Talk:Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've changed the lede to read organization. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

An examination of independent sources might be prudent/fruitful/advisable/dispositive? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The claim that if you do not form a legal entity, there is no 'nonprofit' is wrong. You have to incorporate to offer tax exempt status (most commonly as a 501(c)(3)), but many organizations are unincorporated non-profits. "Legally, a nonprofit organization is one that does not declare a profit and instead utilizes all revenue available after normal operating expenses in service to the public interest. These organizations can be unincorporated or incorporated. " http://www.nonprofit.pro/nonprofit_organization.htm cshirky (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What you're referring to is a "unincorporated nonprofit association", which implicitly exists when two or more people join together by mutual consent in a common effort. You can create (and destroy) such an "association" without even knowing it. If that's the definition you're going with, then nearly anything can be labelled "a nonprofit" -- school carpools, study groups, IRC channels, et al.

This argument requires an enormous amount of mental gymnastics to pin "nonprofit organization" on OAPI under the auspices of being an unincorporated association; OAPI was announced with a "CEO", a "Board of Directors", and was said to be seeking 510(3)(c) status -- something rather painful to do as an unincorporated nonprofit association.

Quibbling over whether using "nonprofit organization" to describe a defunct adhoc association is "original research" isn't necessary, though. There is no primary source provided for the claims that OAPI is a nonprofit; no state business registration, no IRS filings, and no news publications. The only source is self-published by the article's subject, and the same subject refuted the claim. (also, Crunchbase is not a primary source; it's a self-reported database). 2601:281:8100:BA6C:A8E3:1B0F:4720:9E49 (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

She could have an unincorporated non-profit but to quote Nolo[6]

"An association with over $5,000 in revenue must apply for recognition from the IRS by filing IRS Form 1023. It is not necessary for an unincorporated association to convert to a nonprofit corporation to obtain IRS recognition of its Section 510(c)(3) status. However, the association must adopt written bylaws or a constitution, and include it with its IRS application. It’s probably easier to form a nonprofit corporation than to adopt such bylaws or constitution."

On Patreon she's pulling down $3400/mo, so either she's in violation of US Tax law or she's not actually a non-profit. Now, the statement could remain if there was some reliable (and timely) source indicating that the intent is to go the non-profit route but absent that, and with statements that indicate otherwise, then the term 'non-profit' will have to go.

DrVentureWasRight (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"She" (whoever that might be) is not OAPI. We have no idea how much of the money raised by individual members in a personal capacity is currently being channelled into OAPI. We also don't know whether or not OAPI has made any submission to the IRS concerning their status as as unincorporated association. Your claim that OAPI is either not non-profit or a tax cheat is therefore a false dichotomy. By all means, pursue a detailed investigation into the organization's status and finances, but the results need to be published in a reliable source before they are published here.

And regarding the anonymous IP account's discussion of sources, as encyclopedists it's not really our job to be looking for proof of non-profit or tax-exempt status in primary sources, at least not unless there are no secondary sources establishing this fact. (See our policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and the various pages it links to.) In this particular case, the claim that OAPI is "non-profit" does exist in the non-primary sources, and none of those sources seem to dispute that claim. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

To the anonymous comment at 07:22, 21 January 2017, above, nearly any organization can be called a non-profit, with the notable exception of for-profits. The claim is not about other kinds of status, such as 501(c)(3) U.S. incorporation, or tax exempt status.

Crunchbase's data is self-reported, but so is e.g. the number of students enrolled at Tulane, the number of employees at Xiaomi, and the GDP of Ghana. If you think sources are incorrect in using the term, then, as Psychonaut says, publication in a reliable source is the remedy. cshirky (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the references in the article, none of them describe OAPI as a non-profit. I did find a self-published blog post declaring OAPI as a non-profit[7] and "in the process of becoming a 501(c)(3)". The page itself is undated, but would probably be enough to justify the term. DrVentureWasRight (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ source describes it as a non-profit organization. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Current Existence and previous work

Zoe Quinn was talking about her book on KQED radio, listed here as a BoD member. https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2017/10/04/zoe-quinn-on-gamergate-fighting-online-harassment/ Was asked about OAPI. The question/answer is at 45:43 "Can you please ask Zoe Quinn about her work with Online Abuse Prevention Initiative and Randi Harper? She is listed as one of the board of directors, but the website is outdated. No recent news that I can find. The Patreon also has not been updated in a year, with most updates being backer only. Is that still an active organization? What do you do with them?" "That's more Randi's bag, I don't know where she's at with that stuff." Can't find more information about the group's work or if they still exist. Itsnotmyfault1 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)