Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:59, 11 September 2011

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. Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages'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.-Tesseract(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 Misplaced Pages: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.-Tesseract(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.-Tesseract(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!-Tesseract(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 Misplaced Pages, 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.-Tesseract(talk) 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the logo would qualify for fair use, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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.-Tesseract(talk) 02:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of a copyright picture used with permission on Misplaced Pages, 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.-Tesseract(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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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)