Talk:Charity status

Few overall comments:

• I suggest the detail of the legal arguments are moved to an enclosure, with a brief one page covering letter.
• The covering letter should also mention:
  • The conversation I had with HMRC regarding referring the case to the Charity Commission
  • Mention that we are not aware of any other UK charity that does similar things hence why it's appropriate to refer to CC
  • We should go into more detail about exactly what we do - mention that our activities are "analogous" (the word they use) to museums, libraries and art galleries which are already recognised as charitable; explain exactly why (e.g.: "like museums, we don't just collate information, we organise it and make it accessible; like museums, we are used by academics and laymen as a way of obtaining structured learning").
  • Use as many "buzzwords" as possible - the exact words and phrases that the CC and/or legislation or case histories use.
• The legal enclosure should:
  • move away from replying to HMRC's specific arguments - as they will not be considering the response - to a more positive statement of our case
  • be more comprehensive - currently it reads like it could be selectively quoting those cases that support our argument. I've no doubt the CC will be doing their own research too!
  • set out as a more logical argument

More specific proposals to come later!

AndrewRT 19:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How are Wikimedia projects used for structured learning?

Examples (please add):

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/2008-09_Wikipedia_for_Schools_goes_online http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_team_behind_the_2,000th_featured_Wikipedia_article

AndrewRT 20:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)