Forum:Statement of Purpose

< Index | Site-related discussion

Help me craft a statement of purpose for RationalWiki. We have our mission statement, but I want to craft it into a paragraph form for inclusion in draft of potential by-laws. How would you describe RationalWiki's purpose? tmtoulouse 22:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How's about this one: "RationalWiki is a website where we analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, analyze and refute crank ideas, and explore of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. While we are not a general encyclopedia, and do have an established point of view our articles are written from, we welcome contributors of all sorts, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 23:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You want to make it as absolutely broad as possible, but still clearly 501(c)3-suitable. Educational on a broad and colloquial level blah blah something - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And something about me. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye, it does need to be a lot more broad than our mission statement. Thinking along the lines of:

"The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote science, critical thinking and political dialog on the internet through the development of network infrastructure, creation and integration of community focused internet applications, and the empowerment of a diverse global community of rational thinkers."

Etc. etc. tmtoulouse 00:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of including "to seek out new life and new civilizations" in there somewhere? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're on the right lines. Leave out "internet" for example, though. Worth asking other sceptical organisations for ideas? i.e., the broadest thing that passes 501(c)3 muster - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that "power for the objective of power" should be added, Weasel. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So what David is saying is, it "may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

This is the difference between Greenpeace, Inc. and the Greenpeace Fund, for example, and how they got into trouble. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to incorporate some of the more serious feedback. This is corporate jargon people, but it is something we need to at least take mildly seriously. tmtoulouse 01:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you need to include information about what RW is not? I.e., "not an encyclopaedic project" not bound to propose an unbiased conclusion etc. etc. Mostly for clarification purposes. The jargon you have so far seems okay to me. ^sshole 08:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You really don't want to do that for the parent foundation - what you're talking about is at the project level. Perhaps one day we will want to write an encyclopedia, etc. This is what I mean by making the SoP as open-ended as you can get away with - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with keeping it as broad as possible. That said, how about paring down what Trent wrote to "The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote science, critical thinking and political dialog"? ħuman 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe...but that feels a bit like a politician saying they are for "apple pie, babies, and picnics" so what? tmtoulouse 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) you want something about that universal (2) surely you know how controversial science and critical thinking are! - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second

I noticed Trent said the RationalWiki Foundation. I am fairly certain that under US law a foundation has to give money away. Who are we planning on giving money to? - π 01:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Foundation can be applied to any non-profit corporation. tmtoulouse 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A Foundation can be for educational purposes and the revenue in generates can be used for operating expenses. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Me. Trent will give the [excess] money to me. ħuman 08:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We should buy guns - lots of guns. The statement at the moment looks pretty good. One thing missing though is the snark. One reason I moved to RWland was because people were not taking themselves too seriously, and there's room for jokes so long as they don't detract too much from the message. The social side is just as important as the information we have here. I'm not sure though how to write that without it sounding like some cheesy cult or one of those pain in the arse social networks that people sign up for in order to find out that some stranger has bought a new pair of shoes. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 09:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am all for snark, but snark in legal documents makes me wary. tmtoulouse 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

True. I wasn't paying full attention to the context. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 00:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Iterations of the SOP

Okay I will keep iterating the SOP draft based on feedback and keep it here for easy of reference:

• "The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote science, critical thinking and political dialog through the development of network infrastructure, creation and integration of community focused applications, and the empowerment of a diverse global community of rational thinkers."

• "The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote science, critical thinking and rational political dialog. The Foundation seeks to empower the global community of rational thinkers by developing and promoting free educational and collaborative content, creation and integration of community focused software, and the establishment and maintenance of the infrastructure necessary to disseminate the community's work to the world."

• promote science, critical thinking, public interest dialog and education...
• empower

I assume this means you don't like the word empower, but just removing it doesn't help...what should it be instead? tmtoulouse 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'Advance'? EddyP (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote science, critical thinking, public interest dialog and education. The Foundation seeks to connect and advance the global community of rational thinkers by developing and promoting free educational and collaborative content, creation and integration of community focused software, and the establishment and maintenance of the infrastructure necessary to disseminate the community's work to the worlds."

I don't think we should limit ourselves to Earth. ħuman 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, and we can include seeking out new intelligent life and 500 years from now the RWF will be the leader in interstellar travel. tmtoulouse 20:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't want to prevent, say, an astronaut on the Moon from helping out, would we? Let alone BEMs on Alpha Centauri IV! ħuman 21:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html

• ""The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote science, critical thinking, public interest dialog and education."

• The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote science, critical thinking and public interest dialog in a [free and open forum/environment]. The main focus of the Foundation is to connect and advace the global community of rational thinkers by the [use of its resources, infrastructure and collected knowledge base]. The Foundation seeks to develop and promote free educational and collaborative content, create community focused software, and establish and maintain the infrastructure necessary to disseminate the community's work to the world."

While jargon and BS is good, I think this is a bit of what MS Word would call "long sentence". I've also expanded a point or two but am unsure about it - hence the [] around some of the additions. ^sshole 22:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could be "to promote and defend science, critical thinking" etc. Just to subtly get across the point that the site is concerned with upholding legitimate science and refuting pseudoscience (see my comments in the section below), without belabouring the point. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Strike the word "free," it's not needed. In the long run you have to beg for funds and explain it's not really free, etc etc. Best to be upfront, the word is not needed. This is from a marketing perspective. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's free, and asking for donations does not make it non-free. -- Nx / talk 02:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The classic bait n' switch, just like PBS. Good luck. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow but you are twisted. There is nothing 'bait and switch' about RW - or PBS for that matter. Both provide free services but both are radically underfunded and ask - beg if you like - from those who feel that they would like to repay something so that they might continue to provide free services. With RW it's not even a hard sell. Bob Soles (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that was meant as "free" as in "freedom of speech"... ^sshole 10:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Or "free" as in "there is no monthly fee, any donations are voluntary and optional". If you don't pay, you can still use the site as much as someone who does pay, there aren't special perks. --Kels (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote and defend science, critical thinking and public interest dialog in a free and open forum. The Foundation seeks to develop and publicize free educational and collaborative content, create community focused software, and to connect and advance the global community of rational thinkers."

Tried to trim out some excess, and incorporate other peoples recommendations for this iteration. tmtoulouse 18:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the size of this thing supposed to be? If it's just two short sentences like that, I think you're on the metaphorical money there, but if you need to expand, a few things need to get clarified and defined. Though even if a two sentence SoP is enough, it might be a good exercise to write a more expanded version for our own use. ^sshole 11:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a set length really, most SOP that I have read range are in the ball park of 2-3 sentences. Wikimedia's being one of the longer ones. The thing about the SOP is it really is just "for our own use." It doesn't go on any officially submitted documentation, but is rather a part of our bylaws which are adopted to guide our future endeavors. So we can do whatever we want with it, with a few caveats. The bylaws, once adopted, are a legal document, and binding for the corporation unless changed by the board of Trustees through an official vote, and SOPs are often used prominently to show people what the corporation is about. So the key is to establish a SOP that can direct the aims of the foundation, doesn't violate any IRC codes or laws, is general enough that it allows us some flexibility in the projects we might choose to do in the future, and looks good on an "about us" weblink. tmtoulouse 17:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

IOW, stear clear of what the IRS considers "political activity" so as to retain 501(c)(3) status (which readers of this page below have been advised to "ignore" and consider a "sidetrack," right? nobs^{don't bother me} 05:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What we promote & what we refute

The site missions have conventionally been phrased in terms of what we are against (pseudoscience,authoritarianism, fundamentalism, crank ideas). I think it's important for the SoP to state positively what the site promotes, as the draft versions above do, but should we also include something about analyzing & refuting the anti-science movement, since it's a pretty big aspect of what the site is about? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the sceptical movement can become somewhat negative. The key word I see is "defend". ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why I like the "promote" thing Trent put up and I truncated. It's positive rather than negative. ħuman 05:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the statement should be positively phrased. However, a lot of what defines the site is what he stand against. We don't write articles simply to educate & to promote science, but to make points and highlight issues, controversies & abuses which people should be more aware of. I think this should be included in the mission statement somehow. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We add "and counter those who don't"? ħuman 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The preamble to the Liberal Democrats constitution starts (this is from memory but it should be 99% accurate): "Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."

My point being that it's possible to come up with a form of words that is entirely positive while at the same time making it clear what you're against. Unless better wordsmiths than I can come up with something, I'll have a go myself at some point. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sidetrack

This is not the IR code, [1] but rather the IRS's interpretation of the IR code:

all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity....

So, a review of the language used by an organization such as the League of Women Voters, for example, would be helpful. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain whether we're going for 501(c)(3) status - that should probably be discussed here rather than here - but the site doesn't do any of those things anyway. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob seems to be mildly confused, so just ignore him. Once the big liberal bucks start to flow, we will be king (and queen) makers on an international scale. ħuman 10:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not Rationalwiki is a publisher of original thought (as the Blast article maintains), cause then RW would be a publisher and not just a webhosting facility. This could have several foreseeable consequences particularly if persons are criticized (Here for example, the text reads, "Analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, ideas and people." [2]) What if one of these people is a candidate for office? nobs^{don't bother me} 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that should be easy enough to determine. What is the difference in definition between "publishing" and "webhosting" from a legal standpoint? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You will be unsurprised to know that the honourable gentleman is talking out of his hat. CDA section 230 immunity applies to wikis doing just what we do, and there is precedent to this effect courtesy Wikimedia Foundation getting a libel suit kicked right out of court with no fuss whatsoever. It helps that their lawyer is Mike Godwin, but it also protects precisely what we do here - David Gerard (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

p.s.: note I speak here of protection of the host (presently Trent M. Toulouse, to be the RWF or whatever) - if I as an individual libel someone here, the libeled person can in fact come after me personally, as would make sense - they might e.g. subpoena my IP from Trent or whatever - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding Sec 230 of the Internet Decency Act and libel or defamation; but as to political activities of an Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) organization that's a different matter. Wikipedia defines itself as not a publisher of original thought. The Rationalwiki Foundation may actually be a so-called "issue advocacy" group, or 501(c)(4). Political contributions can take the form of published material. The same link provided above to RW's own "Rationalwiki" entry states,

By encouraging original research and essays the site has also incorporated many aspects of the blogging community. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

KISS

How about something really simple yet all-encompassing like: Reporting the world as it is 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a great person, but a terrible lawyer, Susan : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While an awesome slogan, not quite SoP stuff. ^sshole 10:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you find this useful

We are for;

Mocking those we feel intellectually superior to.

Bullying those who stand up to our authoritarian instincts.

Deny that which pierces our invented reality.

Tell lame jokes.

Pretend we have lives, but in reality spend most of our free time on a pathetic website complete with leadership structures, whiny self important losers with a template construction complex, and general wikipedia migrants who never managed to elevate their sexual experience beyond peeking at their sister in the shower.

About accurate? 86.40.221.205 (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's perfect, yes. And we were trying to hard to dress it up in pretty rhetoric! ħuman 05:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

RationalMedia Foundation

Okay, just to throw a bit of a curve ball into this all. I would like to propose a suggestion to change the name of the NPO to something that isn't RationalWiki. Yes, the wiki is a big part of what we do, however, "wiki" still seems to imply "encyclopedia" to many. The discussions, forums and essays aren't really within that sort of remit. Something along the lines of the Rational Media Foundation (please suggest a better one, please) would also enable us to start a wider variety of projects under the same banner. From YouTube video content to audio podcasts to open debates or even the Facebook group. Even if the majority of the activity is on the wiki, branching out isn't an entirely bad thing. This would also help with trustees not running the wiki, but having a parent organisation to deal with. ^sshole 13:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying there, but I think that we should be cautious about avoiding the RationalWiki name. It's likely that this site will remain the central focus of whatever the foundation does and it's nice if the name would always point people back here. We would of course link, as Trent did when he posted the videos of Andy getting his arse handed to him, but the RationalWiki brand seems a strong one to me. Podcasts and YouTube content can effectively act as a business card for the site. The word "rational" is a bit too generic. I think it's what would be called a "run on word", and that's pretty distinctive when searching the web. We could try a different name but I'm stumped. Tried a few variations on "rational" but they were all taken or too similar to existing groups. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 13:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's the trouble. But even if we stuck with calling it the "RationalWiki Foundation" (to be fair, it's a superfluous change and just a quick question while it was in my head) I'd be very interested in making sure we don't restrict our remit to wiki based activities. For instance, a series of YouTube vids, made collaboratively, would be a longer-term project I'd be interested in but such a thing wouldn't exactly make sense under the banner of "wiki". ^sshole 13:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit sceptical of anything offsite being connected too firmly with the site itself, since these things would probably only involve a small section of the community & it's difficult to keep them in check & avoid people getting carried away and making embarrassing statements at other sites about or ostensibly on behalf of RationalWiki, as various cheetahs and centaurs have done in the past. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC) ~~

Yeah, and if the foundation has the 501c thing going on it could cause issues if the RationalWiki name began getting mixed up in various enterprises. I suppose though that this is what the setting up of the LLC would help resolve. Right now I could, if I wanted to, independently set-up RationalWikiMidgetPorn.com, and I don't think RW could do much other than to state that RW has nothing to do with a certain site full of midgets in spandex. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 14:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I do claim a personal trademark on the name RationalWiki in our copyrights. I guess there is several ways to look at this, for me it boils down to the question "is RationalWiki our brand?" If it is then we should stick with using it for the NPO. The only thing that can really restrict our projects is the bylaws, and the SOP, which we have been trying to keep as open as possible leaving room for many different kinds of potential future endeavors. If we don't think RationalWiki is really our "brand" and we want to reserve it for just this website and project we can come up with something else. tmtoulouse 15:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, that's my midget porn site idea buggered. Ilike the idea of RationalWiki as a brand. It's distinctive and we are mentioned in Dawkins' book and s few other places. Unless we plan to diversify then I think we should keep that name as the focal point. Besides, I see the foundation as more consolidating, protecting and expanding what we already have here. If we expand to video, as an example, we could use a namelike RationalVideo, preserving the run on words and camel case. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is why branding the umbrella organization more generically makes sense. But only if we do think expanding and keeping such things within the brand is worthwhile and we do it. ^sshole 16:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well just throwing out there that when I was playing about with running a DNS I was using "rationalweb.org" as the DNS site. tmtoulouse 16:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is possible that the word "wiki" could constrain us at some point. But I think there is at least one other issue that we need to get clear - or at least say that we are ambiguous about - and that is the question of religion and the existence of gods. In my opinion it is difficult to be a "rationalist" without being an atheist. And - for me - it flows from that that religions are "wrong". We've danced around this point from time to time but I think that "we" need to be clear where we stand on this issue. It may not need to be in the SOP, but at some point we're going to need some kind of consensus.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I commend to you this post on LessWrong - not that I expect you to dredge through it line by line (mostly it points out the bloody obvious), but the bit where lack of taking up cryonics is presented as prima facie evidence of irrationality. Hence the bit I put in Rationalwiki#Criticism about "... as rationality obviously involves thinking like them." i.e., rationality isn't decided by consensus either - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rationality is subjective. I think Derren Brown covered it briefly but well in Tricks of the Mind - nobody ever thinks that they are being irrational. What is "rational" to one person isn't "rational" to another. You can generalise about what rationalism is, but to define a hard-and-fast rule as Bob says is just outright wrong. LessWrong do this with the "as rationalists we should..." type stuff, and RW would fail at its aim of being open and thorough if we suddenly decreed something like this. If you demand that our aim include "one must accept atheism as the One True Truth" then there are other places to cater for that, atheism-wiki for instance. ^sshole 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I may be being insufficiently open-minded - but I don't see why religion should get an easier ride than, say, homoeopathy.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with you - but forming a local orthodoxy strikes me as a recipe for emergent stupid - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider the following - what do they have in common. Ear candling, homoeopathy, vaccine denial, belief in God/gods, Scientology, creationism, witchcraft. I would say that at different levels the thing they have in common is they are unable to supply a persuasive answer to the question: "What is the evidence for this belief?". Consequently I think that the SoP should refer to "evidence based belief" (or some other word in place of "belief" as that may not be the best).--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Back on topic, our name does not constrain us in any way (I'm trying to come up with a good example...). And I don't see any good reason to dilute whatever brand recognition we have built over three years at this point. ħuman 23:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm all for planning, but we do risk over-thinking this one little part of the thing. Unless Trent has something he's not told us, i.e. he's inheriting the fortune of Gary Coleman, then a lot of this seems academic. Could we not just call it Concerned Resident's House of Tail and be done with it? --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 23:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wanna take back the meaning of the word "wiki" from wikipedia. I poked and prodded at wiki wiki web when Jimbo was still paying the bills with porn. I think we have some recognition withe name RationalWiki that is worth holding on to, and wiki in its truest form is about collaborative creation, in whatever form we can come up with. But I am not wedded to the "RationalWiki Foundation" name if people want to go a different route. I made one loose suggestion with playing with the terms "rational" and "web" and using "rationalweb.org" as a foundation site. tmtoulouse 23:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There's already a web design company using RationalWeb.co.uk. How about if we went with Rational Online Leisure Solutions and Associated Products? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)It is true that the "wiki" in the name doesn't constrain us, I'm just not 100% sure it's the best way to go for the name of the foundation in case the future does send us in unknown directions. Hence any name change would be at the foundation's level only and any branding of the site remains unchanged (indeed, anything regarding the foundation and incorporation won't change the site). But I do see CR's point about over-thinking - and I'm going to "over think" just now. It is all academic if nothing is ever done that is aided, even partially, by a more generic naming at the corporate level - we are, however, talking about things that will be 2-3 years away and mostly known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I wouldn't dismiss any possibility, or make a self-fulfilling prophecy that there won't be any seriously major expansion of the site. When RW started, I'm sure few would have envisioned the site looking at blogs, clogs and world events in the same level of detail as it did Conservapedia. And to be honest, I think the CP gig has only about 18 months left in it (and most of that will be Schlafly pulling weaker and weaker publicity stunts) so we need to start coaxing people into other areas of the site, and diversifying to get interest and skills could be one of those ways. This is, of course, more than just a discussion about a superflous name change. Do we branch out a little more? Do we set up a blog-type thing for users along the lines of how LessWrong and ScienceBlogs function? Do we make a YouTube channel and produce video versions of our best articles? Do we organise and formalise our essay space in a different way? This is a massive pipe-dream, but these next few months are going to be the branching point, do we proceed as normal or do we want to at least prepare for bigger things? ^sshole 00:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We could call it anything we want (like TLC LLC), but still use RW as our brand and trademark etc. However, it is simpler to use one banner. If something truly far from the wiki develops, it can get its own moniker (Channel 7, WABC, a subsidiary of The RationalWiki Foundation). ħuman 02:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)