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

[Thomas Dalton]

>> 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'm afraid I disagree with you here.
> Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in taxation and precise.
> Charity vs not being charity may 1) no legal distinction in some cases
> and 2) Wikimedia Foundation could be no charity in some definition of
> non-US jurisdiction (and at worse it may be taken as deceitful).
>
> I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc.
> with "non-profit".

I would say "being charitable" and "being a charity" mean the same
thing (in reference to an organisation). Under the UK definitions (I
expect other jurisdictions are similar), a charity is a non-profit
whose objects and activities fit the definition of charitable objects
and activities (that definition may vary from place to place). Since
the WMF is described as a charitable organisation on the official
webpage, I assume it is correct to call it such, so "charity" is a
more precise term than "non-profit". I don't think there is a
jurisdictional problem - as long as it is a charity in its own
jurisdiction, it should be fine to call it a charity on its own
webpages.

The issue of varying cultural perceptions of the term "charity" (or
literal translations) is a more serious one - we should give
translators sufficient leeway to deal with such localisation issues.