[Wikimediauk-l] Greater London Opensource Writers meetup: Mon 27th April
http://glow-london.blogspot.com/2009/04/glow-in-april.html That's this London. I can't make it, but someone probably should. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Greater London Opensource Writers meetup: Mon 27th April
2009/4/24 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: http://glow-london.blogspot.com/2009/04/glow-in-april.html That's this London. As opposed to the one in Ontario? I meant, of course, this Monday. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Greater London Opensource Writers meetup: Mon 27th April
Excuse my stupid question, but what's a open source writer? A Linux programmer? - Original Message - From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 24 April, 2009 13:25:23 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Greater London Opensource Writers meetup: Mon 27th April 2009/4/24 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: http://glow-london.blogspot.com/2009/04/glow-in-april.html That's this London. As opposed to the one in Ontario? I meant, of course, this Monday. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Greater London Opensource Writers meetup: Mon 27th April
2009/4/24 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: Excuse my stupid question, but what's a open source writer? A Linux programmer? Or does it mean people that blog, etc., about open source stuff? ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Greater London Opensource Writers meetup: Mon 27th April
2009/4/24 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/4/24 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com: Excuse my stupid question, but what's a open source writer? A Linux programmer? Or does it mean people that blog, etc., about open source stuff? Since Glyn Moody set it up, presumably those. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Second, learning how to write an encyclopaedia - something that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does - is inherently an educational experience. To support that naturally supports the advancement of education. To quote a law from 1957 - over 50 years ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment, is in this respect. To be fair with them: It was a court case, I am pretty sure changes have been made to the applicable law since then, but apparently not to this particular part of it (resp. its interpretation). You can of course try to make a precedent case out of this, by pursuing it up to the higher courts. Is there any indication in the letter as to what the options are? From a quick glance at the HMRC website, it seems that their Complaints procedure would not apply, as we're talking about a formal decision here. They have two internal procedures, called 'Review' and 'Appeal'. It should be marked in the letter whether there is a Review option (by HMRC itself) or an Appeal option to the independent tribunal (http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/tax/). It is possible that both of them are not available, which means that we would need to seek Judicial Review at the Administrative Division of the High Court...we definitely want to have a lawyer at least for Appeal or Judicial Review, and it would be good for HMRC-internal review. M. -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com: On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: (Did you intend to send that to the public list? Either way, it's here now, so replying on-list.) The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with education. I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case For reference, the case is online here: http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html though with terrible markup. I'll look for LexisNexis sources and similar, but those are typically not public, so I thought I'd share that one with the list. I've found it on LexisNexis: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=truerisb=21_T6406107890format=GNBFULLsort=BOOLEANstartDocNo=151resultsUrlKey=29_T6406107893cisb=22_T6406107892treeMax=truetreeWidth=0csi=279841docNo=152 (probably a better URL, but I don't know how to use LexisNexis!) The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them. Hopefully a lawyer will think the same. It's evident any attempt to make a UK chapter charitable will likely need one. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them. Hopefully a lawyer will think the same. It's evident any attempt to make a UK chapter charitable will likely need one. Yeah, it looks that way. If anyone knows a good charity lawyer or knows someone that knows a good charity lawyer, please speak up! PS David, are you available to come on IRC a sec? If so, /msg me - Tango42. Thanks ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
Because WMUK would be so closely associated with the 501(c) WMF, I think Mike Godwin should be pointed at this. I appreciate various factors may make him unable to further involve himself, but you don't know what UK legal-eagle contacts he can point your way. Brian. -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 25 April 2009 01:45 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected 2009/4/25 Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com: On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: (Did you intend to send that to the public list? Either way, it's here now, so replying on-list.) The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with education. I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case For reference, the case is online here: http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html though with terrible markup. I'll look for LexisNexis sources and similar, but those are typically not public, so I thought I'd share that one with the list. I've found it on LexisNexis: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=tru erisb=21_T6406107890format=GNBFULLsort=BOOLEANstartDocNo=151resultsUrlK ey=29_T6406107893cisb=22_T6406107892treeMax=truetreeWidth=0csi=279841do cNo=152 (probably a better URL, but I don't know how to use LexisNexis!) The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
Then I suggest hitting contacts in local activist groups - eg ORG. Brian. -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 25 April 2009 02:05 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected 2009/4/25 Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org: Because WMUK would be so closely associated with the 501(c) WMF, I think Mike Godwin should be pointed at this. I appreciate various factors may make him unable to further involve himself, but you don't know what UK legal-eagle contacts he can point your way. Yeah, worth letting him know what is going on, but last time I spoke to Mike about UK lawyers he said the only ones he knew would charge us. We would like someone pro-bono if at all possible. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with education. I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case and see if I can find the details, but really we need someone can that combat legal nonsense with more legal nonsense - I can only illegal nonsense! I'm not sure I agree with the CC's decision, but it isn't a particularly quixotic one in the context of existing charity law, and I can see where it came from. Consider, for example, the notes at C4 here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publicbenefit/pbeduc.asp#c However, just giving people information is not necessarily educating them. The key is whether it is provided in such a way (however structured) that it is capable of educating them, rather than just adding to factual information. I think there are ways of interpreting this sort of thing so as to encompass what we do, but it's not unreasonable for them to interpret it differently. Note that there isn't really anything like us in any of the lists of examples! Approaching this from the position that the law is fundamentally being misapplied, and we need to tell them they're Doing It Wrong, is probably just going to set us up for some angry letters both ways, a quick fall, and being filed as vexatious - and the last thing we want is for us to blow the chance fully! A more effective approach would, perhaps, be to closely compare our submission to the regulations, and see if the use of a different perspective on what we plan to do, or a broadening of our aims, would perhaps fit more comfortably with the (slightly odd) letter of the regulations. After all, we have to fit into charity law *as it exists* if we're going to be a charity at all! (...and on which note, hrm. if we're not a charity, what are the practical implications of that? I assume with our small turnover it wouldn't make a *vast* difference, but...) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk: 2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with education. I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case and see if I can find the details, but really we need someone can that combat legal nonsense with more legal nonsense - I can only illegal nonsense! I'm not sure I agree with the CC's decision, but it isn't a particularly quixotic one in the context of existing charity law, and I can see where it came from. Consider, for example, the notes at C4 here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publicbenefit/pbeduc.asp#c However, just giving people information is not necessarily educating them. The key is whether it is provided in such a way (however structured) that it is capable of educating them, rather than just adding to factual information. I think there are ways of interpreting this sort of thing so as to encompass what we do, but it's not unreasonable for them to interpret it differently. Note that there isn't really anything like us in any of the lists of examples! But that isn't what they're interpreting. They quoted a specific case which they are clearly misapplying. That there are other arguments they could use that would be more justifiable isn't really the point. Approaching this from the position that the law is fundamentally being misapplied, and we need to tell them they're Doing It Wrong, is probably just going to set us up for some angry letters both ways, a quick fall, and being filed as vexatious - and the last thing we want is for us to blow the chance fully! We need a lawyer to tell them they are doing it wrong so they can do it in an appropriate way to avoid that happening. A more effective approach would, perhaps, be to closely compare our submission to the regulations, and see if the use of a different perspective on what we plan to do, or a broadening of our aims, would perhaps fit more comfortably with the (slightly odd) letter of the regulations. After all, we have to fit into charity law *as it exists* if we're going to be a charity at all! Broadening our aims certainly wouldn't help. Our aims need to be entirely charitable, extending them isn't going to remove any uncharitable parts. (...and on which note, hrm. if we're not a charity, what are the practical implications of that? I assume with our small turnover it wouldn't make a *vast* difference, but...) At the moment, it doesn't make a great deal of difference, you are right. It may well make a difference in the not too distant future, though. We need to work this all out ASAP. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org: Then I suggest hitting contacts in local activist groups - eg ORG. Yeah, I think Seddon is on that. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
