events organized by WMUK which support free knowledge, perhaps a joint press release with Charity institutions in the past (any press release together with the British Museum by any chance?) Just thinking along here :) Lodewijk Am 18. September 2011 15:50 schrieb Fae <faenwp(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

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/2… ; “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(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Fae

10:56 p.m.

New subject: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Roger Bamkin

19 Sep 19 Sep

4:54 p.m.

New subject: 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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

-- Roger

Richard Symonds

5:01 p.m.

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Roger Bamkin Sent: 19 September 2011 15:54 To: wikimediauk-l(a)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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Roger

David Gerard

5:07 p.m.

New subject: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

On 19 September 2011 16:01, Richard Symonds <chasemewiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

· 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.

Does our rabidity about copyright violations help here? (Pity CorenSearchBot isn't currently running.) - d.

Richard Symonds

5:09 p.m.

Yes, but also our process with OTRS, admins, oversight, and the edit filter system. -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: 19 September 2011 16:08 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit On 19 September 2011 16:01, Richard Symonds <chasemewiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Does our rabidity about copyright violations help here? (Pity CorenSearchBot isn't currently running.) - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Katie Chan

5:36 p.m.

New subject: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

On 19/09/2011 15:54, Roger Bamkin wrote:

...

For anyone wanting to read more into what the Charity Commission has to say on the subject: <http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Charity_essentials/Public_benefit/pbeduc.aspx> KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

Thomas Dalton

5:58 p.m.

New subject: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

On 19 September 2011 15:54, Roger Bamkin <victuallers(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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).

Andrew West

6:06 p.m.

New subject: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

On 19 September 2011 16:58, Thomas Dalton

...

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).

Um, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet> and implemented in Unicode in 2003: <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/ch13.pdf#G17013> Andrew

Thomas Dalton

9:39 p.m.

New subject: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

On 19 September 2011 17:06, Andrew West <andrewcwest(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 19 September 2011 16:58, Thomas Dalton

Um, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet> and implemented in Unicode in 2003: <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/ch13.pdf#G17013>

Being implemented in Unicode isn't really what I had in mind...

Katie Chan

6:16 p.m.

New subject: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

On 19/09/2011 16:58, Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

I think it is fair to say that increasing knowledge isn't necessarily in the public benefit.

I would seriously disagree with that but the point is moot. The Charities Act 2006 is what it is. KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

Fae

7:45 p.m.

New subject: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Hi, Though I'm happy to see the issues discussed (you can imagine that many of these issues have been discussed in the preparation of our application), please remember to fish out those examples of public benefit to add to the wiki page: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charity_status_application/help_wanted PS no responses there yet. Cheers, Fae -- http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

Patel, Vinesh

11:50 a.m.

Hi all, Wikipedians at IC are looking forward to their Fresher's Fair on October 4th and are wondering when and how we can get T-shirts, badges etc. for the students. I have been rather busy and am flying out this Saturday, but my colleagues will be around for the arrangements. Vinesh -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fae Sent: 18 September 2011 14:51 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit 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/2…; "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(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Patel, Vinesh

11:54 a.m.

New subject: Fresher's fair arrangements

I realise that was the wrong thread entirely so have made a new one. On 19 Sep 2011, at 10:51, "Patel, Vinesh" <vinesh.patel06(a)imperial.ac.uk> wrote:

...

4601

days inactive

4602

days old

wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

14 comments

9 participants

tags (0)

participants (9)

Andrew West
David Gerard
Fae
Katie Chan
Lodewijk
Patel, Vinesh
Richard Symonds
Roger Bamkin
Thomas Dalton