"Charity does not mean that you give and you feel very good that you have given, that you give and you oblige the person to whom you have given. Then it is not karamat; then it is not charity.
Charity is when you give and you feel obliged that the other has taken it; when you give with no idea that you are obliging anybody in any way; when you give because you have too much. It is not that the other needs.[1]"
I have a deep, abiding, and life long love for dictionaries, though I have found their use as a tool to find meaning more valuable than their use as a cudgel to silence comment.
You appear to be attempting a philosophical debate on the nature of giving, but have worded it as a definitional construct that's contradicted by common dictionaries and usage. That's all I'm after. If you want to argue that giving is best when anonymous, go wild, just don't frame it such that it looks like you're trying to use your own private definition of common words.
I truly apologize for responding to what I perceived to be your tone rather than to the substance of what you were saying. You are correct, and I should have given the initial comment more extensive and explicit context.
Civility on the internet! I appreciate it. I do think your greater point about the nature of giving is worth exploring... just perhaps with better words.
That's not how other people use the word. You should pick a different word if you're going to have your own private definition.