-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Thought I might link the latest Orlowski 'article'. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/ "Wiki-fiddling isn't a charitable activity, according to the UK tax man. Revenue and Customs is denying tax privileges that go with charity status to Wikimedia UK, or Wiki UK Limited, as it's officially registered." Any article that start with an insult, you know it's going to be good! (Also, some carelessness - is the capitalization really so hard to get right?) Worth noting also is the quiet little redefinition - something isn't charitable activity unless it can get tax breaks. 'Wikimedia requested that because it is "disseminating knowledge", the operating company should receive charitable tax perks, stating its objective is to "aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content... [blah blah]"' Scare quotes, belittling phrases ('charitable tax perks'? seriously); the second quote is neutral, but one could be forgiven for not even noticing that due to the insert of 'blah blah'. A more charitable person would understand that all those terms are very specific and there for a reason. Of course, a more charitable person would be writhing in utter shame that they are Orlowski. "Alas, the tax man didn't agree that merely curating and publishing the world's most intensely-edited [citation needed] compendium of Lightsaber combat and female pornographic film actors doesn't count as education." Not particularly stylish a variant of this hoary old criticism; and not even correct. We amputated our lightsaber coverage with a chainsaw and shot the bloody stumps over to Wookieepedia a long time ago. (Although I'll admit to not knowing how meritorious our porn coverage is.) '"The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education and has not been accepted as such in law... If the object [should] be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education," Customs responded in declining the request. Harsh, or what?' Perhaps. But then, as an American unacquainted with British charity laws, this sounds to me like 'we've never supported encyclopedias, and we have no mandate to start now'; which while arguably unfair and silly isn't particularly harsh. 'Just doing my job, ma'am.' "The problem could be solved if, as everyone expects, Wikipedia becomes a commercial operation that doesn't need charitable status. Bono-backed VC company Elevation Partners has chucked $1.35m at Wikipedia, and the Mozilla Foundation provides a workable legal precedent: a non-profit with a commercial wing. License changes are currently being mooted." This is actually my favorite paragraph in the entire piece. There's so much to like about it! There's a subtle touch in saying 'Bono-backed' - - it's utterly irrelevant, of course, but it immediately brings associations of Hollywood and sneering liberals and ineffective social policies and aid expenditures and staleness. There's a foisting of views; 'everyone expects' Wikipedia to become a commercial operation? Indeed. And then there's that last line. Again we have an exquisite word choice. The license changes could be 'voted upon', or less informatively, 'discussed' or 'considered'. But instead we have 'mooted', with its connotations of snootyness and academia. Not to mention that we are clearly led to believe the license changes will facilitate such conversion, by sheer juxtaposition if nothing else. (Although I have been educated stupid by my readings of the GFDL and CC licenses, and so cannot appreciate just how CC-BY-SA will enable the enrichment of Elevation Partners, that they may continue to light their cigars with Benjamin in the manner to which they have accustomed themselves.) "But for now, the fiddlers could find ways of making the operation look more edukashnul and that. We suggest Wikia UK establish a British School of Fiddling, in which the public can be tutored in the labyrinthine layers of bureaucracy required to have their edits to "the Encyclopedia anybody can edit" rejected." And a final salvo. I take off some points here for invoking fiddling twice; it's not stylish, as it was already used in the lead. Three times in an article is just tedious. 'edukashnul' gets some points for having no apparent target - at least, I can't figure out who the spleen is directed at. The government? The chapter? The Foundation? Otherwise, good rhetoric in the figure of a School of Fiddling. A jolly enjoyable read! My day would surely have been less enjoyable without Orlowski's latest. With enemies like these, who needs friends? - -- gwern