Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
On 04/26/11 7:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Foundation is not a legal term >> "Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted >> with "public charity". >> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0509000-.html >> http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=137894,00.html > Yeh, I think we'd have to look up more than that to actually clarify all > this. Bottom line: the terms are ambiguous except so far as they are > legally defined in one context or another. Although the NYT's journalist > did have a point. The Ford or Rockefeller Foundations were funded; > Wikimedia Foundation is not. I mostly agree with the NYT article except at the end where it defines a charity on the basis of where it gets its money. Being a charity really depends on what it does with its money. It depends on the common law concept of charitable purposes and the 1601 Statue of Elizabeth. Sure enough Wikmedia employs a misnomer when it calls itself a Foundation. Whether an entity is "public" or "private" has more to do with its funding sources. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> Foundation is not a legal term > > "Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted > with "public charity". > > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0509000-.html > http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=137894,00.html > Yeh, I think we'd have to look up more than that to actually clarify all this. Bottom line: the terms are ambiguous except so far as they are legally defined in one context or another. Although the NYT's journalist did have a point. The Ford or Rockefeller Foundations were funded; Wikimedia Foundation is not. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > Foundation is not a legal term "Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted with "public charity". http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0509000-.html http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=137894,00.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
Fred Bauder, 26/04/2011 21:08: >> MZMcBride, 26/04/2011 21:22: >>> From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word >>> "foundation" >>> versus the use of the word "charity": >> >> Something to consider is that the WMF has a global audience. In Italian, >> for instance, a translation for "charity" doesn't even exist: all >> foundations are non-profit, have tax exemption etc.; there's no >> distinction in Italy between "public" and "charitable" foundation. >> By the way, English Wikipedia articles on the topic are very confusing. > > Actually, a trust or a corporation funded by a trust may not qualify as > non-profit; for a variety of reasons. Where? Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
> MZMcBride, 26/04/2011 21:22: >> From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word >> "foundation" >> versus the use of the word "charity": > > Something to consider is that the WMF has a global audience. In Italian, > for instance, a translation for "charity" doesn't even exist: all > foundations are non-profit, have tax exemption etc.; there's no > distinction in Italy between "public" and "charitable" foundation. > By the way, English Wikipedia articles on the topic are very confusing. > > Nemo Actually, a trust or a corporation funded by a trust may not qualify as non-profit; for a variety of reasons. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
>>From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation" > versus the use of the word "charity": > >> Some charities, however, have the word "Foundation" in their official >> names. Examples of these are the Yele Haiti Foundation, the New York >> Foundation for the Arts, the William J. Clinton Foundation and the >> Wikimedia Foundation. Despite their names, all of them are charities; >> they rely on donations from others to sustain themselves and the >> programs >> and services they offer. On second reference, any one of them should be >> referred to as a "charity," not a "foundation." > > Source: http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/phrases-gone-astray-2/ > > It appears that nobody appears to actually follow this rule (including > the > "New York Times"), but I find the nuance interesting. I imagine one would > perform better than the other during fundraising; perhaps there's hard > data > on that. > > MZMcBride There isn't any "rule" more a suggested guideline with respect to "On second reference". Foundation is not a legal term; a charitable exemption could be granted to either a trust or a corporation. If it is "founded" a corporation might be funded by a trust established by the founder. However; there a sense in which Jimmy Wales founded and funded the Wikimedia Foundation, but not with vast funds. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
MZMcBride, 26/04/2011 21:22: > From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation" > versus the use of the word "charity": Something to consider is that the WMF has a global audience. In Italian, for instance, a translation for "charity" doesn't even exist: all foundations are non-profit, have tax exemption etc.; there's no distinction in Italy between "public" and "charitable" foundation. By the way, English Wikipedia articles on the topic are very confusing. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation" > versus the use of the word "charity": > Is the WMF only a charitable organization? I think WMF is much more than that. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foundation http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charity It's not exactly the same to me. -- Fajro Also, I dislike the concept of charity and agree with the views of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
On 26 April 2011 20:22, MZMcBride wrote: > It appears that nobody appears to actually follow this rule (including the > "New York Times"), but I find the nuance interesting. I imagine one would > perform better than the other during fundraising; perhaps there's hard data > on that. This varies between local dialects of English. The word "charity" is much more freely applied to anything tax-deductible in the UK than it is in Australia or (as far as I can tell) the US, for example. I wouldn't sweat it hugely. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity
>From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation" versus the use of the word "charity": > Some charities, however, have the word "Foundation" in their official > names. Examples of these are the Yele Haiti Foundation, the New York > Foundation for the Arts, the William J. Clinton Foundation and the > Wikimedia Foundation. Despite their names, all of them are charities; > they rely on donations from others to sustain themselves and the programs > and services they offer. On second reference, any one of them should be > referred to as a "charity," not a "foundation." Source: http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/phrases-gone-astray-2/ It appears that nobody appears to actually follow this rule (including the "New York Times"), but I find the nuance interesting. I imagine one would perform better than the other during fundraising; perhaps there's hard data on that. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
