Mailing List Archive

>> 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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.

That is why I prefer to keep calling it "non-profit". During
translation I met some translators who strongly hesitate to use the
equivalent "charity" in their languages since WMF type organization
couldn't be in the scope of those "equivalent". As far as I know
"non-profit" has caused no such problem.

--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
The problem with precise definitions is that they are not necessarily known
and understood in this way by our audience. When you want people to give,
you want to appeal to people and get their money, you have to target and
emphasise the emotional side of the message. When you assume that people are
likely to understand things in a certain way based on formal definitions,
you forget that a large part of our readers do not have English as their
mother tongue and consequently their understanding is a lot less precise.
Even people for whom English is their mother tongue do not necessarily think
in formal definitions and they are also best approached with a more
emotional tinged message.

This requires a marketing approach.
Thanks,
GerardM

2008/11/28 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>

> >> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I do hope that WMF is a charity organization.

The last time I crossed the US-border in behalf of the Foundation I met
a border officer who indeed never heard anything of WikiMedia Foundation
or Wikipedia at all. And I had to explain her lengthy what the
foundation is. One of her question is:"How much money do you earn for on
the board of the Foundation?" And I answered:"Nothing, because we are a
charitative organization." I do hope that I didn't lied to her.
Otherwise I would have to fear to cross that border again.

Ting

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2008/11/27 David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>:
>
>> 2008/11/27 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.


Not in the US it isn't. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in state
corporation law. Not all non-profit organizations receive an exemption from
taxation. Tax exemption (at least under federal law, but most states follow
the federal) is governed by section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

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).


Well, the term "charity" is less specific. The WMF was granted an exemption
from taxation under 501(c)(3) of the IRC, which exempts "Corporations, and
any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively
for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary,
or educational purposes... [cutting out other relevant details]" It is my
understanding that the WMF applied for exemption under the category of
"educational purposes", not "charitable purposes", however, the IRS refers
to 501(c)(3) organizations in general as "charitable organizations". They
also make a distinction between "private foundations" and "public charities"
based on section 509 of the IRC. (See
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=136459,00.html for
more information on these last two sentences.)

That said, outside the United States I understand these terms are used much
differently. I've witnessed a lot of misunderstandings over this seemingly
US-specific (and maybe even IRS-specific?) terminology.

I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc.
> with "non-profit".


I personally don't care one bit, but at least in the US, "non-profit" is not
very specific.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
I am sure this is really interesting. It however does not get us any nearer
to a text that invites people to support us.

"Help us with your money and allow us to spend it frugally to do what you
love us to do."

This is a sentence that means more to me and has more appeal then the
legalistic difference between charity and charitable. When it is clear that
such terms are not understood, we should only use them for their emotional
appeal. The sentence that I propose indicates that we do what people would
like to do if they could. We can.

Thanks,
GerardM

2008/11/28 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>

> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 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.
>
>
> Not in the US it isn't. Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in state
> corporation law. Not all non-profit organizations receive an exemption
> from
> taxation. Tax exemption (at least under federal law, but most states
> follow
> the federal) is governed by section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
>
> 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).
>
>
> Well, the term "charity" is less specific. The WMF was granted an
> exemption
> from taxation under 501(c)(3) of the IRC, which exempts "Corporations, and
> any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated
> exclusively
> for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary,
> or educational purposes... [cutting out other relevant details]" It is my
> understanding that the WMF applied for exemption under the category of
> "educational purposes", not "charitable purposes", however, the IRS refers
> to 501(c)(3) organizations in general as "charitable organizations". They
> also make a distinction between "private foundations" and "public
> charities"
> based on section 509 of the IRC. (See
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=136459,00.html for
> more information on these last two sentences.)
>
> That said, outside the United States I understand these terms are used much
> differently. I've witnessed a lot of misunderstandings over this seemingly
> US-specific (and maybe even IRS-specific?) terminology.
>
> I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc.
> > with "non-profit".
>
>
> I personally don't care one bit, but at least in the US, "non-profit" is
> not
> very specific.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> 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".


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/aa/501(c)(3)_Letter.png

"We determined that you are a public charity under the Code section(s)
listed in the heading of this letter [i.e. 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)]."

I still have no opinion on what to call it. And I'll admit that despite the
fact that I said "charity" was a less precise term above (which I said
because it doesn't seem to have a legal definition), I can also see an
argument that it's a more precise term (I guess it's more precise, but less
well defined, although "non-profit" actually isn't legally defined under
Florida law either AFAIK, the actual law uses the phrase "corporation not
for profit").
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthony wrote:
> "We determined that you are a public charity under the Code section(s)
> listed in the heading of this letter [i.e. 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)]."
>
> I still have no opinion on what to call it. And I'll admit that despite the
> fact that I said "charity" was a less precise term above (which I said
> because it doesn't seem to have a legal definition), I can also see an
> argument that it's a more precise term (I guess it's more precise, but less
> well defined, although "non-profit" actually isn't legally defined under
> Florida law either AFAIK, the actual law uses the phrase "corporation not
> for profit").
"Not for profit" is more precise than "non-profit". By implying some
kind of intent it excludes those corporations that are non-profit only
by virtue of poor management.

I would generally view "charities" as a broad subset of not-for-profit
organizations, and education is properly a charitable purpose.

Ec



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> "We determined that you are a public charity under the Code section(s)
>> listed in the heading of this letter [i.e. 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)]."
>>
>> I still have no opinion on what to call it. And I'll admit that despite the
>> fact that I said "charity" was a less precise term above (which I said
>> because it doesn't seem to have a legal definition), I can also see an
>> argument that it's a more precise term (I guess it's more precise, but less
>> well defined, although "non-profit" actually isn't legally defined under
>> Florida law either AFAIK, the actual law uses the phrase "corporation not
>> for profit").
>
> "Not for profit" is more precise than "non-profit". By implying some
> kind of intent it excludes those corporations that are non-profit only
> by virtue of poor management.
>
> I would generally view "charities" as a broad subset of not-for-profit
> organizations, and education is properly a charitable purpose.

Most jurisdictions (including the US Federal Gov) don't draw any legal
distinction between "not-for-profit" and "non-profit" organizations,
and usually choose to use only one term or the other exclusively. In
those few places that do try to draw a legal distinction, my
impression has been that "not-for-profit" is actually more expansive
(fewer requirements) than "non-profit", and not more precise as you
suggest.

I've never heard anyone try to refer to badly managed for-profit
corporation as "non-profit". That would clearly be an incorrect
description if you mean the legal meaning "non-profit", which is based
on the intended purpose of the organization and not merely the
presence or absence of profits.

-Robert Rohde
-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi,

Rand said:
>Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our >volunteer translators and the tech team.

Besides all the discussion on possible rephrasing, Phase 2 notices
seem not go live yet. Postponed? Or did I miss something?

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Rand Montoya <rmontoya@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hey All--
>
> There has been a lot of good feedback on the first set of site notices and we've taken those ideas and, I think, done a pretty good job of implementing fixes across projects and languages. The tech team has done fabulous work.
>
> You can see a brief statistical summary of the Phase I notices here:
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/11/25/wikimedias-fundraiser-which-banners-click/
> Please feel free to comment in the blog. We're going to be doing some short term testing of some minor tweaks to the Phase I notices soon.
>
> Which brings us to Phase 2. We are trying to juggle two separate concepts in designing the site notices: 1) we want our viewers and visitors to see and understand that their donations are important to the mission of Wikimedia Foundation and 2) we want our visitors to be stimulated into giving without being too disruptive.
>
> As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are
> attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those who have not yet donated. The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in. We will continue the same wiki project specific coding and current collapse/expand features that we have now. These are just drafts.
>
> Please comment on the page or in the discussion section. I'm also happy to hear any suggestions that you might have. Post your designs or drafts as well.
>
> Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our volunteer translators and the tech team.
>
> Phase 3 (slate for mid December) will focus on an end-of-campaign push and might include video elements.
>
> On a side note, we updated our comparative statistical presentation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics. These charts compare 2007 vs. 2008 including only gifts of less than or equal to $10,000.
>
> -Rand Montoya
> Head of Community Giving
>
> --
> Rand Montoya
> Head of Community Giving
> Wikimedia Foundation
> www.wikimedia.org
> Email: rand@wikimedia.org
> Phone: 415.839.6885 x615
> Fax: 415.882.0495
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Rand said:
> >Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time
> needed by our >volunteer translators and the tech team.
>
> Besides all the discussion on possible rephrasing, Phase 2 notices
> seem not go live yet. Postponed? Or did I miss something?
>

I interpreted Rand's comment to mean that it would happen sometime this week
(i.e. between now and December 7).

--
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l