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)

It's possibly the _unstructured_, life-long learning aspect that is the most important - having quick access to easily look something up and learn about it, at least in technology-rich countries such as the UK... Mike Peel 22:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Structured Learning" is the phrase used by the charity commission in connection with libraries - it's important we demonstrate that wikipedia can be used as a resource for structured learning in order to tick their box. AndrewRT 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

School and university projects incorporating Wikipedia editing are summarized at wikipedia:Wikipedia:Schools and universities project and wikipedia:Wikipedia:School and university projects/Past_projects. The concept dates back to 2003; it's mostly focused in the US, but there have been lots of projects around the world. I can't find any in the UK, though. Mike Peel 10:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reworded

Dear Mr ......,

Re: Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)

Your ref: [insert]

I refer to your letter dated 17 April 2009 refusing our application to be recognised by you for tax purposes as a charity and to our telephone call on 1 May, during which we discussed the legal situation regarding the “advancement of education” and the ways we can take our case forward.

The owners of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, are recognised as a charity under the law of Florida. Several of our sister “chapters” - including Wikimedia Hong Kong, Wikimedia Germany, Wikimedia Sweden and Wikimedia CH - are also recognised in their jurisdictions as charities. We continue to believe that our activities and our Objects are similarly charitable and in our case constitute the charitable advancement of education. However, we accept that we are not aware of any existing English charities whose activities are similar to us, and understand your reluctance to grant tax benefits in the absence of these. Therefore, we would like to ask you to refer our case to the Charity Commission, using the mechanism we discussed on the phone, and ask their view on whether out activities are charitable or not.

We have set out in our previous letters an outline of our activities and the reasons why we think we are charitable. The charitable object of the “Advancement of Education” is already accepted for libraries, museums and art galleries. We consider that our activities are analogous to these organisations, albeit in a different technological context.

[the following argument is key and needs extending, having read the relevant guidance]

Like museums, our projects are not an indiscriminate collection of facts: our projects accept only articles that are considered notable, newsworthy or educational. Like art galleries, our projects are structured in a way that facilitates learning by users. And like museums, our projects are used as a resource for structured learning.

We enclose two attachments in support of our case:

   *

     Examples of how the resources that we promote, including the Wikipedia website, are used in structured learning.
   *

     A legal analysis comparing our activities to the relevant case law

Thank you once again for the assistance you have given and we look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Turvey

Secretary, Wikimedia UK

Wikimedia UK blah blah blah

Appendix I – Wikimedia as a resource for structured learning

When Wikipedia was founded, the aim was explicitly focused not on creating knowledge in isolation, but in making it available to everyone throughout the world as an educational resource. The mission statement was:

“Imagine a world where the entire sum of human knowledge was available to all”

Despite Wikipedia's caricature as just a collection of useless star trek trivia, the resource is used around the world as a valuable teaching tool. These are some examples:

[WE NEED TO DO SOME “REPUTATIONAL PROMOTION” WORK HERE TO DISPEL THE IDEA THAT WIKIPEDIA IS JUST A BUNCH OF COLLEGE STUDENTS JOKING AROUND.]

[I'd say we need to cite about five different examples]

Wikipedia for Schools

The “Wikipedia for Schools” project is run by the English children's charity “SOS Children's Villages”. They run a large number of extended residential homes and schools for orphaned children, predominantly in the developing world. Wikipedia for Schools selects content from Wikipedia, filters it to be child-friendly, and burns it onto CDs. These are then sent to schools throughout the world to be used by primary and secondary school teachers in their classes.

More details about the wikipedia for schools project can be found at their website, http://schools-wikipedia.org

University lectures

Prof. Jon Beasley-Murray is a creative writing lecturer at the University of British Columbia in Canada. He has recently extended his course ... Part of his course is now ....

More information: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_team_behind_the_2,000th_featured_Wikipedia_article

Wikipedia as a Research tool

Studies have shown that Wikipedia is regularly used as a research tool by under-graduates when they want to get a basic understanding of a new subject [extend and cite sources; used by professionals?; wasn't there an article about using Wikipedia to get medical advice?]

Academic Citations

[can we dig out any good academic citations?? Thinking about “Read more about this at...” ]

Wikiversity or Wikibooks

[can we get any examples of these actually being used in the educational context?]

Endangered language learning/preservation

[any examples??]

Appendix II: Legal Analysis regarding the “Advancement of Education” as applied to the Wikimedia Foundation projects

The charitable head of “advancement of education” can cover “almost any form of worthwhile instruction or cultural advancement”: Hanbury and Martin, Modern Equity, 16th ed, p404. It will be noted that the following activities have been held to be charitable under the head of “advancement of education”:

   *

     The production of a dictionary: Re Stanford [1924] 1 Ch 73 (see also [1971] Ch 626, 630);
   *

     The publication of Law Reports: Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v AG [1972] Ch 73, Court of Appeal;
   *

     The establishment and maintenance of museums: British Museum Trustees v White (1826) 2 Sm & St 595; Re Pinion [1965] Ch 85

The Charity Commission has also recognised libraries and art galleries as charitable.

Re Shaw

In the case of Re Shaw's WT [1957] 1 WLR 729, Harman J's held that “... if the object be merely the increase of knowledge, that is not in itself a charitable object unless it be combined with teaching or education”. I note, first of all, that the requirement of “teaching or education” is assumed to be an additional requirement only where the primary object is the conduct of original research (“the mere increase of knowledge”) as in the case of Re Shaw rather than the dissemination of existing knowledge and research. The main project that we support, Wikipedia, is exclusively concerned with the public dissemination of existing knowledge, rather than with the conduct of original research

[note: not all Wikimedia projects ban original research – Wikinews allows first hand reporting]

However, and in any event, in Re Hopkins [1965] Ch 669, Wilberforce J held:

“I think, therefore, that the word "education" as used by Harman J. In re Shaw, decd.; Public Trustee v. Day must be used in a wide sense, certainly extending beyond teaching, and that the requirement is that, in order to be charitable, research must either be of educational value to the researcher or must be so directed as to lead to something which will pass into the store of educational material, or so as to improve the sum of communicable knowledge in an area which education may cover...”

It is therefore not correct as a matter of law to say that only direct “teaching” or instruction will be covered under the head of education. This was disapproved in Re Hopkins. Instead, in order to be charitable, the research must lead to something that will pass into the store of educational material or improve the sum of communicable knowledge. Returning to Re Hopkins, the decision in Re Shaw that a (highly unusual) trust to 'research the advantages' of a phonetic alphabet was not charitable, was seen as having been made on the grounds that such an object would not lead to increase “the sum of communicable knowledge”, presumably because there would not be any real public or scholarly interest in the outcome of such a project.

For those reasons, the decision in Re Shaw, which concerned a highly unusual trust, has very little relevance to our company's objects and hence to its application for charitable status. Indeed, nothing in that decision serves to indicate that the publication of a widely disseminated online encyclopaedia would not constitute a charitable “advancement of education”.

Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales

The decision in Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v AG [1972] Ch 73 would be applied in this situation. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the publication of the Law Reports series was within the charitable head of “advancement of education”. By analogy, an online facility for the collection and dissemination of knowledge and other “educational, cultural and historic content” would be taken to fall within this head of charity.

In the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting case, Sachs LJ said:

“It would be odd indeed and contrary to the trend of judicial decisions if the institution and maintenance of a library for the study of a learned subject or of something rightly called a science did not at least prima facie fall within the phrase "advancement of education."

The justification for treating the publication of a free, online encyclopaedia, as within the rubric of “advancement of education” is even stronger, because the particular issue in the Incorporated Council case, of whether a resource used by professionals for the advancement of their careers could be said to be within the realm of “advancement of education”, does not arise in the case of the Wikipedia website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation because they are freely available.

You will note, finally, that in Re Stanford [1924] 1 Ch 73, it was assumed by all parties that a gift for the completion and publication of a dictionary was charitable. This case was cited at first instance in the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting case: [1971] Ch 626 at 630. This is a very close analogy to the objects of our company.

nature study

remember to bring this [1] in to add to credibility AndrewRT 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Other chapters

mention that wm-de etc have done, also wmf. AndrewRT 20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this page protected? --Tango 14:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. It'll need to be protected after submission, but before it should be fine unprotected. As such, I've just unprotected it... Mike Peel 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v Attorney-General

Nice. ICLR v AG [1972] Ch 73 was cited. – Kaihsu 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)