Lodewijk wrote I can imagine that whether Wikipedia is publicly beneficial
is not really into question ... actually ... it is.
This is not about reality but law. In this case we need to prove that
Wikipedia is of public benefit. As Fae notes, WMUK raises funds which it
uses in part to fund
...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Roger Bamkin
Sent: 19 September 2011 15:54
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Call for help: WM-UK Charity application,
evidence of public benefit
Lodewijk wrote I can imagine that whether Wikipedia is publicly beneficial
On 19 September 2011 16:01, Richard Symonds chasemew...@gmail.com wrote:
· How quickly we remove advertising from articles, how we spot it,
etc etc (to cover private benefits)
· How quickly we remove libel from articles, and what processes we
have in place to ensure that
@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence
of public benefit
On 19 September 2011 16:01, Richard Symonds chasemew...@gmail.com wrote:
· How quickly we remove advertising from articles, how we spot it,
etc etc (to cover private benefits
On 19 September 2011 15:54, Roger Bamkin victuall...@gmail.com wrote:
Lodewijk wrote I can imagine that whether Wikipedia is publicly beneficial
is not really into question ... actually ... it is.
This is not about reality but law. In this case we need to prove that
Wikipedia is of public
On 19 September 2011 16:58, Thomas Dalton
innherently beneficial to the public. That's why In Re Shaw isn't
applicable to our application in the slightest. That case is about
research into a new alphabet and I think most people would agree that
the proposed research isn't likely to benefit
On 19/09/2011 16:58, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I think it is fair to say that increasing knowledge isn't necessarily
in the public benefit.
I would seriously disagree with that but the point is moot. The
Charities Act 2006 is what it is.
KTC
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are
Hi,
Though I'm happy to see the issues discussed (you can imagine that
many of these issues have been discussed in the preparation of our
application), please remember to fish out those examples of public
benefit to add to the wiki page:
Please note that though the link Katie just supplied with the CC's
guidance on The Advancement of Education for the Public Benefit is
relevant to the theoretical issue, we are not actually now applying
under that heading but under one of general public utility, so it is the
general guidance
Hi,
** Do you know of examples of WM-UK's charitable public benefit? **
Please go to the collaboration page at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charity_status_application/help_wanted
to raise further good examples for our charity application team to
incorporate in our final proposal to the Charity
What I find a bit confusing is whether you are looking for Wikipedia's
Public Benefit proof, for Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia UK. I can
imagine that whether Wikipedia is publicly beneficial is not really into
question - whether WMUK is, is a whole different game and discussion. In
that case,
Yes, I agree it is confusing; however as WM-UK contributes a
significant sum of money from the UK fundraiser (more than half) to
WMF and organizes events that promote the use and improvement of
Wikimedia projects, that these outcomes have public benefit in the
context of our UK charity's mission
To answer Lodewijk's question it is all the Wikimedia projects, and not
WMUK's activities, that we need to show public benefit from (without
saying too much, anyone who finds this puzzling might start here
http://www.btinternet.com/%7Eakme/shaw.html). There is also a special
page set up on
13 matches
Mail list logo
