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)