<story><title>RFC: Blanking all Wikipedia as SOPA protest</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>snowwrestler</author><text>As a 501(c)3, the Wikimedia Foundation is legally required to stay out of politics, and has limits on how it can lobby Congress on specific pieces of legislation. This is why, for example, the Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3.&lt;p&gt;Changing Wikipedia, and tying it to a specific bill like SOPA, would likely tread very closely to that line, or over it. That really WOULD threaten the future of Wikipedia as it would face legal sanctions, or be forced to give up its 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations would no longer be tax-deductible.</text></item><item><author>bittermang</author><text>There seems to be a lot of sentiment that Wikipedia should stay out of politics. This is not a maintainable stance. In the vein of the oft quoted &quot;First they came...&quot; (which has it&apos;s own wiki page, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6&lt;/a&gt;), sites like Wikipedia cannot ignore a law like SOPA and have to make their position heard. Wikipedia is not sticking their nose where it doesn&apos;t belong, politics have come to them pitchforks and torches in hand.&lt;p&gt;Do it. Paint it black.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rosser</author><text>IANAL (particularly a tax attorney), so no-one — least of all the Wikimedia Foundation — should be taking my advice on this, but it was my understanding that the rules surrounding 501(c)(3) organizations and political action had more to do with endorsing for or against &lt;i&gt;candidates&lt;/i&gt; than taking overt positions on specific issues.&lt;p&gt;For example, from a 2007 IRS ruling on the subject: &quot;Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.  However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention.&quot; [1]&lt;p&gt;Further details in the referenced ruling suggest that if WM were to make reference to specific legislators and their respective positions, for or against SOPA, and thus even &lt;i&gt;implying&lt;/i&gt; that WM wanted you to vote one way or another for those candidates, they&apos;d have crossed the line.&lt;p&gt;Simply saying, &quot;We don&apos;t like SOPA. Here&apos;s why it&apos;s the worst bill since the Let&apos;s All Grind Up Babies For Pet Food Act of 1887...&quot; OTOH, seems to be kosher, per my reading on the subject.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;(EDIT: clarification.)</text></comment>
<story><title>RFC: Blanking all Wikipedia as SOPA protest</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>snowwrestler</author><text>As a 501(c)3, the Wikimedia Foundation is legally required to stay out of politics, and has limits on how it can lobby Congress on specific pieces of legislation. This is why, for example, the Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3.&lt;p&gt;Changing Wikipedia, and tying it to a specific bill like SOPA, would likely tread very closely to that line, or over it. That really WOULD threaten the future of Wikipedia as it would face legal sanctions, or be forced to give up its 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations would no longer be tax-deductible.</text></item><item><author>bittermang</author><text>There seems to be a lot of sentiment that Wikipedia should stay out of politics. This is not a maintainable stance. In the vein of the oft quoted &quot;First they came...&quot; (which has it&apos;s own wiki page, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6&lt;/a&gt;), sites like Wikipedia cannot ignore a law like SOPA and have to make their position heard. Wikipedia is not sticking their nose where it doesn&apos;t belong, politics have come to them pitchforks and torches in hand.&lt;p&gt;Do it. Paint it black.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>philipn</author><text>501(c)3 organizations can engage in lobbying as long as it does not constitute a substancial portion of the organization&apos;s activity.  501(c)3 organizations have an absolute ban on lobbying for candidates for public office, however.&lt;p&gt;This would not threaten Wikipedia&apos;s tax-exempt status.</text></comment>