Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Fae-6
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 Commission.

Text from the call for help on :wmuk copied below for information.

Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

---- Text from uk.wikimedia.org [18 September 2011] ----

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
covered.

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
2007 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
http://chronicle.com/article/Wikipedia-Comes-of-Age/125899/

---- End ----

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Lodewijk
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, I would rather focus on events organized by WMUK which support free knowledge, perhaps a joint press release with Charity institutions in the past (any press release together with the British Museum by any chance?)

Just thinking along here :)

Lodewijk

Am 18. September 2011 15:50 schrieb Fae <[hidden email]>:
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 Commission.

Text from the call for help on :wmuk copied below for information.

Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

---- Text from uk.wikimedia.org [18 September 2011] ----

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
covered.

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
2007 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
http://chronicle.com/article/Wikipedia-Comes-of-Age/125899/

---- End ----

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Fae-6
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 is as important to demonstrate as
our direct activities.

Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Patel, Vinesh
In reply to this post by Fae-6
Hi all,

Wikipedians at IC are looking forward to their Fresher's Fair on October 4th and are wondering when and how we can get T-shirts, badges etc. for the students. I have been rather busy and am flying out this Saturday, but my colleagues will be around for the arrangements.

Vinesh


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fae
Sent: 18 September 2011 14:51
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

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 Commission.

Text from the call for help on :wmuk copied below for information.

Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

---- Text from uk.wikimedia.org [18 September 2011] ----

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
covered.

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
2007 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
http://chronicle.com/article/Wikipedia-Comes-of-Age/125899/

---- End ----

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fresher's fair arrangements

Patel, Vinesh
I realise that was the wrong thread entirely so have made a new one.



On 19 Sep 2011, at 10:51, "Patel, Vinesh" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Wikipedians at IC are looking forward to their Fresher's Fair on October 4th and are wondering when and how we can get T-shirts, badges etc. for the students. I have been rather busy and am flying out this Saturday, but my colleagues will be around for the arrangements.
>
> Vinesh

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Roger Bamkin
In reply to this post by Fae-6
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 Wikipedia. If we can prove that Wikipedia is useful then WMUK can prove its value (in UK charity law). (Most people would think that increasing knowledge is of public benefit, but not according to UK charity law.)



On 18 September 2011 21:56, Fae <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 is as important to demonstrate as
our direct activities.

Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



--
Roger


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Richard Symonds-2

I should also note that it’s not just about proving public benefit – it’d be very useful to prove that Wikipedia not only has a public benefit, but does not have a “private benefit”, and does not harm the public. To do this, we need good examples of:

·         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 people aren’t harmed by Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Bamkin
Sent: 19 September 2011 15:54
To: [hidden email]
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 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 Wikipedia. If we can prove that Wikipedia is useful then WMUK can prove its value (in UK charity law). (Most people would think that increasing knowledge is of public benefit, but not according to UK charity law.)


On 18 September 2011 21:56, Fae <[hidden email]> wrote:

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 is as important to demonstrate as
our direct activities.


Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org




--

Roger

 


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

David Gerard-2
On 19 September 2011 16:01, Richard Symonds <[hidden email]> 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 people aren’t harmed by Wikipedia/Wikimedia.


Does our rabidity about copyright violations help here? (Pity
CorenSearchBot isn't currently running.)


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Richard Symonds-2
Yes, but also our process with OTRS, admins, oversight, and the edit filter system.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: 19 September 2011 16:08
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

On 19 September 2011 16:01, Richard Symonds <[hidden email]> 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 people aren’t harmed by Wikipedia/Wikimedia.


Does our rabidity about copyright violations help here? (Pity
CorenSearchBot isn't currently running.)


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Katie Chan
In reply to this post by Roger Bamkin
On 19/09/2011 15:54, Roger Bamkin 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 benefit. As Fae notes, WMUK raises funds which it
> uses in part to fund Wikipedia. If we can prove that Wikipedia is useful
> then WMUK can prove its value (in UK charity law). (Most people would
> think that increasing knowledge is of public benefit, but not according
> to UK charity law.)

For anyone wanting to read more into what the Charity Commission has to
say on the subject:
<http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Charity_essentials/Public_benefit/pbeduc.aspx>

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
     - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Roger Bamkin
On 19 September 2011 15:54, Roger Bamkin <[hidden email]> 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 benefit. As Fae notes, WMUK raises funds which it
> uses in part to fund Wikipedia. If we can prove that Wikipedia is useful
> then WMUK can prove its value (in UK charity law). (Most people would think
> that increasing knowledge is of public benefit, but not according to UK
> charity law.)

I think it is fair to say that increasing knowledge isn't necessarily
in the public benefit. We don't increase knowledge, though, we make
existing knowledge available to the public. I think that *is*
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 the public (since it's a
ridiculous proposal that will never actually be implemented in a
million years).

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Andrew West-4
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 the public (since it's a
> ridiculous proposal that will never actually be implemented in a
> million years).

Um, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet>

and implemented in Unicode in 2003:

<http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/ch13.pdf#G17013>

Andrew

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Katie Chan
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
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 high.
     - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Fae-6
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:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charity_status_application/help_wanted

PS no responses there yet.

Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for help: WM-UK Charity application, evidence of public benefit

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Andrew West-4
On 19 September 2011 17:06, Andrew West <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 the public (since it's a
>> ridiculous proposal that will never actually be implemented in a
>> million years).
>
> Um, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet>
>
> and implemented in Unicode in 2003:
>
> <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/ch13.pdf#G17013>

Being implemented in Unicode isn't really what I had in mind...

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org