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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/02/07, David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.