Talk:Wikimedia UK/Company name

I would support Open Content Organisation. It is very descriptive, does not limit ourselves to wikis and, while a similar organisation may be set up in the future, I would have to wonder why the need for a second organisation is needed. To me, this would imply that we would not be doing our job in supporting all forms of Open Content correctly. Regardless it is relatively easy to change company names if neccesary (I used to work for a company that actually swapped its name with another company in the same group). If we did get this name I would suggest someone move to secure opencontent.org.uk ASAP though. MrWeeble 12:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd go for Wiki Information Resources. though please take my views with the appropriate weight, given this is the first comment I've made related to Wikimedia UK anywhere ;-) The Land 19:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the individual names are probably best in the comments section about that name on the content page. I've copied the two comments above there. Thryduulf 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in the content page[edit]

The content page contains some errors. Principally:

(1) We can use the word "limited" at the end of the company name, if we want. However, my understanding is that we agreed not to use the word "limited".
(2) We can use "UK", "United Kingdom", etc as long as we get permission from the Home Office to do so. In practice, if we are just using it as a suffix, we'd write to Companies House at the time of formation, and there should be no problem in having it. That said, it's easier to avoid it unless we're really keen on having it. Note, we'll also need permission to use the business name "Wikimedia UK" anyway.
(3) No-one's provided a reference as to why "Educational" would be a problem. It's not a restricted word, and, if we are to fall under a head of charity, the "advancement of education" is the only one we're likely to come under. I wonder if people are confusing this with an Educational Trust (eg a private school)? This is important. I'd like to know where the idea that there might be a problem came from.

Jguk 13:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re the above points:

(1) I must have misunderstood what was said about this at the meeting, I thought somebody said that there were restrictions on the use of "limited", and that registering as "Foo Ltd" would make us "Foo Ltd Ltd"? If I'm wrong, change the page.
(2) Again I think I misunderstood this, please reword/remove/move to an apropriate place.
(3) Although we would be a charity dealing with the advancement of education, providing for the education of others is not our primary goal and so we would not be an "Educational charity". Private schools are educational charities, as are the Pre-school Learning Alliance, (some?) universities, etc. the main purpose of all of them is providing education. The reason I dislike having "educational" in the name is the distinct possibility that this will cause us to be registered as an "ecucational chartity" rather than the type of charity we want to be (the Charities Commission is staffed in part by casuals, if they are of the same standard as the casuals Defra employ then we need to avoid as much potential confusion as we can). This could cause legal problems down the line.

Thryduulf 15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are all "educational charities" private schools? LoopZilla 13:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thryduulf 17:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Domains[edit]

Is it necessary to have domains (eg. wikieducationalresources.org) available when we're probably going to be using wikimediauk.org? Why the need for a separate domain? Cormaggio ^@ 22:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary, but it wouldn't harm. If we're paying a few quid a year to get a domain like that redirect to wikimedia.org.uk or whatever then if someone is looking to set up another organisation and finds that name taken its cheaper for all invovled then only finding out when the bods registering the name find us. Also, if we piss anyone off (and I hope we don't) its a domain that they can't use to slate us. The more likely our name is to be wanted by someone else the better protected we are, and there is the (albeit very remote) possibility that someone may come along and want to pay us megabucks for it. Thryduulf 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Charities[edit]

I found some examples. Number and name of charity: the objects in brackets. I have chosen those with a very succinct set of objects.

529481 APPLETREEWICK EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (INCOME TO BE APPLIED TOWARDS THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION)
529659 ATKINSON'S EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (AWARDING SCHOLARSHIPS AND IN PROMOTING THE EDUCATION INCLUDING SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL TRAINING OF BOYS AND GIRLS OF THE POORER CLASSES IN CAMBLESFORTH)
311566 BEARD'S EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOLS, SO LONG AS THEY ARE MAINLY SUPPORTED BY VOLUNTARY SUBSCRIPTIONS)
507038 EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION OF NOTT AND PERROTT (THE TRUSTEES SHALL APPLY THE INCOME IN PROMOTING THE EDUCATION INCLUDING SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL TRAINING OF PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT ATTAINED THE AGE OF 25 YEARS AND WHO OR WHOSE PARENTS ARE RESIDENT IN THE PARISH OF WELLINGTON)
1101750 EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AGENCY FOR AFRICA (THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION OF CHILDREN IN GHANA, AFRICA BY THE PROVISION OF EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO COMPUTERS)

These are clearly not "schools". LoopZilla 13:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the fifth example isn't two million miles away from what we're doing - advancing education by the provision of educational material. Thanks Gordon, Jguk 19:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]