A Prophet Is W/O Profit In His Pwn Wikiland, Non-Profits Are Not W/O Honoraria, Fool !!! Options

[NotARepublican55]

Is it fair to say that Jimbo possibly really believes in Wikipedia's "mission"? Supposedly I heard that Wikipedia could rake in upwards of 500 million if it started running ads, so what motives would he have not to make it commercial. What's your own theory on why Wikipedia continues to remain ad-free.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55:

[Kwork]

Is it fair to say that Jimbo possibly really believes in Wikipedia's "mission"? Supposedly I heard that Wikipedia could rake in upwards of 500 million if it started running ads, so what motives would he have not to make it commercial. What's your own theory on why Wikipedia continues to remain ad-free.

As I understand it, non-profit is a tax option, with some organizational requirements. It does not mean the organization does not make a profit, just that the profits have to go back to something related to the organization's mission, instead of to share holders. Organization employees can make very good salaries, and they put that money into their own bank accounts. It is also allowed to form a separate section of the organization that is for profit, so that option is not lost.

If Jimbo did not need investor money, setting things up as a non-profit so that contributors could take the tax write off for giving their money to a non-profit WP might have been a rational financial decision. I assume he draws a decent enough salary, as the head of the organization, to allowing him to lead a comfortable life.

I know next to nothing about Jimbo, but it seems quite likely that he is intelligent enough to understand that becoming a billionaire would do nothing to make his life better than it is now.

[MBisanz]

Is it fair to say that Jimbo possibly really believes in Wikipedia's "mission"? Supposedly I heard that Wikipedia could rake in upwards of 500 million if it started running ads, so what motives would he have not to make it commercial. What's your own theory on why Wikipedia continues to remain ad-free.

As I understand it, non-profit is a tax option, with some organizational requirements. It does not mean the organization does not make a profit, just that the profits have to go back to something related to the organization's mission, instead of to share holders. Organization employees can make very good salaries, and they put that money into their own bank accounts. It is also allowed to form a separate section of the organization that is for profit, so that option is not lost.

If Jimbo did not need investor money, setting things up as a non-profit so that contributors could take the tax write off for giving their money to a non-profit WP might have been a rational financial decision. I assume he draws a decent enough salary, as the head of the organization, to allowing him to lead a comfortable life.

I know next to nothing about Jimbo, but it seems quite likely that he is intelligent enough to understand that becoming a billionaire would do nothing to make his life better than it is now.

You are probably thinking of UBTI (unrelated business taxable income), which permits non-profits to do things also done by for-profits (like run hospital gift shops, parking garages, etc) that they normally couldn't do because it isn't allowed under the non-profit laws. But, they still need to file a special tax form and pay a tax on those activities. Also, if their UBI activities become too large a part of their operation, they can lose their tax status. Is that what you mean?

[Kwork]

Is it fair to say that Jimbo possibly really believes in Wikipedia's "mission"? Supposedly I heard that Wikipedia could rake in upwards of 500 million if it started running ads, so what motives would he have not to make it commercial. What's your own theory on why Wikipedia continues to remain ad-free.

As I understand it, non-profit is a tax option, with some organizational requirements. It does not mean the organization does not make a profit, just that the profits have to go back to something related to the organization's mission, instead of to share holders. Organization employees can make very good salaries, and they put that money into their own bank accounts. It is also allowed to form a separate section of the organization that is for profit, so that option is not lost.

If Jimbo did not need investor money, setting things up as a non-profit so that contributors could take the tax write off for giving their money to a non-profit WP might have been a rational financial decision. I assume he draws a decent enough salary, as the head of the organization, to allowing him to lead a comfortable life.

I know next to nothing about Jimbo, but it seems quite likely that he is intelligent enough to understand that becoming a billionaire would do nothing to make his life better than it is now.

You are probably thinking of UBTI (unrelated business taxable income), which permits non-profits to do things also done by for-profits (like run hospital gift shops, parking garages, etc) that they normally couldn't do because it isn't allowed under the non-profit laws. But, they still need to file a special tax form and pay a tax on those activities. Also, if their UBI activities become too large a part of their operation, they can lose their tax status. Is that what you mean?

NB: What I know about this is from a workshop given in NYC by Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts about fifteen years ago. Laws could have changed some in that time, and since my notes from it are in a box 3000 miles from here I am relying on my memory.

Non-profit organization, and charitable organization, are not necessarily the same thing, although WP seems to be both. But even a single individual who has income that is non-employee compensation can set that up a non-profit. It is also possible to get an organization that already has non-profit status to act as your umbrella organization. None of that would make you a charitable organization allowing tax exempt donations.

It is my understanding that a non-profit charitable organization can set up a branch that is for profit, and I do not think that would necessarily effect their tax exempt status as long as the income and taxes of the for profit section is kept separate.