Jump to content

Talk:Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:281:8100:ba6c:a8e3:1b0f:4720:9e49 (talk) at 01:33, 21 January 2017 (→‎Non-profit status). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Categories

I have moved this article from Category:Internet and Category:Video games to Category:Internet culture and Category:Video game culture. It is possible that this page should be moved from there into one of the sub-categories (e.g. Category:Internet activism, Category:Cybercrime and Category:Gender and video games), but I will leave this to a more knowledgeable editor to carry out. Also consider placing the tags Template:Videogame-culture-stub and Template:Internet-stub into the article.

Communal t (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In considering categories, I not sure on including this under Wikiproject Feminism or adding the Feminism portal to the page. The subject itself does not appear related to feminism or gender inequality. If there are no objections, I suggest that we remove these. Opinions from other editors, especially those knowledgeable on the subject are appreciated; as is expansion of the article from the current stub. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection & review, I have similar concerns w.r.t. including WikiProject Video Games, the Video Games portal and Category:Video game culture. The article does not document any direct connection, and the organisation itself appears to be concerned with a different scope; online & internet abuse & harassment. As above, if there are no policy or source based objections, I will remove these. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organization or blog?

From the website: "The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative (OAPI) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing and mitigating online abuse" [1]. Is there any reason to regard this as a blog instead of an organization, given that they describe themselves as the latter? - Bilby (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the lede to read organization. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it an organization? They don't seem to exist as anything but the blog site, Harper's outright said she's not getting setup as a non-profit organization. The website hasn't been updated in a long time, Harper has made more recent statements conflicting with it on her verified Twitter account. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on their description, OAPI is an organization that has a website. The article is not about the website, but is about the organization and their activities. So it seems best to just describe OAPI as an organization and move forward from there. - Bilby (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An examination of independent sources might be prudent/fruitful/advisable/dispositive? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the independent sources used as references, I inuit - WSJ: paywalled; Guardian: (weakly) "Initiative"?; USA Today: "a coalition of advocates for civil rights, free speech and Internet privacy"; Clubic: "groupe" (en: group); Guardian: (weakly) "Network"? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Others:
  • "Her new organization, the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative, seeks to reduce online abuse through analysis, tools, and cooperative efforts." [2]
  • "Other organizations are taking a direct approach to attempting to fight cybersexism and and other forms of online harassment and violence. The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative (OAPI) ..." [3]
  • "Harper's organization [OAPI] has joined other advocacy organizations ... " [4]
  • "This is the kind of work done by organizations like the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative and Digital Sistas." [5]
This seems a bit odd. We're writing about an organization that has a website, but most of their activities were unrelated to the website. I'm not sure where this insistence is coming from. - Bilby (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For mine, "website" or "blog" is not supportable given an absence of reliable sourcing. Not necessarily convinced of the independence of the "opensource" (interview) or "Salon" (Chu->CON->Harper?) sources; but the other two do point towards "organisation". (Would also be interested in mining these for possible expansion of the article). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. OAPI is an "organization" because that's the term used by reliable third-party sources, as well as OAPI itself. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit status

Some editors have been attempting to remove claims that OAPI is "non-profit" on the basis that it is not yet registered as a 501(c)(3) organization, or has delayed or abandoned plans to do so. This reasoning is fallacious; 501(c)(3) registration is required only to obtain tax exemptions in the United States. American non-profit organizations are under no obligation to register, and I gather that many smaller ones (possibly including OAPI) choose not to when they deem the administrative overhead to outweigh the potential tax benefits. Per MOS:IDENTITY, we should refer to the organization using whatever terms reliable sources use, or in the absence of a consensus among reliable sources, the terms used by OAPI itself (provided they're not unduly self-serving, though "non-profit" hardly falls into this category). In any event, we should be wary of sourcing claims about this matter to social media posts made by anyone associated with OAPI unless it is clear that they are actually speaking ex cathedra. That is, statements made through official channels (such as the group's website) should be preferred over those made through unofficial ones. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, non-profit entities are organized under state law. If you do not form a legal entity, there is no "nonprofit". If incorporated in California, OAPI would be required to register as a California nonprofit corporation before being considered a "nonprofit", and would be required to include the following in their articles of incorporation: "This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for (public or charitable [insert one or both]) purposes."
You cannot simply claim to be a nonprofit. If OAPI is a registered nonprofit entity, it must have an indicating designator in the full corporation name; I can find none. If OAPI is a registered nonprofit entity, there must exist a state registration for the entity. Again, I can find none.
The burden of proof is on those making the claim, and there is no valid sourcing to support the claim that OAPI is a nonprofit entity. 2601:281:8100:BA6C:A8E3:1B0F:4720:9E49 (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Online_Abuse_Prevention_Initiative&oldid=761124212"