[Foundation-l] Site Notices Phase 2 - Annual Fundraiser 2008

[Phil Nash]

Robert Rohde wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2008/11/27 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>>>> 2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Wikipedia is a charity" ?
>>>>
>>>>> People always say "non-profit" when describing WMF, is it a
>>>>> charity? The two terms are different. (In the UK, the WMF would
>>>>> probably be considered charitable, I don't know what the
>>>>> requirements are in the US.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The bottom of every page on en:wp says it's a charity!
>>>>
>>>> (I put that text there, after precise phrasing was worked out on
>>>> the comcom list. If it's wrong we should change it ...)
>>>
>>> And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable
>>> organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit"
>>> instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would
>>> probably be better perceived.
>>
>> I agree that the WMF fits the legal definition of a charity, but when
>> one says "charity" the first thing that comes to my mind are
>> organizations that take donations (often including food or clothes)
>> for the primary purpose of redistributing most of them to the needy.
>> You know, the Red Cross, United Way, Goodwill, food banks, etc.
>> Obviously the WMF's mission and the use of their income is somewhat
>> different from that, even though promoting the dissemination of
>> knowledge is ultimately a charitable purpose.
>>
>> So at least in my mind calling the WMF a charity feels less precise
>> and more confusing.  Just my two cents.  Your reaction may vary.
>>
>> -Robert Rohde

Certainly in UK law establishments with educational objectives may qualify 
as having charitable purposes. They may even generate what would normally be 
termed "profits", but the law requires them to plough back those funds into 
their fundamental purpose, failing which they would lose all the tax 
advantages. I don't see Wikipedia being that much different, but then I'm 
not an expert on US tax law.

The problem may be that "charity" also has a connotation in some places of 
being somewhat second-class and therefore almost pejorative.