I meant, a foundation with a different agenda. The point of the WP Foundation is that it is totally independent.
It is however true that any organization accepting tax-free status is accepting a subsidy fro the government. But this is true of all educational and charitable activity in the US--even the Scientologists have tax-free status. The one relevant burden this status imposes on an organization is that it cannot engage in political activity--as a result some advocacy groups do not ask for it. I do not consider this a burden on WP--if anything, not being able to do politics is a plus, preventing the Foundation from going along some unacceptable paths.
In some other countries where this status is accorded much more narrowly, or as a special provision for a particular organization, then it would compromise the foundation. If in a given country it meant actual government control, or a real danger of this, then it would be unacceptable.
DGG
On 2/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/02/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I simply do not know whether I would accept a WP operated by an educational foundation of some sort--or conceivably even a government educational agency.
The Wikimedia Foundation is an educational charity, isn't it? Wikimedia UK certainly aims to be. (one day.)
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l