>> And, in fact, wikimediafoundation.org says "nonprofit charitable >> organization". I don't know why people generally say "non-profit" >> instead of "charity", then - charity would be more precise and would >> probably be better perceived. > > I'm afraid I disagree with you here. > Non-profit vs for-profit is a distinction in taxation and precise. > Charity vs not being charity may 1) no legal distinction in some cases > and 2) Wikimedia Foundation could be no charity in some definition of > non-US jurisdiction (and at worse it may be taken as deceitful). > > I am for adding "charitable" etc. but against replacing "charity" etc. > with "non-profit".
I would say "being charitable" and "being a charity" mean the same thing (in reference to an organisation). Under the UK definitions (I expect other jurisdictions are similar), a charity is a non-profit whose objects and activities fit the definition of charitable objects and activities (that definition may vary from place to place). Since the WMF is described as a charitable organisation on the official webpage, I assume it is correct to call it such, so "charity" is a more precise term than "non-profit". I don't think there is a jurisdictional problem - as long as it is a charity in its own jurisdiction, it should be fine to call it a charity on its own webpages. The issue of varying cultural perceptions of the term "charity" (or literal translations) is a more serious one - we should give translators sufficient leeway to deal with such localisation issues. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
