Fundraiser - tough going?, seems like the fundraiser's finding it hard this year Options

Is it just me, or does it seem like the fundraiser is finding it hard going this year?

I'm a little unclear about what major donations have been kicked into the total, but I thought it'd be interesting to observe how the number rises - it's at 2,764,642 for me, which from totally unreliable recollection means it's been at rather a snail's pace for perhaps a week now?

thoughts, and the total at the time of posting would be interesting......

edit: it went well for a short bit and then things really slowed down. Every time I see the counter I'm surprised by the lack of progress.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

2,812,937...

I also read that this is due to go for quite a while! - I'll do a couple more days, and start extrapolating etc. :-)

Here is the thread from last year's fundraiser. Greg kept a running tally.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...9&hl=fundraiser

I recall from last year that the funds were way short of targets for weeks, until some wealthy dupes, who had obviously fallen for The Con hook-line-and-sinker, dug into their pockets and bailed the thing out.

Here is the thread from last year's fundraiser. Greg kept a running tally.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...9&hl=fundraiser

I recall from last year that the funds were way short of targets for weeks, until some wealthy dupes, who had obviously fallen for The Con hook-line-and-sinker, dug into their pockets and bailed the thing out.

Was it really fall? I don't think they were duped, they know what they were doing. 'Wealthy' people are wealthy because they know what to do with their money. It's a form of corruption probably.

Here is the thread from last year's fundraiser. Greg kept a running tally.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...9&hl=fundraiser

I recall from last year that the funds were way short of targets for weeks, until some wealthy dupes, who had obviously fallen for The Con hook-line-and-sinker, dug into their pockets and bailed the thing out.

Was it really fall? I don't think they were duped, they know what they were doing. 'Wealthy' people are wealthy because they know what to do with their money. It's a form of corruption probably.

Might you be suggesting this?:

(IMG:http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/797/nudeorganistev9.jpg)

2,866,048.....

and I'm almost ready to dust off the 'ol faithful calculator (still with my name 'n form written on the back.......)


Re : the speculation about wealthy donors etc. - it wouldn't be a big deal in my book for large-ish donors that the foundation are aware of to be sort of 'introduced' into the fundraising drive at certain spots. My impression generally is that folk spend all their money for christmas, so I'd predict a pretty severe fall off in January - it's actually pretty sensible to mitigate that by announcing a new, large, donation at that point..... we'll see I guess.....

Anyone remember how much they actually started with? It wasn't 0, I thought it was close to 1 million already donated.

Anyone remember how much they actually started with? It wasn't 0, I thought it was close to 1 million already donated.

They got 2 million at the outset from private donations, so they are misleading people into thinking that ordinary public donations have got them where they are now.

With the gloom of the economy, no wonder it's slow.

Anyone remember how much they actually started with? It wasn't 0, I thought it was close to 1 million already donated.

They got 2 million at the outset from private donations, so they are misleading people into thinking that ordinary public donations have got them where they are now.

And from the PDF, the two highest donations were from anonymous donators.

With the gloom of the economy, no wonder it's slow.

And because of deletionism.

They are not going to make anything like $6million. The bloom has gone from the rose.

I remember two years ago that any criticism of Wikipedia on say, Slashdot, was immediately modded down and/or I was attacked in personal terms, but such halcyon days for Jimbo have long gone. Wikia is struggling as well.

It's time for investors to actually ask the question as to what it is they are investing in.

Deletionism and inclusionism are just as much to blame as anything else. Wikipedia is a cult which has been exposed for what it is, an empty sham.

2,969,734 - that's a pretty big increase.....

sums and speculation next week :-)

They are not going to make anything like $6million. The bloom has gone from the rose.

I remember two years ago that any criticism of Wikipedia on say, Slashdot, was immediately modded down and/or I was attacked in personal terms, but such halcyon days for Jimbo have long gone. Wikia is struggling as well.

It's time for investors to actually ask the question as to what it is they are investing in.

Wikipedia as a project has shown little progress this last two years, and really, it seems doomed to failure, in the medium term. Seriously who's want to invest in it? Funny thing, they only needed $2,000,000 a couple of years ago, if my memory serves me. Why the big "jump" in costs, surly inflation is only running at 5% per annum. I think they are getting greedy at the Foundation.

Or maybe Jimbo has a different plan: He fails to get his $6,000,000, and then makes a plea to the community to put some "limited" advertising on WP, in order to keep the project afloat. Then the door is wide open to advertising, and Jimbo becomes a zillionaire! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

They are not going to make anything like $6million. The bloom has gone from the rose.

I remember two years ago that any criticism of Wikipedia on say, Slashdot, was immediately modded down and/or I was attacked in personal terms, but such halcyon days for Jimbo have long gone. Wikia is struggling as well.

It's time for investors to actually ask the question as to what it is they are investing in.

Wikipedia as a project has shown little progress this last two years, and really, it seems doomed to failure, in the medium term. Seriously who's want to invest in it? Funny thing, they only needed $2,000,000 a couple of years ago, if my memory serves me. Why the big "jump" in costs, surly inflation is only running at 5% per annum. I think they are getting greedy at the Foundation.

They are getting concerned with self-preservation. The laws of the state of Florida are likely to be a lot tougher as regards internet "porn" serving (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) than the laws of California. And it costs a whole hell of a lot more to do ANYTHING in California than Florida (where your employees don't even have a personal state income tax), and all kinds of business and regulatory taxes are higher, as well. Sales taxes go from 6 to 7.5% on everything, for example, even if you're a 501-c-3. Then add that to paying for office space in San Francisco and probably housing also (which is why the actual Bay Area middle class lives in Oakland...), and you've got a recipe for financial disaster. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

All of this for a foundation that is just paying for air-conditioned server space at the end of a fiberoptic cable, and could be on any piece of cheap land in the country-- for example some rural bit of Arizona or Texas. But the cheaper the land, the more rednecked the locals and laws are likely to be, and then there's your porn problem, again. Plus, Jimbo and crew would feel culturally deprived! Like, they weren't used to that in Florida, or Alabama. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

But it's your duty to pay for the cultural development of Jimbo and FloSue. I think Sue Gardener's 300 k a year salary (did we not get that from the WMF tax returns??) helps with that, but in SF, it doesn't go as far as you'd think. Do you know what one of those cute Victorian houses on Market costs, even today? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I wish there were a way people could just donate to support a particular project instead up all Foundation projects. I love Wikisource and to some degree Wikiquote, but I would not want any money I donated to go to the English Wikipedia.

I wish there were a way people could just donate to support a particular project instead up all Foundation projects. I love Wikisource and to some degree Wikiquote, but I would not want any money I donated to go to the English Wikipedia.

But some folks are giving. Strange how the kitty suddenly jumped to over $3M just after the languor of the incoming funds were alluded to here at WR, on this very thread. Jimbo is looking for money from his "workers", I see he has the begging bowl out on the "talk" pages too. Oh!, what a neck, made of brass? Eh! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Some handy links:

* http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate..._fiscal_year.3F

* http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Specia...utionStatistics

* http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@l...g/msg00001.html

Quick comparison 2007 vs 2008:
a) First week of data only: 10/22/07-10/28/07 vs 11/03/08-11/09/08
b) Only including donations UNDER $10,000

2007 Donors: 7547
2008 Donors: 14825

2007 Dollars: $203,605.40 (ave. gift $26.98)
2008 Dollars: $406,126.06 (ave. gift $27.39)

And also - sales tax? How will sales tax at all impact the finances of the WMF? Sometimes WR exists in a void of facts.

Avruch

And also - sales tax? How will sales tax at all impact the finances of the WMF? Sometimes WR exists in a void of facts.

Avruch

Non-profits don't pay sales taxes for purchases of goods and services, providing they provide the needed documentation to the vendor. A non-profit might have to collect (i.e. charge) sales tax for the sale of goods tangential to it's mission (e.g. sale of "gear" or books) but a donation is not a sale and is not subject sales tax.

Some handy links:
And also - sales tax? How will sales tax at all impact the finances of the WMF? Sometimes WR exists in a void of facts.

Avruch

Um, if WMF exists in California, they can't have everything shipped in from out of state. At their headquarters they buy everything from office supplies to toilet paper. The state sales tax doesn't apply to rent and utilities, but being a nonprofit doesn't keep WMF from getting hit with all kinds of extra fees and costs connected with being a California employer vs. a Florida one.

Example: How do they clean their carpets at WMF? Tell me a way to do this which escapes state sales taxes completely.

As for the employees who move to California, they are hit with the same sale tax increase on many living expenses, plus all the state personal income taxes (which don't exist in Florida), which the WMF has to withhold from their paychecks. If you don't increase their salaries to cover it, you end up docking their pay. But it looks like that didn't happen.

Do you know what one of those cute Victorian houses on Market costs, even today? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

More than the WMF has taken in so far this year.....and prices are still rising.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MNHQ13TF13.DTL

And also - sales tax? How will sales tax at all impact the finances of the WMF? Sometimes WR exists in a void of facts.

Avruch

Non-profits don't pay sales taxes for purchases of goods and services, providing they provide the needed documentation to the vendor. A non-profit might have to collect (i.e. charge) sales tax for the sale of goods tangential to it's mission (e.g. sale of "gear" or books) but a donation is not a sale and is not subject sales tax.

These are all separate subjects. We're not assuming the non-profit is selling anything. Nor are we assuming anybody is donating pens or printers to WMF. As to what they're buying at their headquarters, like toilet paper and fluorescent bulbs and janitorial services, tell me what documentation you provide to the vendor in California to escape sales tax for that. If you think Office Max cares about your non-profit status, you're in for a sorry shock.

And also - sales tax? How will sales tax at all impact the finances of the WMF? Sometimes WR exists in a void of facts.

Avruch

Non-profits don't pay sales taxes for purchases of goods and services, providing they provide the needed documentation to the vendor. A non-profit might have to collect (i.e. charge) sales tax for the sale of goods tangential to it's mission (e.g. sale of "gear" or books) but a donation is not a sale and is not subject sales tax.

These are all separate subjects. We're not assuming the non-profit is selling anything. Nor are we assuming anybody is donating pens or printers to WMF. As to what they're buying at their headquarters, like toilet paper and fluorescent bulbs and janitorial services, tell me what documentation you provide to the vendor in California to escape sales tax for that. If you think Office Max cares about your non-profit status, you're in for a sorry shock.

But they do care about that. The documentation required is a 501 ( c ) (3) Determination Letter from the IRS. If it is an established vendor they keep a copy on file and you don't show it each time. Often you are paying with a purchase order and the tax status is part of the PO form.

I could be wrong, but I think the total financial impact of a few point increase in the tax rate on office supply purchases is probably small.

More info on the fundraiser: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Specia...aiserStatistics

As you can see, its going quite well. I'm not sure they will reach their goal, but I think even coming close is an achievement given the charitable giving climate.

As for why the foundation needs more money - when the foundation was tiny, composed of a couple of staffers and Jimmy, people complained about it not being professionally run (among many other related complaints). Now it is.

Beyond that, they aim to establish a year-round sophisticated fund-raising operation. If they can manage that, it provides a much firmer base for Wikimedia operations into the future - and helps avoid the position where finances require considering advertising as a generator of revenue.

Professional management and development require money - so, the drive target is higher. I wonder why people on WR complain about the WMF collecting and using money. Its all donations - why should you care if other people "waste" their money? Are WR regulars donating, and so see themselves as stakeholders in the stewardship of their donations?

Avruch

As for why the foundation needs more money - when the foundation was tiny, composed of a couple of staffers and Jimmy, people complained about it not being professionally run (among many other related complaints). Now it is.

That is well worth a nit-pick (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

There might be a bunch of staff doing business-like things, but I think my idea of WMF being professionally run would involve some evidence of the staff of WMF taking some sort of interest in the direction of the organisation's raison-d'etre - Wikipedia.

They seem to be great at getting the money in, and they can run a server farm, carry off the odd Jimbo damage limitation TV interview, but where is the strategy that gets them a reliable encyclopedia out the other end?

There might be a bunch of staff doing business-like things, but I think my idea of WMF being professionally run would involve some evidence of the staff of WMF taking some sort of interest in the direction of the organisation's raison-d'etre - Wikipedia.

They seem to be great at getting the money in, and they can run a server farm, carry off the odd Jimbo damage limitation TV interview, but where is the strategy that gets them a reliable encyclopedia out the other end?

Part of the disconnect might be that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't really consider the English Wikipedia to be the raison d'etre of the entire organization. There are projects in something like 260 languages - many of them very small, but some fairly large (such as the German Wikipedia). While the success of en.wp is certainly enabling of efforts in other directions, it isn't the whole point of everything.

I'm sure this will come across to most as drunk on kool-aid, but many of the people involved in Wikimedia itself see the ultimate object of the organization to be much broader than hosting the English Wikipedia. There really is a broader goal - the whole "sum of human knowledge, free and accessible to everyone in the world" thing. To begin with, the whole world doesn't have the Internet and the sum of human knowledge doesn't fit in an encyclopedic format. So there is a lot of work that is being done via Wikimedia projects that has nothing to do with en.wp. I know some people at WR read the foundation-l mailing list, and very little of the activity on that list relates directly to the English Wikipedia. Many of the posters aren't even primarily en.wp editors/admins.

Not to say that professional management of the English Wikipedia would be a bad thing - I'm not sure what form it would take, or what sort of "profession" would be involved, but I do think that the whole project would benefit enormously from a more active, decisive and professional management. Kmweber would have a gran mal, of course, but I'm not sure that the process of protecting and improving content is as amenable to the free for all approach as bulk adding content has been.

Avruch

This post has been edited by Avruch:

There might be a bunch of staff doing business-like things, but I think my idea of WMF being professionally run would involve some evidence of the staff of WMF taking some sort of interest in the direction of the organisation's raison-d'etre - Wikipedia.

They seem to be great at getting the money in, and they can run a server farm, carry off the odd Jimbo damage limitation TV interview, but where is the strategy that gets them a reliable encyclopedia out the other end?

Part of the disconnect might be that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't really consider the English Wikipedia to be the raison d'etre of the entire organization. There are projects in something like 260 languages - many of them very small, but some fairly large (such as the German Wikipedia). While the success of en.wp is certainly enabling of efforts in other directions, it isn't the whole point of everything.

I'm sure this will come across to most as drunk on kool-aid, but many of the people involved in Wikimedia itself see the ultimate object of the organization to be much broader than hosting the English Wikipedia. There really is a broader goal - the whole "sum of human knowledge, free and accessible to everyone in the world" thing. To begin with, the whole world doesn't have the Internet and the sum of human knowledge doesn't fit in an encyclopedic format. So there is a lot of work that is being done via Wikimedia projects that has nothing to do with en.wp. I know some people at WR read the foundation-l mailing list, and very little of the activity on that list relates directly to the English Wikipedia. Many of the posters aren't even primarily en.wp editors/admins.

Not to say that professional management of the English Wikipedia would be a bad thing - I'm not sure what form it would take, or what sort of "profession" would be involved, but I do think that the whole project would benefit enormously from a more active, decisive and professional management. Kmweber would have a gran mal, of course, but I'm not sure that the process of protecting and improving content is as amenable to the free for all approach as bulk adding content has been.

Avruch

Not much there I'd take issue with though it would be a bit like the main board of Ford worrying about the success of Volvo and assuming that Ford America can get by under its own steam.

What I would expect is to see a clearly defined strategy for achieving that goal - by now the projects ought to have a feel for what the end game is. There have been a couple of experimental versions of publications appearing, but WMF can't think that having a manual trawl through the database every now and again is an effective way of managing the heap of words they have gathered? For example, versioning of content in some way has to be a basic requirement so articles, indeed elements of articles can be identified as appropriate to the target audience - public, academic, young, old, leather clad weirdos and so on.

The other issue that some supporters here don't seem to grasp is that as en.wp has achieved a critical mass, different rules can apply and WMF should be focusing on researching and managing how en.wp can now move on to refining information with quality editors, while still keeping the feeling of public ownership. I think of that as the Virgin trick - creating a brand that makes people think it is up close and personal when it is just a big multi-national organisation. Wikipedia has that all wrong - Wikipedia is right, the public are wrong and fools and if there is a problem it is with the real world, not Wikipedia and the WMF will have to work really hard to become loveable (Google are struggling, and they give {away} all the stuff that people want).

Not much there I'd take issue with though it would be a bit like the main board of Ford worrying about the success of Volvo and assuming that Ford America can get by under its own steam.

I think you may have that analogy backwards. All the rest of the projects, put together, are bigger than en:wp. By quite a lot.

Commons alone has more images than en:wp has articles. It's rather a long tail when we get out to the Limburger Wikisource (Hi Greg!... ) yes, but still, there is a lot more to the WMF than just en:wp.

Not much there I'd take issue with though it would be a bit like the main board of Ford worrying about the success of Volvo and assuming that Ford America can get by under its own steam.

I think you may have that analogy backwards. All the rest of the projects, put together, are bigger than en:wp. By quite a lot.

Commons alone has more images than en:wp has articles. It's rather a long tail when we get out to the Limburger Wikisource (Hi Greg!... ) yes, but still, there is a lot more to the WMF than just en:wp.

The point is that the organisation should focus where there are both the biggest problems and the biggest chances of profit or failure. Commons has had its minor skirmishes, but essentially as a simple repository of pictures, it is chugging along in reasonable fashion. The odd issue seems to be manageable - there is a reasonable understanding that they have to operate under real world copyright law and steps are taken to implement that, and there is a reasonable understanding of inappropriate pictures that should not be allowed. That is not to say it is trouble free, but it is reasonably uncontroversial (and in many respects is replicated in a number of other Internet projects which aim to have picture repositories).

If the WMF said, we don't need to worry about en:wp because it is only 1/256th of the projects, or WikiMedia is more important because of a meaningless statistical comparison, then I think we'd all agree that they'd got it wrong. WMF stand or fall by wp:en and as such they should be nurturing it rather than what I suspect is the case: that they recognise it as a basket case of a project.

They hope that if they ignore it long enough they hope the problems will magically resolve themselves and they get the golden egg at the other end - if the goose doesn't disembowel itself along the way. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

There might be a bunch of staff doing business-like things, but I think my idea of WMF being professionally run would involve some evidence of the staff of WMF taking some sort of interest in the direction of the organisation's raison-d'etre - Wikipedia.

They seem to be great at getting the money in, and they can run a server farm, carry off the odd Jimbo damage limitation TV interview, but where is the strategy that gets them a reliable encyclopedia out the other end?

Part of the disconnect might be that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't really consider the English Wikipedia to be the raison d'etre of the entire organization. There are projects in something like 260 languages - many of them very small, but some fairly large (such as the German Wikipedia). While the success of en.wp is certainly enabling of efforts in other directions, it isn't the whole point of everything.

I'm sure this will come across to most as drunk on kool-aid, but many of the people involved in Wikimedia itself see the ultimate object of the organization to be much broader than hosting the English Wikipedia. There really is a broader goal - the whole "sum of human knowledge, free and accessible to everyone in the world" thing. To begin with, the whole world doesn't have the Internet and the sum of human knowledge doesn't fit in an encyclopedic format. So there is a lot of work that is being done via Wikimedia projects that has nothing to do with en.wp. I know some people at WR read the foundation-l mailing list, and very little of the activity on that list relates directly to the English Wikipedia. Many of the posters aren't even primarily en.wp editors/admins.

Not to say that professional management of the English Wikipedia would be a bad thing - I'm not sure what form it would take, or what sort of "profession" would be involved, but I do think that the whole project would benefit enormously from a more active, decisive and professional management. Kmweber would have a gran mal, of course, but I'm not sure that the process of protecting and improving content is as amenable to the free for all approach as bulk adding content has been.

Avruch

A little remedial recap: WMF, an entity incorporated in the US, is the the governance of all WikiMedia projects. It's board composition is overwhelmingly English speaking, with fair representation for the Germans and maybe the French, with any other nation or language group underrepresented or ignored. Of course this is hardly the only sense in which WMF ignores stakeholders. It is narrowly geek, libertarian, white, affluent and western, like so much of the rest of the internet. Any other organizations, such as WMF/UK are nothing but empty shells with no significance. The various projects are not self governing in any legal sense. "The community," in any of 260 languages, is nothing but the fools who happen to wander unto the site at any point in time.

Any suggestions how to discourage donations to WP? (It just encourages them.)

So many more worthy causes out there like One Laptop Per Child
or Icelandic Cactus Farming ...

The fundraiser banner just jumped from around the $3 million mark to $5.6 million. Any idea where that came from? I haven't seen any massive corporate donations being mentioned anywhere.

It is narrowly geek, libertarian, white, affluent and western,

In other words... reasonable people! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Title: I Need The Dough
Artist: Jimbo Wales
Composer: Marc Anthony, Cory Rooney, and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: I Need To Know
YouTube: I Need To Know (Marc Anthony Music Video)

They say around the way you've asked for cash
There's even talk about you wanting ads
I must admit that's what I want to hear
But that's just talk until you cut my share - oh

If it's true don't leave me all alone out here
Wondering if you're ever gonna make me spare
Tell me what you're pitching cause I need the dough
Sue you've gotta let me know which way to go

Cause I need the dough
I need the dough
Tell me Chairman Sue cause I need the dough
I need the dough
I need the dough
Tell me Chairman Sue cause I need the dough

My every thought is of Wiki being broke
It's getting harder not to become a joke
Sue I'm exactly where I wanna be
The only thing is I need you bear with me - oh

If it's true don't leave me all alone out west
Wondering if you're ever gonna make me rest
Tell me what you're feeling cause I need the dough
Sue you've gotta let me know which way to go

Cause I need the dough
I need the dough
Tell me Chairman Sue cause I need the dough
I need the dough
I need the dough
Tell me Chairman Sue cause I need the dough

CopyClef 2008 Marc Anthony, Cory Rooney, and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All expenses reimbursed.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Awesome, Moulton. Awesome.

And also - sales tax? How will sales tax at all impact the finances of the WMF? Sometimes WR exists in a void of facts.

Avruch

Non-profits don't pay sales taxes for purchases of goods and services, providing they provide the needed documentation to the vendor. A non-profit might have to collect (i.e. charge) sales tax for the sale of goods tangential to it's mission (e.g. sale of "gear" or books) but a donation is not a sale and is not subject sales tax.

Hello all, as it's been awhile. Not-for-profits absolutely pay sales tax as well as use taxes. 501c organizations enjoy a federal non-taxable status as far as income is concerned. Sales/use tax is a state and county issue. That is to say, if Wikipedia buys a server from Radio shack, their federal income tax exemption has no bearing on the sales tax for which they are liable. Tax-exempt solely applies to income -- not to purchases. Not that this has any bearing on the conversation, but hey, at least we all learned something (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Example: How do they clean their carpets at WMF? Tell me a way to do this which escapes state sales taxes completely.

Sales tax is not imposed upon services rendered. For example, you will notice that labor and parts are separate line items when dealing with automotive repairs. Labor is not taxed -- parts are. Just a tip from Uncle Chip.

Not-for-profits absolutely pay sales tax as well as use taxes. 501c organizations enjoy a federal non-taxable status as far as income is concerned. Sales/use tax is a state and county issue. That is to say, if Wikipedia buys a server from Radio shack, their federal income tax exemption has no bearing on the sales tax for which they are liable...

Most states and counties (in the Midwest, at least) allow agricultural use as an exemption for sales taxes, for purchases of farming machinery, tools, seeds, fertilizer, livestock feed... even clothing and furniture in some cases. So if the WMF were in a jurisdiction like that, they could claim an exemption from sales taxes by telling the vendors they were running a "server farm."

I know it sounds a bit far-fetched, but I wouldn't put it past them to try it... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

And also - sales tax? How will sales tax at all impact the finances of the WMF? Sometimes WR exists in a void of facts.

Avruch

Non-profits don't pay sales taxes for purchases of goods and services, providing they provide the needed documentation to the vendor. A non-profit might have to collect (i.e. charge) sales tax for the sale of goods tangential to it's mission (e.g. sale of "gear" or books) but a donation is not a sale and is not subject sales tax.

Hello all, as it's been awhile. Not-for-profits absolutely pay sales tax as well as use taxes. 501c organizations enjoy a federal non-taxable status as far as income is concerned. Sales/use tax is a state and county issue. That is to say, if Wikipedia buys a server from Radio shack, their federal income tax exemption has no bearing on the sales tax for which they are liable. Tax-exempt solely applies to income -- not to purchases. Not that this has any bearing on the conversation, but hey, at least we all learned something (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Flat out wrong. State law incorporates the exemption to apply to state sales tax. This is a matter of state law but I doubt if there are any exceptions. 501( c )(3) don't pay sales tax. Hope you learned something, too.