Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public, benefit
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
There is also a special page set up on the WMUK website at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charity_status_application/help_wanted
for responses, or they can be emailed to me.
Call for help!
>> For the application to become a Registered Charity, we think we still
> need more evidence as follows. Ideally please send a link plus a quote
> or brief summary/abstract of the material (example at bottom), the
> sooner the better, but by Wednesday September 21st at latest.
>> PUBLIC BENEFIT evidence of public benefit in some areas. The best sort
> of evidence are: academic studies, reports in top-quality press,
> quotes from top figures in their fields. The emphasis is on evidence
> of specific and actual public benefit that does not amount just to
> "the increase of knowledge". More evidence that lots of people use
> Wikimedia is not needed; we need specific beneficial results of that
> usage, other than increasing knowledge .
>> I think we have higher education covered, but primary secondary
> education, public health, and other areas could use more. Also
> academic studies from 2010/11 - I think we have the earlier ones
>> WMF: the record of the Wikimedia Foundation intervening in or
> controlling policy and content areas.
>> WE ALREADY HAVE covered the following sources, among others: 2005
> Nature WP/Encyc Brit study; PC Pro stories; Hansard quotes, WMF
> fundraiser testimonials, the big stories from the NYT, Economist, New
> Yorker, Guardian; Casper Grathwohl of Oxford University Press, How
> today?s college students use Wikipedia for course?related research?,
> by Alison J. Head and Michael B. Eisenberg. First Monday, Volume 15,
> Number 3 - 1 March 2010., Are chemicals killing us? By S. Robert
> Lichter, Ph.D, May 21, 2009 - Society of Toxicologists; ?Early
> response to false claims in Wikipedia?, by P.D. Magnus, First Monday,
> Volume 13 Number 9 - 1 September 2008,
>> http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2115/2027> ;
> ?How quickly are errors corrected?? by Stuart Andrews, PC Pro, 12 Jul
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/119641/how-quickly-are-errors-corrected> ; The paradox of expertise: is the Wikipedia Reference Desk as good as
> your library?
>> IDEALLY post in this sort of format: "Through user-generated efforts,
> Wikipedia is comprehensive, current, and far and away the most
> trustworthy Web resource of its kind. It is not the bottom layer of
> authority, nor the top, but in fact the highest layer without formal
> vetting. In this unique role, it therefore serves as an ideal bridge
> between the validated and unvalidated Web." Casper Grathwohl, vice
> president of Oxford University Press