What non-profits are aligned against the WMF? Options

[thekohser]

Of course, there is the Internet Review Corporation, but that's not (yet) a tax-advantaged non-profit.

So, let's hear some other names, please.

Which non-profit with tax-advantaged status would you say is most clearly aligned against the principles (and principals!) of the Wikimedia Foundation?

And to get you in the mood:

[anthony]

Which non-profit with tax-advantaged status would you say is most clearly aligned against the principles (and principals!) of the Wikimedia Foundation?

Against the principles and the principals? I'm not sure that's possible, since the principals of the WMF are themselves against the principles of the WMF.

[Jon Awbrey]

Which non-profit with tax-advantaged status would you say is most clearly aligned against the principles (and principals!) of the Wikimedia Foundation?

Against the principles and the principals? I'm not sure that's possible, since the principals of the WMF are themselves against the principles of the WMF.

Ka-Zing ! ! ! ! !

[wikademia.org]

Which non-profit with tax-advantaged status would you say is most clearly aligned against the principles (and principals!) of the Wikimedia Foundation?

what are the basic principles? sharing all knowledge with everyone seems to be worth while principles. are they not?



...


..

BLP's and Wikia having follow links seem to me to be the two biggest problems... along with a bunch of angry admins... there are probably some others that have been mentioned here copiously...

why not be about bringing justice?

[GlassBeadGame]

Which non-profit with tax-advantaged status would you say is most clearly aligned against the principles (and principals!) of the Wikimedia Foundation?

Against the principles and the principals? I'm not sure that's possible, since the principals of the WMF are themselves against the principles of the WMF.

Completely true, but never the less most non-profits would probably only extend good will and a helping hand if WMF asked for help on issues like dispute resolution, child protect, board development to broaden which stakeholder are represented. They would probably do this even if they were aware of the ill will that Wales harbors against those evil altruists. They would just write it off as being political tolerant.

[anthony]

sharing all knowledge with everyone seems to be worth while principles. are they not?

Well, no. On the other hand, "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally" is something I could support.

[wikademia.org]

Which non-profit with tax-advantaged status would you say is most clearly aligned against the principles (and principals!) of the Wikimedia Foundation?

Against the principles and the principals? I'm not sure that's possible, since the principals of the WMF are themselves against the principles of the WMF.

Completely true, but never the less most non-profits would probably only extend good will and a helping hand if WMF asked for help on issues like dispute resolution, child protect, board development to broaden which stakeholder are represented. They would probably do this even if they were aware of the ill will that Wales harbors against those evil altruists. They would just write it off as being political tolerant.

... these seem like legal issues... why haven't the proper authorities gotten involved?!


and @anthony

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Freque...Asked_Questions

what a coincidence!

[MBisanz]

Well if you define "tax advantaged" as 501©(3) public charities, you probably would want to look at some of the large database foundations that sell access to collections of research papers, etc since they have the most to lose if WM were ever to start publishing all of the out of copyright materials they sell. There are at least a couple in Category:Commercial digital libraries that I am fairly certain are 501©(3)s.

You might also look at someone like the Recording Industry Association of America, which is technically a non-profit organization, they probably could find some piece of copyrighted material on WP at a given point in time.

But, I do think you are going to have a hard time motivating these charities and organizations to fight the WMF. As threatening as WP is to someone like the RIAA, there are 100 more websites out there doing significantly more damage to causes they hold dear than the WMF could ever do and most of the other charities are probably more scared of Google and for-profit concerns that are digitizing material than a small non-profit that like the WMF.

Realistically, there are very few charities with mission or vision statements that would match a negation of wmf:Vision or wmf:Mission.

Imagine a world in which no human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.

I just can't see anyone actually claiming that.

So, you would need to find someone who objects to the WMF's practices, model, or participants. And right there you have moved off the ideological grounds to more nuts and bolts issues, that tend to bore the people who make decisions. Enough citations of the BLP, copyright, or other problems might move some people, but again, with quotes from Eric Schmidt making the headlines, the WMF simply isn't unique enough in its activities to draw the type of ire you want.

Note: Somey, I can't make a proper ( C ) since it keeps changing it to a ©.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[Krimpet]

Well, it's not completely aligned against the WMF, since they nominally have the same goals... but I'd suggest supporting traditional purveyors of public knowledge that are in danger of being marginalized by "Web 2.0": libraries, community colleges, public broadcasting, and such. These sorts of outlets have always been committed to educating the public with the highest standards of excellence. Irresponsible standards at Wikipedia, on the other hand, have arguably really lowered the bar of research and scholarship. (Much like blogs and asinine cable news have decimated the newspaper industry.)

[thekohser]

Thank you, recent posts, we are starting to get into the territory that I wished to explore.

I think what I had in mind were organizations like the Creative Incentive Coalition, although they seem to have gone belly-up in the middle of 1998.

Still alive and kicking, though, is the National Writers Union, although that's probably a 501©(5).

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Jon Awbrey]

Thank you, recent posts, we are starting to get into the territory that I wished to explore.

I think what I had in mind were organizations like the Creative Incentive Coalition, although they seem to have gone belly-up in the middle of 1998.

Still alive and kicking, though, is the National Writers Union, although that's probably a 501(c)(5).

Could you give us a primer or a quick link on what all these 501(c)(numb) things mean?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Somey]

Still alive and kicking, though, is the National Writers Union, although that's probably a 501©(5).

There's also the Author's Guild, which is affiliated with the Author's League Fund and the Author's Guild Foundation - the latter is a registered charity, AFAIK.

In the UK, some bands recently started the Featured Artists Coalition for musicians, but I don't personally know of a similar organization in the UK for writers.

[MBisanz]

Thank you, recent posts, we are starting to get into the territory that I wished to explore.

I think what I had in mind were organizations like the Creative Incentive Coalition, although they seem to have gone belly-up in the middle of 1998.

Still alive and kicking, though, is the National Writers Union, although that's probably a 501©(5).

Could you give us a primer or a quick link on what all these 501©(numb) things mean?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

501©(3)#Types is a badly written list. Short of it is that 501©(3) public charities are the kind of charities we are all accustomed to seeing (colleges, hospitals, Red Cross (I think), etc. The point Greg is getting at (I think) is that these organizations tend to be publicly supported and are therefore the kind of organization he wants to use to attack WM, which is also a 501©(3).

[thekohser]

I'm not trying to "use" the organizations for "attack".

Just seeking mutual alignments of principles that I'm beginning to cherish more as I see the future of a world of Wikipedias and without newspapers and professional encyclopedias.

[Jon Awbrey]

Okay, to be more specific, when people say "tax-advantaged" here's the kind of distinction that makes a difference to me and a lot of other people.

I contribute a certain amount every year to a Canadian Arts Group, and I didn't used to get a tax deduction because they hadn't done the right stuff to satisfy the IRS, but then they did, and now I do. That is a definite incentive for me to keep contributing. In a very real sense, it means that the U.S. Gov is supporting Canadian Arts.

Is WMF that kind of racket, or not?

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

Geek Note. Folks who want to write ï´¾cï´¿ and have it stay ï´¾cï´¿ even after previewing or quoting can try unicode 64830 and 64831 for left and right parentheses.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Which non-profit with tax-advantaged status would you say is most clearly aligned against the principles (and principals!) of the Wikimedia Foundation?

The Government of North Korea (on the basis that is it non-profit making and affords tax advantages to its leaders) ... grand spectacles and spying.

Unpaid serf castes, indulgences for its ruling caste, malicious and intrusive surveillance, non-elect and unaccountability cult leader, rule of fear and insecurity ... both leaderships appear to have a pathological belief in their own PR, both bodies of governance regularly rattle the donations can to outsiders, "loose" adherence to reality, regular executions of summary justice.

OK ... at least the brainwashed 'assassins' of the Pee-dia commit virtual assassinations and they stop short of abductions.

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

Ha ... no mention of the Wikipedia's policy of hosting all those pictures of engorged genitals, animated cum shots and hard core pornography with which it is inseminating its values effectively into the minds of children then?

[Jon Awbrey]

Okay, I found it —

The Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated as a 501ï´¾cï´¿ï´¾3ï´¿ nonprofit organization in the United States, and donations from US citizens are tax deductible. Donations made by citizens of other countries may also be tax deductible.

— Jimme Gimme

[Somey]

I'm not trying to "use" the organizations for "attack".

Presumably that would require you to gain control of those organizations first... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Not saying you couldn't manage it, but it seems like it would be a lot of effort, when you could just build a really big bomb.

Just seeking mutual alignments of principles that I'm beginning to cherish more as I see the future of a world of Wikipedias and without newspapers and professional encyclopedias.

Another one might be the Sigma Delta Chi Foundation of the Society of Professional Journalists, but to be honest, I'm not seeing much evidence of their taking an active role in opposing the idea of crowdsourced journalism (which, to be fair, isn't much of a real trend unless you count bloggers in general as "journalists"). They seem much more concerned with First Amendment issues...

Moulton might get a laff out of this foundation's full name, but if anything they seem even less concerned with Big Picture issues like crowdsourcing's potential threat to their profession.

[EricBarbour]

Haven't you asked Perverted Justice yet?

They operate Wikisposure, apparently.

Which has had many choice things to say about Wikipedia's pedophile-editor gang.

And WP reciprocated, by calling them an "attack site".

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Jon Awbrey]

A long-running mathematical collaboration that pre-dates the Internet has just formed a 501ï´¾cï´¿ï´¾3ï´¿ foundation and is getting ready to re-launch its database on a MediaWiki site. I found their homepage to be very informative about all the mechanics of that process, including links to IRS forms and such.

The OEIS Foundation Inc.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Random832]

Geek Note. Folks who want to write ï´¾cï´¿ and have it stay ï´¾cï´¿ even after previewing or quoting can try unicode 64830 and 64831 for left and right parentheses.

Why not just use 9374 for â’ž?

501⒞⑶

[thekohser]

Haven't you asked Perverted Justice yet?

I note from their Form 990's of the past three years, they seem to have started in 2006 with a seed fund of $850,000 from some source. Then in the subsequent two years, they're getting far less funding, and expenses are dangerously exceeding income. Not a good investment.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Jon Awbrey]

Geek Note. Folks who want to write ï´¾cï´¿ and have it stay ï´¾cï´¿ even after previewing or quoting can try unicode 64830 and 64831 for left and right parentheses.

Why not just use 9374 for â’ž?

501⒞⑶

Not very pretty in my browser.

What I don't get is why we don't just shut off the ï´¾cï´¿ → © replacement, since it's always been easy enough to use © for ©?

[EricBarbour]

Haven't you asked Perverted Justice yet?

I note from their Form 990's of the past three years, they seem to have started in 2006 with a seed fund of $850,000 from some source. Then in the subsequent two years, they're getting far less funding, and expenses are dangerously exceeding income. Not a good investment.

So? PJ has admittedly developed a poor reputation in recent years because of their "stings" with the help of Dateline NBC. (That's where the $850k came from.)

Otherwise they're a genuine, official nonprofit, and they've clearly had bad relations with the wiki-slag patrol, because they dared criticize the Golden Wiki. The wiki article isn't what I would call "favorable" to them.

[GlassBeadGame]

Haven't you asked Perverted Justice yet?

I note from their Form 990's of the past three years, they seem to have started in 2006 with a seed fund of $850,000 from some source. Then in the subsequent two years, they're getting far less funding, and expenses are dangerously exceeding income. Not a good investment.

So? PJ has admittedly developed a poor reputation in recent years because of their "stings" with the help of Dateline NBC. (That's where the $850k came from.)

Otherwise they're a genuine, official nonprofit, and they've clearly had bad relations with the wiki-slag patrol, because they dared criticize the Golden Wiki. The wiki article isn't what I would call "favorable" to them.

The potential for the perpetrator committing suicide when caught seems a weak reason to avoid investigation. Even so it is a loss that should be avoided if possible, and is another reason to include mental health monitoring as a condition of pre-trial release. It was not work of PJ that made the risk of perpetrator suicide so likely. It was the involvement of media in such an aggressive fashion. Local law enforcement also signed on for the use of PJ volunteers and the TV coverage, so the concern raised in the linked article that such sting projects should be left to law enforcement ultimately answerable the people through elected representatives seems invalid. It seems unfortunate that PJ should take a public relations hit here.

[Random832]

You misspelled "suspect", twice.

Anyway, would the local law enforcement have signed on to it if not pressured by NBC into doing so [would they have had the resources to do these investigations if not for NBC? Consider just who likely wrote that $850k check]? Should NBC have this power? Commercializing law enforcement is inherently dangerous.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[GlassBeadGame]

You misspelled "suspect", twice.

Anyway, would the local law enforcement have signed on to it if not pressured by NBC into doing so [would they have had the resources to do these investigations if not for NBC? Consider just who likely wrote that $850k check]? Should NBC have this power? Commercializing law enforcement is inherently dangerous.

Now that is odd, I read my post over several times since your helpful comment and I didn't even use the word "suspect" at all. Not even once:

The potential for the perpetrator committing suicide when caught seems a weak reason to avoid investigation. Even so it is a loss that should be avoided if possible, and is another reason to include mental health monitoring as a condition of pre-trial release. It was not work of PJ that made the risk of perpetrator suicide so likely. It was the involvement of media in such an aggressive fashion. Local law enforcement also signed on for the use of PJ volunteers and the TV coverage, so the concern raised in the linked article that such sting projects should be left to law enforcement ultimately answerable the people through elected representatives seems invalid. It seems unfortunate that PJ should take a public relations hit here.

Perhaps I so mangled some other word you thought meant "suspect?" You'll have to help me out here because I can't even guess what you might mean.

Perhaps your concerned with the word "perpetrator?" The right to "innocent until proven guilty" is an important right, but it is a right a person has vis a vis the state, not individual commentators.

[Random832]

Perhaps your concerned with the word "perpetrator?" the right to "innocent until proven guilty" is an important right, but it is a right a person has vis a vis the state, not individual commentators.

I'm just glad that the media (including the linked article itself) usually knows better.

[GlassBeadGame]

Perhaps your concerned with the word "perpetrator?" the right to "innocent until proven guilty" is an important right, but it is a right a person has vis a vis the state, not individual commentators.

I'm just glad that the media (including the linked article itself) usually knows better.

Remember the context here. The perpetrator will never be tried. He is dead. Under your reasoning we should always consider him "innocent." That would seem to have an odd impact on the conversation.

BTW where I come from it is the police that do the coercion, not receive it. They have guns and stuff.

[Trick cyclist]

Remember the context here. The perpetrator will never be tried. He is dead. Under your reasoning we should always consider him "innocent." That would seem to have an odd impact on the conversation.

So if someone is suspected of a crime, never charged, and then dies, he is to be presumed guilty? OK he can't sue for libel but that seems a shade steep.

[GlassBeadGame]

Remember the context here. The perpetrator will never be tried. He is dead. Under your reasoning we should always consider him "innocent." That would seem to have an odd impact on the conversation.

So if someone is suspected of a crime, never charged, and then dies, he is to be presumed guilty? OK he can't sue for libel but that seems a shade steep.

So if someone commits suicide in the face of overwhelming evidence, including audio and video recordings, computer forensics and their own admission they must be forever treated as if innocent for the purpose of evaluating the investigative techniques used?

[Milton Roe]

Remember the context here. The perpetrator will never be tried. He is dead. Under your reasoning we should always consider him "innocent." That would seem to have an odd impact on the conversation.

So if someone is suspected of a crime, never charged, and then dies, he is to be presumed guilty? OK he can't sue for libel but that seems a shade steep.

Well, how about the 9/11 alleged hijackers? Perhaps they were just Harold and Kumar and friends from Saudi Arabia, and everybody over-reacted to a really tragic set of comedy radio transmissions, and unusually bad landings? Assume good faith! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[One]

BTW where I come from it is the police that do the coercion, not receive it. They have guns and stuff.

True that.

[Trick cyclist]

So if someone commits suicide in the face of overwhelming evidence, including audio and video recordings, computer forensics and their own admission they must be forever treated as if innocent for the purpose of evaluating the investigative techniques used?

That sounds like a cirkular argument. Someone is proved guilty using certain techniques but not found guilty by a court because he died. We assume then that he would have been found guilty and that helps to prove that those techniques are good.

The only sane, and indeed the only ethical, thing to do is if someone dies, just scrub that case from the records for the purpose of evaluating the investigative techniques used.

[GlassBeadGame]

So if someone commits suicide in the face of overwhelming evidence, including audio and video recordings, computer forensics and their own admission they must be forever treated as if innocent for the purpose of evaluating the investigative techniques used?

That sounds like a cirkular argument. Someone is proved guilty using certain techniques but not found guilty by a court because he died. We assume then that he would have been found guilty and that helps to prove that those techniques are good.

The only sane, and indeed the only ethical, thing to do is if someone dies, just scrub that case from the records for the purpose of evaluating the investigative techniques used.

But the whole point is to figure out if the investigation inappropriately causes suicides. Of course it would be a very bad thing if it caused the deaths of completely innocent people. So looking at bona fides of the case against the person who committed suicide is certainly relevant. To "scrub the case" would be very favorable to my point of view (eg that the investigations are valuable) but unfairly so to my thinking. Scrubbing them would essentially make the argument against the investigations moot. I wish people could figure out in which direction arguments cut before they make them.

[Malleus]

People commit suicide for all sorts of reasons, some rational some irrational. I'm reminded of the case of Harold Shipman, who killed himself to ensure that his wife received his NHS pension. Not necessarily anything to do with an admission or denial of guilt.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[anthony]

Remember the context here. The perpetrator will never be tried. He is dead. Under your reasoning we should always consider him "innocent." That would seem to have an odd impact on the conversation.

So if someone is suspected of a crime, never charged, and then dies, he is to be presumed guilty? OK he can't sue for libel but that seems a shade steep.

So if someone commits suicide in the face of overwhelming evidence, including audio and video recordings, computer forensics and their own admission they must be forever treated as if innocent for the purpose of evaluating the investigative techniques used?

Obviously the proper procedure is to get Kevin Costner to lead an investigation.

Back, and to the left.

[thekohser]

Could somebody do a study to determine what percentage of the threads that I launch get utterly derailed?

[Malleus]

Could somebody do a study to determine what percentage of the threads that I launch get utterly derailed?

Possibly, but why would anyone but you care?

[thekohser]

Could somebody do a study to determine what percentage of the threads that I launch get utterly derailed?

Possibly, but why would anyone but you care?

Well, the obvious follow-up would be analysis of every WR editor who has started at least 10 threads, to come up with a head-to-head index of thread derailment likelihood. And, we could simultaneously figure out which editors are most prone to derail a thread.

It's not all about me, ME, ME, you see.