Talk:GiveWell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two organisations

This should be a disambiguation page directing people to:

• Givewell (United States)
• Givewell (Australia)

Objections?--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that they are both notable, then the Givewell article should be disambiguated only when articles exist on both entities. In other words, once somebody creates an article for Givewell (Australia) that at least validates its notability, then we can move Givewell to Givewell (United States) and make the former a disambiguation page. Please be bold and feel free to make these changes at any time. Cheers, Vectro (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Advertising/Neutrality

There are many problems with this article. It seems impossible to conclude otherwise than that the article has been significantly written by employees of the company - not due to excessive advocacy, but because there are so many statements written almost as though it were the "company" speaking, in the first person. Statements like: "Givewell is, first and foremost, an attempt to investigate charities empirically." This is not a neutrally-voiced statement. The entire "Philosophy" section is voiced this way. Wikipedia is not in the position of stating what Givewell "is" in these terms. We can at most state what what Givewell claims about itself. This is not so much a problem of trumping up what they do too much, it's a problem with the way "facts" that relate solely to the company's self-declared purpose or goals are voiced as though they can be taken for granted. Though there are references for some of these statements, but the problem of a non-neutral voice remains, throughout the article.

Secondly, the use of images is problematic. None of the images are directly related to Givewell. They are at best loosely related to the concept of "charity" but their appropriateness to this article is not at all evident. If I look up "Toyota", I wouldn't expect to see a picture of a busy freeway. It does not seem that wikipedia encourages the use of images at this level of abstracted illustration. What I would expect to see are: pictures of employees/founders, pictures of company headquarters or facilities, corporate logo.

The overwhelming impression left by the article is that it is a carefully crafted reflection of the company's own self-image, and in this regard it is wholly inappropriate for wikipedia. Even if the article is devoid of false or unreferenced statements, overly slanted language, or blatant advocacy, it is still written in a tone that is overly deferential and implicitly approving of the company it describes. Given the company's well-documented history of astroturfing it seems entirely reasonable to suggest extra vigilance in monitoring this article. 98.189.203.163 (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've contributed to it, and I have no connection with the company. Any article about a company is going to be an article *about the company*, which of course can be framed by detractors as "astroturfing". Your "extra vigilance" seems overplayed - whose to say you are not a competitor yourself, whose out to disparage the companies reputation? BTW that statement makes as much sense as your claim of astroturfing - unfounded, confrontational and unwarranted.

If there's something wrong with the article, than lets fix it. Specifically, please list which words and sentences you don't like so that we can fix them *right now*. I want to fix the article, but I don't see the problem, so you need to be very specific about what's wrong with the article, not generalizations. Line by line, word by word. I look forward to working with you over the next few weeks in improving the article. If your just going to put up tags as a way to register a complaint, but not actually contribute to identify and fix the problem, then the tags will be removed because I disagree with them, and have no way to fix a problem that is unidentified. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To address some your points above. The word "claims" is loaded because it implies there is another point of view and that it's controversial, it undermines the point being made. We don't around saying "claims this and claims that" unless there is a reason due to a ongoing controversy. And if there is a controversy, it needs to be framed as such up-front with multiple POVs provided, most likely in a separate section of the article. The uncontroversial stuff is stated factually, with cites. There is "Assume Good Faith", if a company says something about itself, we believe it, unless there is some specific reason not to, we don't assume bad faith in a company just because they got caught at astroturfing years ago (BTW nearly every company engages in astroturfing directly or through third-party hires, it's called internet marketing, and is normal business practice, unfortunately). I agree with the images and captions being more appropriate for a sales brochure and will remove them. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"The word "claims" is loaded because it implies there is another point of view and that it's controversial, it undermines the point being made."

I disagree. When point of view is the company's, and the statements in question are subjective to varying degrees, there needs to be a remove between the company's POV and the voice used in the article. Whether that means the word "claim" specifically is used or not isn't important to me. The goal is not to discount or cast aspersions on the company's claims but simply to present them in the proper context. The changes you've made so far appear positive; I will point out any further statements with neutrality issues. 98.189.203.163 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

Givewell is an organization* Can you say better what sort of organization, here, right off the bat? Is it a non-profit? Would it actually be considered a "Charitable Organization"? This provides important context. Link to the relevant article for larger category in which Givewell sits, if possible.

 Done. It looks like you fixed the rest below. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Different charities face different burdens of proof, depending on the amount of data generally available to demonstrate their effectiveness." - this seems to be an assertion from the company's perspective, and not so much a settled fact that can be stated without qualification or context.

"One of the most relevant findings is that, when donating to one of the best charities, any individual can fund the saving of a life for about $1000" - as above, this is the sort of subjective claim that needs to be prefaced by "Givewell states that..." or something similar.

"Givewell is also dedicated to transparency, and their website goes to great lengths to explain their research and rating logic." - no problem with including a statement with this info, but there needs to be more critical distance here. As is, it verges on advocacy. Who is characterizing the "lengths" they go to as "great" here? It shouldn't be "wikipedia".

"It is also important to note, however: charities have a strong tendency to focus on emotional manipulations, and there is no prevailing pressure on them to demonstrate that their programs actually work." - Bare assertion here. If this isn't presented as a direct quote from the company's material, it should probably be removed entirely.

If all those issues were addressed I'd have no qualms about the tags being removed for the time being. Like I said, you have made positive changes already and the "Philosophy" section is much improved. 98.189.203.163 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

GreenCardamom, I can see that you have made additional beneficial edits and removed the tags. I have removed the remaining statements described above and made a few other edits. It should be clear that a strong line needs to be drawn between things that Givewell claims, especially things that that Givewell claims about itself, vs. things that are effectively being put into Wikipedia's mouth to "say". Value judgements such as what is "relevant" or "best", or saying that something is done "poorly", cannot be stated in such an unqualified manner. These are assertions; these are claims, and they must be presented as such. Otherwise they strongly give the appearance of an advertisement or press release. Thank you for your collaboration in this effort - you give me no reason to doubt your good faith at all. 98.189.203.163 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for taking the time to evaluate, and re-work, the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of images

I like many of the changes. I often don't notice my POV phrasing so it's always nice to see rational improvement. I am a fierce advocate of images (I'm a very visual learner), so I'd like to offer a potential lead image.-Tesseract²(talk) 13:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, the article's previous use of images was unencylopedic. Images used should be directly and unambiguously related to the company, and not abstractly illustrative in the manner previously employed. To address your specific example: that plane is neither owned by Givewell nor is it acting on Givewell's behalf, and further, the caption does not describe anything in the image, but rather attempts to further arguments that, if appropriate, would need to be made within the main body of the article. Using images loosely related to the concept of "charity" is beyond the scope of this particular article. Appropriate images would include (if freely available) pictures of Givewell's founders, company headquarters, notable employees, or corporate logos. 98.189.203.163 (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policies are certainly WP:IUP and WP:IMAGES. I would then draw your attention to the attempted description of different image uses over at at Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations. The images I now have up, and their captions, are currently quite encyclopedic. Especially using the descriptions of that last policy page: I have paired a description of Givewell's most highly rated sort of charity with an image of a doctor scrubbing in to illustrate that precise concept. I have paired discussion of village reach efforts in Mozambique with a picture of the exact sort of Mozambique citizens Givewell recommends helping.

While I agree with the policy pages mentioned that the images must be relevant, the claim that images must be "directly and unambiguously related to the company" is simply false. The use of images for illustrative purposes is professional if done properly.-Tesseract²(talk) 02:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're to keep it, I think the captions need to make clear the "subject of the picture" (per Caption MoS #1), which would include stating the subjects have no personal relation to GiveWell. It needs to be clear we are not looking at pictures taken by GiveWell, or people or hospitals sponsored by GiveWell. Otherwise it leaves an open question, at least in my mind and I assume 98.189's. I'll try to add a caption as example of what I mean. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the captions, I think it is clear that these are conceptual illustrations, but I suppose your added captions could be relevant to someone. Accordingly, I've only put them in a footnote for the sake of Caption MoS, Succinctness.-Tesseract²(talk) 05:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's clear it's conceptual, but since this is in the context of an Encyclopedia, we identify the subject of the pictures in the caption, per #1. I'll wait to see what 98 thinks. BTW do you have the source for the healthcare statement, it might be better to quote directly what GiveWell said rather than paraphrase, more meaningful that way and better supports a "conceptual caption." Green Cardamom (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done!-Tesseract²(talk) 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Green Cardamom's approach to captioning cited above. Good on adding the corporate logo. I don't love the pictures as they currently stand but I won't object to them any further if GC's policy cite can be the guiding principal going forward. I understand that 'conceptual illustration' is allowable within the letter of the law, but this is an article about a company, not a concept. When I look at Featured Articles for other companies I don't tend to see that style of image usage. 98.189.203.163 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just some input on the images: when I originally read the article, I assumed that the photos were actually of VillageReach's or another GiveWell-supported charity's activities. Then, because I like to read talk pages when I'm aimlessly browsing Wikipedia, I came to this page and read that the images were actually just generic—and only then realized my mistake (I then went back and looked for the footnotes—helpful, I guess, but few people will actually notice them when they read). It's not a major problem, but I do think the images slightly weaken the accuracy of the article. Neil P. Quinn (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That was always my point: it's not a major problem. The footnote clarifies that the scenes are supposed to be nearly identical to what Givewell and Village reach are up to, but that they are not official. It's true that nothing would beat images from the actual givewell site. Actually, we might be able to argue in favour of WP:NFCI - and borrow some images from the actual sites. They do seem to be offering promotional material.-Tesseract²(talk) 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the logo would qualify for fair use, Wikipedia is very strict about that, leans on the side of caution. Unless the promotional material is Creative Commons, or direct permission is given by Givewell for use on Wikipedia (there is a process for handling that which I can help with). If you know anyone at GW that could give permission (via email) that would do it. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That would actually be pretty neat. I don't have any connections with either GW or VR, but maybe we could sent them some emails and see if they're interested in authorizing some pictures. We really ought to first ask them to just authorize some pictures for wikicommons. If they're really not persuaded, we could fall back on authorization just for this article.-Tesseract²(talk) 02:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of a copyright picture used with permission on Wikipedia, a template for how to add one. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I just sent an email to GiveWell and asked if they had any pictures. They can license any of three ways: public domain, creative commons, copyright w/ permission for wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I've been working with GiveWell and they sent 28 via email, I've uploaded and submitted a ticket to OTRS and waiting for approval (weeks) but shouldn't be any problem since GW agreed to release them under a CC-BY license. This is actually a lot of work :) I also added some of the pictures to the article, I don't think we should add any more as it would be too crowded - these are representative of the NGOs in the photo set. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we're probably at peak picture capacity unless the article gets much longer. I probably don't need to tell you those images look fantastic! Really great work. Man, having authorized images rather than just illustrations...too cool.-Tesseract²(talk) 22:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well guys, it looks like all the images were deleted. discussion here. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Restored, thanks to the quick help from User:Adrignola. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to begrudge the work you put into getting photographs from Givewell, Green Cardamom, but the photos that don't directly relate to Givewell, such as the street performance and the woman by herself, etc, seem somewhat promotional. The photograph of the actual Givewell employees is a great one, exactly what should be present on an article illustrating the organization. Given the discussion on going below, it's also kind of uncomfortable in that the main proponent for the images, Tesseract2, pitches GiveWell on their user page. I'd recommend removing the photographs that don't have a clear relationship with GiveWell.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 23:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Detail on Recommended Charities

Just wanted to expound on the removal of the detailed information on the April 2011 recommended charities of GiveWell. I removed the specific information about the charities because this is an article about GiveWell, not VillageReach or the other charity. If the information about those charities is significant or notable, then it should be found in articles about those charities, like VillageReach, for example. Otherwise, the information prior to removal served to distract from the focus of the article. Please feel free to offer opinions to the otherwise! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 02:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

De-puffing reversions

I made a couple changes to the article, which I notice another user has now reverted, and I'd like to discuss the reasoning behind this.

I removed the "recommendations" section as part of my overall effort to de-puff the article - my feeling was that there's no reason for an encyclopedia to keep a running tally of what charities are endorsed by GiveWell. As the section is phrased now, it comes across to me as advertising for the charities GiveWell supports. Encyclopedic coverage is "GiveWell rates on X, Y, and Z, in categories Q, R, and T." I feel that it becomes promotion when we start adding "And in category Q, company X is totally the best! In category R, we rate T very highly!" We need to remember that we're not intended to be regurgitating the contents of the GiveWell website here; we're intended to be covering the organization, how it works, and what it does, in an encyclopedic manner.

I also restored a removed part of the "shortcomings" section, as the way the section stood before today was incredibly weasely - vague references to "inappropriate" this and "errors" that, when if we want to discuss their controversies, we need to actually provide detail. I'm not saying we need to list every one, but simply handwaving about "yes, yes, the company talks about them somewhere else" isn't adequate, either.

Green Cardamom (talk · contribs), can you explain why you believe it's necessary to list which charities GiveWell promotes, and not discuss particular controversies? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This company was caught red handed in 2007 doing astro turfing, caught by members of Metafilter, of which I'm also a member. Ever since then, this article has been a hotbed of angry editors who appear on occasion to paint the company in as negative light as possible within Wikipedia guidelines. This includes downplaying what the company does, and up-playing that one incident in 2007. It's a sort of chest beating "hah hah caught you!" sort of thing, and MeFi community spirit and pride. I'm trying to move this article past that juvenile anger and "GiveWell hate" fest, and focus it on the positive things the company does and has done. The company has been extremely open about the 2007 incident, including devoting a web page to it on its own site, along with many other short comings. There's no reason to emphasis that one shortcoming with a lengthy description, it's out of balance. Further, listing the companies recommendations is appropriate because that is the core mission of what the company does. You said in the comments this was "promotional", but how can we have a complete article about a company that makes recommendations, without mentioning some examples of what those recommendations are. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "downplaying what the company does", GC. I'm interested in having an article that doesn't read like a brochure - an article that neither downplays the positive (as a Metafilter-member-controlled version might) nor up-plays the positive (as I feel your version tends to), but simply discusses the facts. To that end, listing what companies they recommend is pointless in this article, because this article is about GiveWell, not, say, VillageReach. The part that's relevant to GiveWell is that they rate charities, how they rate charities, and in what categories they rate charities. I could live with a paragraph summarizing their top picks, if you feel incredibly strongly that they must be discussed, but a large, multi-paragraph section just listing what charities GiveWell endorses is far out of place, in my opinion.

If you don't think we should mention Metafilter by name or something, I can live with that. But vague mentions of "errors" followed by a coy refusal to explain what they were - or calling something an "inappropriate Internet marketing strategy" when it could be called, much less verbosely, and more accurately, "astroturfing", is swinging the neutrality pendulum too far to the other side, to the point where we're whitewashing the company's history. My feeling is that the section should be titled something other than "Shortcomings" ("shortcomings" is their term, and doesn't match how Wikipedia tends to label sections such as this) and contain information basically saying that first, Givewell has had X, Y, and Z notable controversies (sourced to non-primary sources discussing these), second, Givewell maintains a page on their website addressing their errors, and third, they responded to notable controversies X, Y, and Z by doing [whatever]. I cannot tolerate a section on "shortcomings" that refuses to discuss said "shortcomings". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Reads "like a brochure" is a highly subjective POV, no doubt colored by an evident bias against the company due to their 2007 self-promotion campaign. This organization *makes recommendations*, it makes sense to list some examples of what those recommendations are so readers understand what types of recommendations they make. These are not all the recommendations only two of many - why are you against listing even two example recommendations? How are other recommendation-based orgs on Wikipedia handled? I'm curious why you think this Metafilter/astro-turfing event deserves such a lengthy discussion in the article, while not discussing the other shortcomings with equal vigor - why pick on that one so much? The current wording isn't weasel wording, it's a short summary, with a linked citation to the full description at the GiveWell website. There's nothing being hidden or weaseled, rather just giving it a balance of coverage to the rest of the article. It seems evident you want to emphasis the negative aspects of GiveWell, in particular the 2007 astroturf, while you want to remove the positive recommendations they are making. This strongly suggests a latent bias, that you may not even be aware of. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be awesome if you could respond to me without assuming that I am operating out of bias and/or in bad faith, Green Cardamom. I'm trying to make this article match our content standards, not promote GiveWell, Metafilter, or any other product, and for that reason, I very much resent your accusation that I want to "emphasis the negative" here. I want an article that describes what GiveWell is, what it did and does, how it does it, and what outside sources say about that. Nothing more, nothing less. If you feel you're unable to compromise on this topic, might I suggest that we get a WP:3O on the content of the "Recommendations" and "Shortcomings" sections? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Fluffernutter, we have the same goals. You haven't addressed why you want a Shortcomings section that focuses on the 2007 incident, but neglect the other shortcomings listed at their website. Why is that one given special high-lite, why is it so important, but the other shortcomings are not so important? Each of the shortcomings should be given equal weight to be fair, but the section overall shouldn't be out of balance to the rest of the article length. You also have not addressed what's wrong with listing a few example recommendations the company provides. Recommendations are material to what the company does, listing a paltry two examples is exactly what a Wikipedia article should do. And if you disagree, why would listing two examples even be "promotional" to GiveWell? Green Cardamom (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

GC, I don't care if it's the metafilter incident or something else, if there's something else more notable. I care that we actually discuss the "shortcomings" in some form, because at least one of them seems to be pretty notable and because we're already saying "they did something" and we'd might as well say what the something is. If the 2007 incident is the most notable, which is the impression I have, then that should be discussed. If there are two, or five, or fifteen notable controversies, those should be discussed. As for the recommendations, I'm not saying they're promotional of GiveWell - I'm saying they're promotional of the recommended organizations and are out of place in an article about GiveWell. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you besides repeating that this is an article about GiveWell, not its recommended charities. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact the article does discuss the shortcomings, including mention of the astroturfing, among other things. Your proposing a much longer discussion of the astro turfing incident and I'm saying that would be over-weight and result in POV. As for the two examples being promotional? C'mon, that doesn't make sense, the context is clearly stated that these are orgs that GiveWell is recommending, since recommendations is what GiveWell does we give a few examples of what GiveWell does - even you said we need to say what GiveWell does. The recommendations are by GiveWell, within that context, it isn't promotional. Promotional would be if we said categorically these are the best orgs outside of the context of GiveWell's article. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• How could it be POV? "neutral point of view" is "cover each possible segment of the topic in accordance with the weighting given to it by sources". If the sources have covered the controversies in enough detail to provide more information on them then, by definition, including that information is obeying NPOV and not violating it. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know the astro turfing incident is more notable? It's perhaps best known among bloggers, due to its association with metafilter, and thus also many Wikipedia editors. It's a incident of lore among metafilter and some wikipedia editors. I would say some of the other shortcomings are "more notable" since they actually impacted what GiveWell does. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are other notable controversies, those should be covered in the shortcomings/controversies section, yes. That's my point, in fact. If there are notable things to say about the organization, we should cover them. Please also consider the fact that other editors are weighing in here also, and mostly seem to think that the controversies should be covered. Your accusing me of canvassing notwithstanding, I would point out that you seem to be the only person currently commenting on this talk page who believes the section shouldn't discuss the actual controversies. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Any event in which a board of directors removes the founding executive director is very notable for any organization. 96.49.114.94 (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GC, you write '"I'm trying to move this article past that juvenile anger and 'GiveWell hate' fest, and focus it on the positive things the company does and has done." This alone reads like POV to me: the first clause asserts bad faith in the strongest terms, characterizing any negative coverage of Givewell as malicious and childish. The second clause strongly suggests partiality: It isn't the purpose of a Wikipedia editor to "focus on the positive things that a company does and has done".

Also, in addition to the brochure-like language, two or three of the photo choices strongly resemble charity brochure photos. The photo of the Mozambique girl, the mother and child outside a clinic and the Indian street theatre do not depict anything material about Givewell itself. The fact that the caption states that they were taken on a Givewell visit doesn't alter the fact that the subjects of the photos are not Givewell or demonstrably associated with Givewell. Their inclusion has a marketing quality, suggesting that they depict beneficiaries of Givewell's efforts or that the conditions depicted are somehow representative of Givewell's aims. If so, this is a brochure technique rather than informational content. P.T.isfirst (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur that this article reads like promotional literature. The "Controversies" section should be restored, and "Recommendations" removed. The latter is about some specific charities; this article is supposed to be about GiveWell. Cloonmore (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

agreed. GC, you can have whatever intentions you want, but "neutral point of view" doesn't mean "say no nasty stuff". Leave your opinion on GiveWell at the door. Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I reckon there should indeed be some kind of controversies section. That is a better name than "shortcomings" too - a title which, at least to me, makes it seem like we cannot mention alleged shortcomings (i.e. controversies), only actual failures. In addition to a controversies section, however, we ought also to mention relevant sources praising Givewell. This could all be under an "In the Media" or "Reception" section, no? It seems to me that Wikipedia should cover the most notable negative, but also positive reactions to Givewell.

I find the pictures are fantastic. Examples of people from the charities to which Givewell has sent its readers, or benefiting from the sorts of help advocated by Givewell ... I do not think you could get a more direct, physical illustration of the sort of work done by this organization. The only picture issue is that the lead does not yet have an image of Givewell's headquarters. What's the deal with that?

We must (especially those of us with strong opinions on the organization) maintain encyclopedic standards. With that in mind, I do think the majority of the "Recommendations" section also belongs here on Wikipedia. Maybe we don't need an updated list of Givewell's top charities (as RebelAt discusses below), but certainly it is important to mention the stuff about the types of charities that Givewell recommends and why (e.g. health care, because of large, measurable impact). Failing to discuss Givewell's recommendations entirely is to fail to properly cover the topic; Givewell is a charity-recommending organization, after all.

Just some ideas for you guys. I think the discussion here has been great.-Tesseract²(talk) 02:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The general title "Controversy" is fairly Wikipedia-standard for these sorts of things and is found in a number of different articles on different things. I really think the illustrations should be a little more tailored towards the subject of the article. If the article is about GiveWell the organization, the photos should not just be images that they took during their visits. I work at MetaFilter, but I have a long history as a Wikipedia editor, and I think this page could stand a little revising to make it more Wikipedia-like and less brochure-like. Jessamyn (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I came here to concur with the above. "Controversy/ies" is the bog-standard section header on Wikipeda for any negative history regarding a company, politician, organization, etc. Use of "shortcomings" instead strikes me as a euphemism. The issues in question were serious enough to lead to the (temporary) resignation of Givewell's head officer, and rather directly impugned the reputations of competitors in an unethical way. That rises above the level of mere shortcomings, which I think would apply more to simple weaknesses in the company's methods or strategies than to a malicious act of dishonesty by their leader implicating their core values (transparency). I'll go ahead and retitle it now if there aren't any objections. --Jordan117 (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It was called shortcomings because that is what GiveWell calls it on their Shortcomings webpage, thus the section title is descriptive of what they are calling it themselves. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how Givewell describes themselves, it matters how others are describing them. We shouldn't be relying on primary sources to write the article.

I agree that the article has too many irrelevant photos. The photo of the founder is relevant and useful, and should stay, but the others are only tangentially related to the content of the page. Using photos for the sake of having photos adds to the 'brochure' feel. (For comparison, this article has more photos than the significantly longer Médecins Sans Frontières does.) Joygerhardt (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I refactored the Controversy section, which was (despite other edits) still rather coy and if anything unfair to GiveWell, by alleging to some atmosphere of shady business practices and plucking one out of the air. Its a Controversy section. What are the notable controversies? The 2007-8 astroturfing incident WAS notable (the NYT had two articles about it). It's up to the reader to decide if it was too long ago to count, or whether or not GiveWell's response was adequate. Also, the section is obviously supposed to be about controversies, not about GiveWell's "Shortcomings" page, which really has nothing to do with the astroturfing incident. I'm not convinced the Shortcomings page belongs in the article at all, anywhere, but I have left it in. 98.255.37.40 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Metafilter wiki as a source

I reverted this edit by a user who attempted to use the Metafilter wiki as a reliable source. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Metafilter wiki would be a usable source for what Metafilter members say about the dustup, but not for characterizing or stating facts about the dustup in general. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the dustup not worthy of inclusion in the article? Isn't acting like the people targeted by GiveWell's astroturfing have no opinion about the affair a bit POV? 98.255.37.40 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The dustup is indeed worthy, which is why I'm stressing so much in the sections up above that it should be included. However, we have to be very careful about how we use our sources. Metafilter, and even more so the Metafilter wiki, are user-editable. They are reliable sources for what Metafilter members claim, what happened in Metafilter threads, and how Metafilter members react to things. They are not reliable, generally speaking, for objective fact, in the way that something like the the New York Times is objectively reliable. So, for example, saying that GiveWell carries out "dubious business practices" is not sourceable to somewhere like Metafilter - at most, a statement to that effect made on Mefi is one person's opinion, an opinion that is not editorially controlled for validity or neutrality. If the NYT says something is "dubious," we can use that. If Joe Schmoe on Community Blog X does, not so much. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note about how the site runs: MetaFilter is not user-editable as far as past stuff goes. Admins can delete posts, close threads and edit posts and we have pretty strict guidelines about when we do those thngs. We have five users, paid site employees, who have admin rights. There are at this time no other user edit capabilities besides the ability to edit one's own profile page. The wiki is fully editable, similar to Wikipedia. Not at all arguing with your general point, just wanted to be clear. Jessamyn (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Metafilter users

If you are a Metafilter user and showed up here tonight because of a thread on Mefi, a few thoughts:

1. Wikipedia rules about Conflict of Interest. In particular Close Relationships. Metafilter culture has a long and demonstrable history of disparaging GiveWell based on the 2007 astro turfing incident between GiveWell and Metafilter. It is well known that MeFi users love to hate GiveWell. POV edits don't have to intentional, they are often made with good faith and best intentions but biased by an acquired POV from a previous experience.

2. This article was not not ever was edited by GiveWell. I can assure you, there is nothing to see here. You will not "catch" GiveWell self-promoting on Wikipedia. Give it up MeFi sleuths.

3. Ask yourself, when will you stop hating GiveWell. Its been four years. Will you still be here 4 years from now? How long will the MeFi community continue its campaign of anti-GiveWellianism. GiveWell moved on years ago, posting an apology on its website in 2007. No one cares anymore, except MeFi.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GC, I'm going to ask you again to please, please drop the stick and back away from the horse. You're assuming seriously, horribly bad faith of every single person who's commented on this page in the past few days, and that's feeding into your feeling that we're all out to "get" GiveWell when we're, or at least I'm, not. Do you have any reason, besides suspicion of all people disagreeing with your stance, to think that the Wikipedians commenting on this page are from Metafilter, other than Jessamyn, me, and yourself? If you have reason to believe that, do you have reason to believe that people who come here from Metafilter have any intention of torpedoing the article? I very much think you don't, because what I see on this page is a whole lot of calm discussion and people offering sane reasons why the article should be changed in manner X, and then you, desperately claiming that we're all just shills. Please, just once, consider the fact that some of us may be attempting to improve the article to the point where it conforms to Wikipedia standards, and look at our suggestions with that in mind.

Metafilter members, if any of you are here, please note that GC is correct that we have a conflict of interest policy and that it prohibits acting in a manner that promotes or disparages an entity for your (or your organization's) gain, whether financial or just "bragging rights". Our COI policy does not prohibit you from editing the article neutrally, or from commenting on this talk page, again neutrally and in a reasoned manner, about how you think the article could be improved. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors:

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

I have not been editing this article, but if there is notable and citable information about GiveWell getting caught doing notable and citable things, that deserves inclusion, regardless of your (or my) personal feelings about GiveWell or even about Metafilter (which is nowhere near the kind of monolithic entity you describe it as, for that matter). - AlexReynolds (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors:

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

I have not been editing this article, but if there is notable and citable information about GiveWell getting caught doing notable and citable things, that deserves inclusion, regardless of your (or my) personal feelings about GiveWell or even about Metafilter (which is nowhere near the kind of monolithic entity you describe it as, for that matter). - AlexReynolds (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty specifically not editing the page because I am employed by MetaFilter, but it's entirely appropriate for me to be commenting on this page. Our site has 50,000 users, many of whom are also active Wikipedians with long Wikipedia-editing histories. There are a lot of overlaps in the world of people who spend a lot of time on the internet. I, personally, am on the advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation and I assure you I am well-versed in how things work here on Wikipedia, both when they're working well and when they're working poorly. Usually discussion pages are used for deliberating about details of a page when there are some disputes [to avoid edit warring] and usually the aim is to try to achieve consensus so that the article can be made better and so that people's voices can be heard. No one owns a Wikipedia page.

I think we need to back up a little and work to achieve some consensus on the major concerns about the article -- usefulness of images, what needs to go in a controversy section if anything, and appropriateness of a "praise" section which to my eyes is non-standard but possibly I haven't seen the other places where it's been used -- and then move forward. Just being a MetaFitler user does not disqualify someone from editing the page and neither does having strong positive feelings about GiveWell. We need to work together to make the article better and I would appreciate some assumption of good faith that we are interested in the same things. Jessamyn (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just being a Metafilter user doesn't disqualify, but it does require serious soul searching on what your intentions are in deciding to become involved with this particular article. If your intention is to improve it, than I would recommend expanding content before deleting content. Begin by reading the sources and finding out more about GiveWell and what they do. The lead section for example is paltry. Later when the article is filled out more we can look at the more controversial items, which may take care of themselves in the process, reintegrated for example. I look forward to working with you for how many weeks it takes to honestly improve the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

GC, you (or I, or Jessamyn, or my Aunt Sal) don't really get to decide what improvements people can make first. If you want to expand the lead, that's awesome and I applaud you, but the fact that you think the lead should be expanded before the promotionalism issue is fully resolved is solely your opinion, one that no one else must adhere to. I would encourage you to pretend you've never heard of Metafilter, and work on the article as if you didn't feel that it was being invaded by heretics intending to burn it down. I've reminded you multiple times to assume good faith of editors here, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that you've managed to do that, and it's making the atmosphere on this talk page extremely toxic. Please stop. Read everything you write over again before you post it. Think about what assumptions are underlying any comments you make. Think about how your words sound to people who are trying to improve the article, and think about how your actions are coming across to those people. You're an experienced Wikipedian; you really, really shouldn't have to be reminded of this repeatedly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence is retracted, it was not made with the assumption of bad faith, but see how it might be seen that way out of context. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In point of fact, each bullet point on your list assumes bad faith on the part of any Wikipedia editor who also happens to have a Metafilter account. This is not what WP is about. Please knock it off. AlexReynolds (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I fully admit my behavior was inappropriate. I will no longer assume bad faith in Wikipedia/Metafilter users unless there is clear reason to support it. I look forward to working with you to improve the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dubious practices

Recent edits made by Jordan117, who wrote:

The company has been accused of dubious business practices in the past, and addresses some of the concerns publicly on its website, on a page called `Shortcomings`. [emphasis added]

This is biased POV, and factually wrong. "Accused" and "Dubious" are strong pejorative terms. It may be justified for the 2007 astroturfing incident, but the other 19 shortcomings listed on their website certainly would not characterized that way, they were just business mistakes such as out of balance portfolio allocations, failed to track website statistics, sub-optimal grant allocation, etc.. the kind of mistakes all companies make in the normal course of business. They were not "Accused" at all, they were self admitted, no one "accused" GiveWell of those 19 shortcomings, except for the one astro turfing incident. Further example of the inability of people to edit this article in a neutral manner even when they try, there is a strong ingrained bias towards focusing on the one astro turfing incident. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I just rewrote the Controversy section. (See my comment above at the end of the De-puffing reversions section). I agree with you about how it sounded very broadly and vaguely accusatory before. 98.255.37.40 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Aw, you beat me to it, IP! I was just heading to the article to fix that, because GC is quite right that "accused of dubious business practices" is, at best, a complete synthesis, and at worst, making up accusations out of whole cloth. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Allright well I think what you wrote for the controversy section is appropriate for a Controversy section, it's not too long and gets all the facts neutrally. Can I recommend some changes in wording so as not to double repeat "the founders" and "GiveWell", start broad by saying GiveWell was accused, then finish by narrowing to the founders were discovered, I'll edit to show. As for the shortcomings, doesn't matter to me either way, the shortcomings page was created as part of the response to the incident. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that the Shortcomings page was created in response to the astroturfing incident. I think it should still be in a separate paragraph, just for readability's sake. The wording changes look good. 98.255.37.40 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok moved it back to separate paragraph. I had always thought it was a response to being more open from the 2007 incident, but when I checked the PR's I can't find evidence of it, in fact the earliest Wayback Machine entry for the page is 2010, so for now I just restored what you wrote originally. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I came back to find that Tesseract2 had changed the Controversy part to put a focus on GiveWell's "Shortcoming"s page. This is just not proper; the astroturfing incident is a controversy and should be listed as a primary item. It's not like, hey there's a Shortcoming page, and oh, it happens to list just this one shortcoming. The astroturfing incident was a notable controversy and it should be listed in the controversy section--regardless of the existence of the Shortcoming page. Please do not re-revert without explaining the rationale. 98.255.37.40 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought Tesseract2's changes were fine. I'm concerned that we are trying to place too much emphasis on this one incident 4 years ago that had no material impact on the company. The company lists twenty shortcomings on its page, of which the astroturfing incident was the first. I understand it was certainly more notable than some others in a sense because the board demoted the principals, but it is just one of twenty, and it was four years ago, and both principals still work at the company, it seems to have had no impact on the companies success or long term reputation (outside of Metafilter). Many of the other shortcomings appear to be more serious in terms of material impact on company operations. If we're going to list mistakes made by the company, we should start with the general list at top, and move to more specific examples following. I don't see why the astroturfing incident is singled out to have its own sub-section, it seems like a way to highlight or emphasize it over other shortcomings, which is a form of bias. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Tesseract2's change to the controversy section was fine. We are listing the "controversies", not shooting the breeze about various sundry mistakes of the company. There is, AFAIK, one notable controversy. If there are other notable controversies out there, let them be listed as well. The two founding members were fined, reprimanded, demoted, it appeared in a national paper. It's not nothing. If 2007-8 was too long ago, if the matter of controversy was unimportant, if GiveWell very honestly and openly addressed the issue, that is for the reader to decide based on fair, NPOV, cited facts that we provide. It is not like the other things in the shortcomings page. If the "Shortcomings" page were yanked from the internet tomorrow, the astroturfing incident by GiveWell's founders would still be a thing that happened, it would still be a notable controversy. It is best to forget that Shortcoming page exists and write the Controversy section the way it should appear, which is what I did. I'll say it one more time: the Controversy section of this Wikipedia article cannot have, as its focus, the "shortcomings" page on GiveWell's website. That's just silly. Its focus is actual notable controversies, of which there is one, notable, that should be described briefly, accurately, and NPOV, which it currently is IMO. 98.255.37.40 (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Your position seems predicated on the idea of a Platonic controversy section. As background, on Wikipedia the controversy term has come to be used as a convenience for certain types of material[see my comment below]. However, there are no rules or guidelines for a controversy section, what it's called or what it contains, each article deals with negative material based on the WP:NPOV rules. In this article, by forcing the negative material to be across multiple sections (shortcomings here, astroturfing there), it inflates the length and overweights to the negative. It makes sense to have all the negative material in one section for NPOV purposes. Further, if you read the FAQ's on how to write a good article, we are supposed to start with the broad and general, and then narrow to the specific. Thus it makes sense to begin the section with an overview of all negatives, then expand on the specific negatives. Doing so doesn't "focus" on the shortcomings, it's just the proper way write articles, from the general to the specific. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay that is good to know. I can't actually find the articles that talk about the style things you are describing, but a guideline is a guideline, and I'm not sure the "general->specific" article guideline would apply to a very small section. There's another journalistic principal to put the important things towards the front, which I think applies more in this case. At any rate I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of vague guidelines, picking which rules of thumb we think are critical here based on whether or not they enforce our arguments. In this specific case, the astroturfing incident is the entire point of the section. It's "in the media". The astroturfing thing was in the media, it's quite heavily cited. It belongs there; it is the main and only thing. The "shortcomings" article is something else, something different, and something kind of irrelevant. Putting it first is not going from general to specific, it's going from irrelevant to relevant. And portraying the astroturfing thing as just an element from the "shortcomings" misleads and gives undue weight. 98.255.37.40 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no controversy. GiveWell did this thing, admitted it, apologized and took action. Where's the controversy? The term controversy is not a neutral descriptor in this case. It's a term that implies argumentation, sides, differing points of view, etc.. in the case of GiveWell, that's not the case. Calling it a controversy is POV, it implies something it is not. I called it "shortcomings" because that is what GiveWell called it, but welcome other suggestions. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, the controversy is that they did something controversial and got excoriated for it, in places like the New York Times. "Controversy" is, actually, the neutral term here. "Shortcomings" is a euphemism and favorable to GiveWell; "deceptive business practices" is biased against GiveWell. "Controversy" is "something happened that caused public comment, so we're going to discuss that here". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversial to who? The words controversy and controversial have to do with a debate over something that is usually a matter of opinion. It requires two sides to debate or argue or not agree on something. There are plenty of controversial things on Wikipedia and so we have appropriate controversy sections. In this case, it is not controversial at all. GiveWell was caught, admitted it, apologized and took punitive action. It would be controversial if there was public debate, such as calls for them to resign, they were sued, they denied it, etc.. but as far as I know the issue is black and white, there isn't now nor ever was any controversy. Calling it a controversy, or controversial, is factually inaccurate and POV. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if you feel strongly that "controversy" is POV, and I feel strongly that "shortcomings" is POV, let's brainstorm some possible compromises. What other section headings could work here? "Astroturfing" and "Inappropriate promotion" are some options, both sourceable directly to GiveWell's own FAQ on the topic. "Internet ruse" is what the New York Times called it. However, since you feel that the section should not be limited to only the astroturfing issue, perhaps we need something more expansive. Perhaps something like "Institutional errors", though that feels very buzzwordy to me. What other ideas have you got for headings that you feel are neutral? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point GC. I would accept "Astorturfing Incident". Again, it was in the news, GiveWell created SEVERAL pages about it, etc. It is notable far beyond the other items on the Shortcomings page AFAIK. To many people, astroturfing is very morally negative, not just some little blunder like slipping a deadline because switching management software took longer than projected. I see as blatantly POV any attempt to fold it into the "Shortcomings" page that GiveWell just happened to put up, and which does not itself link to the astroturfing FAQ etc. There is an objective truth here, not a celebration of GiveWell's website. If the Shortcomings page is notable and important enough to be in the article, maybe it should be in another section. 98.255.37.40 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Issues" is a professional term commonly used for negative things, like "Company issues" "Employee issues" etc.. in this case "Organization issues" since it's a NGO. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A euphemistic term. 98.255.37.40 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be euphemistic if your intent is to have a section devoted just to the astro turfing incident. If the section covers all issues, "organization issues" is factually correct, NPOV and more professional. We don't need a special section just for the astro turfing incident when the company has multiple issues. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism" seems like it would be the appropriate term, here. "Criticism" seems better suited to the situation than "Controversy" and is similarly accurate, non-euphemistic, and neutral. We're describing issues that are not necessarily current and ongoing but which have attracted vocal, critical attention from reputable media sources. 70.182.195.99 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete list of media sources on Givewell

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] K.Bog 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Rationale for reverts

Being worried about "slid[ing] back into this being a souced-from-the-subject proxy again" is a fear of the hypothetical, not an actual rationale for including or removing content. If a source violates any rules of WP:PRIMARY then it goes, that's it. K.Bog 13:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This article used to be a big steaming pile of SPS - not a high quality encyclopedia article. Remember this? We want to stay well away from SPS and unless it is very necessary. I just trimmed three bad quality refs including one churnalism ref, and added an article authored by these folks but published in a biomedical journal. Raising source quality and keeping it high is a good thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I'm not sure why you think that "this article used to be a big steaming pile of SPS" implies that one well used SPS is improper. Wikipedia policies don't change from article to article just because of the history of the article. Here, it is necessary so that people know what the separate organization is for, what makes it notable, and what is the reason that is doing these activities which are being reported on in secondary sources, especially in the context of Givewell having a distinct and specific philosophy. K.Bog 13:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is a reasonable case for using a primary source and that the article is better with Karnofsky's description of Open Philanthropy's approach than without it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In general article content should be sourced to independent, secondary sources. That is what is "normal". There are a lot of things that people can do (it was physically possible to create that steaming pile of terribleness). What is great in Wikipedia happens because people do what they should do.

Not doing what we should do, should have a very good reason.

This is the content and sourcing you want to keep:

Karnofksy has described Open Phil's approach as one of "hits-based giving", where they aim to have a portfolio of grants that maximizes the likelihood of a highly impactful grant.

References

Almost all funders (philanthropic and VC and hedge funds) spread their risk. This is not even a little startling.... especially not for people who came out of hedge funds. What in your view is so important about this that we should not do what we should do? Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the source, it says they are "approaching our giving with some counterintuitive principles — principles that are very different from those underlying our work on GiveWell." And they do say that it's similar to VC. But it's not similar to hedge fund management nor to most philanthropic foundations because it's not about spreading risk, it's about taking risky bets in the first place. If that's not clear, a better way to write it would be: "Karnofsky has described Open Phil's approach of "hits-based giving" as very different from that of Givewell, since it focuses on maximizing expected value by funding causes with less supporting evidence but greater potential output." That will help readers figure out what's going on when they see the contrast between what Givewell supports and what Open Philanthropy Project supports. Otherwise it's just a dry list of things that a foundation happens to support. K.Bog 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what VC do. Risk includes level of development. And really - if this were really important or strange, somebody independent would surely write about this, right? Where is that? (This is the sort of thing that WP:UNDUE is all about - we decide what WEIGHT to give things, based on how independent secondary sources discuss them. It is hard to justify that something is really important if nobody but the subject talks about it, right?) We would not be having this discussion if there were an independent source. I actually spent some time looking last night and didn't find any. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but, this is philanthropy not a VC so it's unusual. Their giving is already notable, we are just filling in the explanatory gaps that describe their giving. For a secondary ref, in The Most Good You Can Do, chapter 14, it says "GiveWell has gone into partnership with Good Ventures, a philanthropic foundation set up by Cari Tuna and her husband, the Internet entrepreneur Dustin Moskovitz, to set up the Open Philanthropy Project with the goal of investigating a much wider range of giving opportunities than GiveWell does when it evaluates and recommends specific charities. The Open Philanthropy Project, unrestrained by the rigorous methodology of GiveWell’s charity evaluations, has written overviews of such topics as funding scientific research, reducing global catastrophic risk, and attempting to reform the criminal justice system in the United States." That's close enough, clearly the way that they do things is notable in the context of what Givewell does, so we may as well include their official document on why. K.Bog 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Venture philanthropy is a thing (we really should have a cat for that). - see Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation which is one of my favorites. the DUE/UNDUE thing is about the specific content. Again who independent of them, has talked about them doing this? Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it's a thing and it's notable/unusual enough to have a dedicated article. I already gave a secondary source but there is also explicit description of Open Phil's strategy in the paper independently published by CEA at [21]. I don't see how you can look at all this and conclude that it's not of interest to readers just because there hasn't been a perfect source on it. K.Bog 02:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The most good you can do thing doesn't talk about how they spend money does it? It just talks about what they have researched. I was unsure why you brought that up. The centreforeffectiveaaltruism thing is an in-bubble blog posting. Again, the sort of thing that the steaming pile was built from. Look at the refs in the article now -- all are strong, independent sources. This is what a WP article looks like, in its sourcing, when it is excelling and driving toward the mission, and not being dragged down into advocacy and promotion. (there can be other problems even with such sourcing, but they are more rare) Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's a paper from a separate organization. That makes it a secondary source, by definition. Wikipedia is not a place for you to give your personal judgements on what's "in-bubble" or not. TMGYCD talks about their methodology, which is exactly what we're talking about here. An excellent WP article driving towards the mission has actual content that informs readers, not a patchwork of disconnected statements excerpted from whichever sources happen to tickle every single editor the right way. If you could never use primary sources then the WP would forbid it, but they don't. K.Bog 13:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

In what peer-reviewed journal did that paper publish? It appears to be an elaborate blog post. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Have to agree here. As someone who ran a website that was astroturfed by GiveWell (albeit a long time ago) I feel like it's important to have external-to-the-org sources for claims that speak to GiveWell's exceptionalism Jessamyn (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's nice, since I've already given two sources which are external-to-the-org. Exceptionalism? What? It's not about Givewell, and it's a straightforward explanation of Open Phil's strategy. Wikipedia policies don't change based on whether or not some people once astroturfed Jessamyn. K.Bog 03:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This was not "astroturfing Jessamyn." This was Holden Karnofsky and colleagues setting up multiple accounts to astroturf on a website with over 100,000 users (mine, there were other sites) and getting specifically censured by GiveWell's board for doing so. Only belaboring it because I feel like it speaks to their quest for specific publicity for specific things using third-party websites to make that happen. I'm also in support of independent sources for these claims. Jessamyn (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It's neither peer reviewed nor an "elaborate blog post". WikiPolicies do not say that something has to be in a peer reviewed journal in order to be used as a source. "I don't like this/I don't believe it" doesn't count as a reason to exclude a source. But we're not even talking about using this source, we're talking about using the original one - this just demonstrates that you are wrong in doubting the reliability of the first source and the notability of the topic. K.Bog 03:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to make sure that someone here is actually referencing WikiPolicy, refer to the SPS doctrine in WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities (that's what this is), without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim (this is true, it's not exceptional that Open Phil does hits-based giving to maximize expected impact, it's just their strategy); it does not involve claims about third parties (this is true, it's just what they are doing); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source (this is true, it's only about their own strategy); there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity (this is true, it's on their official website and has been up for a long time); the article is not based primarily on such sources (this is true, the article is mostly reliable secondary sources, as you have stated yourself already)." There you have it. K.Bog 03:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So it is just an in-bubble SPS. This is not what we want. Content needs to be driven by reliable, independent sources. Please don't push to include content based on these in-bubble blogs. Lets keep source independent, not SPS, and high quality. Please. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well don't ask for it like some kind of favor. This is actually a very good quality source, carefully written, perfectly reliable (as a representation of the aims of the authors), and much more comprehensive and informative than many of the secondary sources in the article. SPS is, as far as I can tell, the only thing 'wrong' with it, and the source is valuable in this particular context as I noted above. So if there is room for having a single SPS here -- just a single SPS, relax -- this seems like the right one to use. And I don't see any reason to demand that there be no SPS's, that's not how the rest of Wikipedia operates. K.Bog 02:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Kbog, you are correct that WP:SPS doesn't preclude this source. For this sort of material, the decision is primarily editorial - as in, we can agree to include or exclude it from the article based on whether the article is better with it or without. Personally, my preference is to exclude it. It seems to me that the arguments in the essay WP:MISSION apply: the language is puffy and doesn't convey any real information about the topic. If there is a characteristic or description of GiveWell that is worth including, an independent source will note it. VQuakr (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

POV and WP:DUE deal with points of view, not basic facts about organizations. I've already provided an independent source which notes it and if secondary sources were necessary then there would be no need for any SPS on Wikipedia whatsoever. I think your perception of it as "puffery" or lacking in information stems from lack of clarity/background on the issue; it's easy to reword it appropriately: "Karnofksy has described Open Phil's approach as distinctly different from that of Givewell, since they aim to have a portfolio of grants that maximizes the likelihood of a highly impactful grant rather than focusing on highly vetted charities." That is specific information which is relevant to the third-party reporting on Open Phil activities in the article, and is not platitudinous but rather is clearly contrasted with the main subject of the article. K.Bog 01:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That is a narrow reading of WEIGHT. It is also about how much space we give to things; how much detail we go into. For instance on an article about a drug, having 80% of the article be about its side effects would be UNDUE, unless of course the drug was notable because it killed a lot of people, in which case it would be a violation of NPOV to not have 80% of the article be about that. This bit is discussed specifically in the WP:STRUCTURE part; we discuss that in terms of WEIGHT. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)