January 02, 2008
GiveWell's Self-Promotion
GiveWell promises to be the “world’s first completely transparent charitable grant maker.” But a recent effort by the organization’s co-founder, Holden Karnofsky, to promote GiveWell has forced him to apologize for being less than open with the public.
On his organization’s blog, Mr. Karnofsky writes that he had a “horrible lapse of judgment” by hiding his identity on Metafilter, an online message board. In anonymous messages, he asked for ideas on how to choose a charity to support and then “answered” by touting GiveWell’s evaluations of nonprofit groups.
The act of self-promotion was uncovered by Metafilter members and deleted because it violates the Web site’s rules.
Tim Ogden, a GiveWell board member, writes on
Metafilter that the incident will be discussed at the next board meeting. “Speaking entirely for myself, I believe this to be a quite serious issue because of the conflict between what Holden did here, and the goals of GiveWell to encourage more information, more transparency and more real accountability in charitable giving,” he writes.
Mr. Ogden also praises Mr. Karnofsky’s intentions and his effort to notify the board promptly of the questionable move. Lucy Bernholz, another GiveWell board member, also defends Mr. Karnofsky on her blog.
Phil Cubeta, a financial and charitable-giving adviser and author of the Gift Hub blog, writes that Mr. Karnofsky doesn’t need to be raked over the coals for too long for this. “Let us forgive Holden, once he has taken the lesson to heart, as we would hope to be forgiven in our turn. His talent it too great for him to be sent to the Dumpster forever,” he writes.
What do you think? Will the incident hurt GiveWell’s reputation? Or is it a minor incident? Share your views by clicking on the “comments” link below.
— Ian Wilhelm
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: A Charity's Celebrity-Bashing Campaign Raises Questions
Next: Public Radio Station Continues Fund-Raising Appeal Despite Bhutto News
Holden should NOT be forgiven for this. His action has made it that much more difficult for those of us that solicit funds for agencies that actually provide services.
This event, and the other issues brought up in the Metafilter thread should cause those involved with “givewell” or those that support it financially, to examine the organization carefully.
— Bob Jan 2, 09:36 AM #
If GiveWell were not a philanthropic project, if it did not aim to solicit funds and tell others how to give their funds, if it did not insert itself as a broker into the world of charitable giving with little experience or capital, if it did not tout its critique of contemporary philanthropy — and its own competitors as well — as bringing “transparency” and “honesty” to the evaluation of other efforts to do good, and finally, if the enterprise had not drawn an amazing amount of puff coverage from the New York Times, NY Magazine, NPR, CNBC, etc, all premised on the fine characters of Holden and Elie as evidence by giving up their lucrative hedge-fund gigs to give their skills away for a mere $65K/a doing good by making the rest of us give more efficiently, . . . . yeah, then I might consider forgiving him and letting him get back to work (were I on the board of GiveWell, that is).
And where is there any real evidence of this “talent” you speak of? What we just saw here was an astonishing example of incompetence at running anything.
— RCM Jan 2, 09:44 AM #
Self-promotion, I don’t care much about that. That’s the way of the web. I am concerned that Holden posted negative comments about other charitable organizations. That’s playing dirty, which is bad in any field, but to be done by someone who is paying himself to review other charitable organizations is highly inappropriate.
— Kate Jan 2, 10:03 AM #
I don’t think the extent of deception engaged in by Holden has really been addressed in full in this post. It has been in the MeFi thread (linked above as “uncovered”).
To really give an idea of the scope of this, Mr. Karnofsky used his MeFi account to ask a question, fully knowing that he intended to answer it himself. After waiting for a few comments to roll in, he posted his own answer, and then gave his answer “Best Answer” status (note that on AskMe you can give multiple comments “Best Answer” status- he only gave that to his own). Note that nowhere in his question or his dupe answer did he disclose his relationship with GiveWell. This is unbelievably deceptive for a group that touts itself as completely transparent.
Metafilter has strict rules about self-linking in some areas of the site, however in certain situations referencing a project or association of yours to answer a question is allowed, provided you disclose your association. And really, this reflects a sensible ethic for any such situation- if somebody asks a question about a service, and my company provides that service, I’m allowed to discuss that service, PROVIDED that I state my affiliation upfront.
Holden didn’t do this. In fact, he didn’t even slip up and omit his relationship with GiveWell- he deliberately and with intent posted the question specifically so that he could deceive people and generate interest for his project (which, it has been noted in the MeFi thread, has a 50% administrative overhead, while claiming that overhead is not important when assessing charities- check your bullshit detectors on this one).
Furthermore, this behavior has not been restricted exclusively to MetaFilter. Mr. Karnofsky and his associates have engaged in this sort of deceptive behavior on other sites, including LifeHacker and Boing Boing, by commenting on GiveWell as if they had no affiliations with it. Some people may not find this outrageous, (apparently Lucy Bernholz, another member of GiveWell who promoted their organization in a Huffington Post column without disclosing her relationship to it, is one of them) but keep in mind that they not only promoted their own “service” in this manner, but they actually engaged in actively belittling and dismissing the efforts of other (competent and effective) organizations that facilitate a similar function, such as CharityNavigator.
Now again, some people may not find this repugnant and reprehensible behavior- in fact, some consider it business as usual- but we’re talking about an organization that is supposedly dedicated to charity here. These people get paid by soliciting donations from individuals who are convinced that GiveWell can make responsible and informed decisions about which charities are well-run and trustworthy, while demonstrating quite thoroughly that they themselves are neither.
GiveWell promotes itself as being a new way of responsible charity giving, while bashing the current process of charitable giving and claiming to know how to elevate charitable contributions to a more effective state. But as anybody with sense can see, the scam they’re pulling is really just business as usual: provide a minimal service, bash your competition, watch the cash roll in.
They slander their competition, promote themselves as transparent and effective, and solicit donations intended for charity by convincing their clients that they will be able to determine which charities are best-suited to handle their money. And yet, despite the self-professed superiority of their model, they feel the need to engage in this kind of under-handed and deceptive self-promotion. And half of the money they receive ends up in their own pockets.
Come on, people. In business this can be dismissed as sleazy shenanigans, but in charity this should not be dismissed.
— Brian Jan 2, 10:24 AM #
An organization that has as its core mission the promotion of transparency and honesty, with the CEO astroturfing all over the Internet like a Viagra spammer? Ian, you are going far too easy on Holden.
— Tom Jan 2, 10:26 AM #
The thing about claiming “more transparency” is that it raises into doubt all the theoretical transparency you were touting before.
I work at MetaFilter and watched this all happen. My take is that Holden was astroturfing GiveWell all over the internet but that MetaFilter was the only place where 1) he got caught and 2) the entire incident was and is being discussed.
This affects things like Page Rank, people’s ability to sweep things under the rug and the “time heals all wounds” idea that we have from the pre-internet days about damage control. If you can’t Google your company name wihtout the astroturfing incident appearing on the front page, and you claim you’re really truly transparent now, for real, what do you do?
I think claiming someone has “integrity” in the wake of a weekful of deceit and fakery (please don’t miss the part where Holden used a new employees email account to send messages about GiveWell without mentioning that they were sent by the CEO of the company, or telling this employee that his/her email address was used, that’s fraud and that’s actionable) is a bit of magical thinking.
We’re not so clueless that we don’t get that these people are friends and would like to solve this problem probably in a friendly way, but they’re also running a TOTALLY TRANSPARENT organization that has to abide by certain rules, both legal and ethical and I think we’ve seen that fall apart.
While I wish them good luck fixing this, I really don’t feel that we’ve seen one genuine non-CYA reply from GiveWell yet.
— jessamyn Jan 2, 11:01 AM #
Both Holden and his co-founder, Elie Hassenfeld, have used fake identities to slander competitors on multiple popular sites all over the web. They have discouraged people from donating money to DonorsChoose, Heifer International, and other charities and told people that Charity Navigator is a bad way to evaluate potential donation targets, all while pretending to be looking out for donors’ best interests. In fact, they were only looking out for their own best interests.
— Anne Jan 2, 11:18 AM #
When Tim Ogden writes that he “praises Mr. Karnofsky’s integrity and his effort to notify the board promptly of the questionable move,” it must be noted that Karnofsky only notified the board after the deceit was discovered and reported on MetaFilter, and after readers of the site had begun contacting the board and the media themselves. The cat was out of the bag. Karnofsky did not contact his board independently immediately after acting on his decision promote the charity anonymously and to disparage other nonprofits. His actions were not those of “integrity,” but of damage control in the face of an inevitable exposure.
I cannot imagine an honest and sincere donor who cares about efficacy and impact extending any further trust to any future Karnofsky or GiveWell project.
The nonprofit sector delivers vital services that improve public life for all of us. Its good work depends for support – depends too much, many believe – on the willingness of donors to place their faith and trust in charitable organizations. Every incident such as this undermines that trust and adds grist to the mill of those who would like to say that charitable giving is a wasted effort.
— Michelle Moon Jan 2, 11:59 AM #
Where free market techniques and charitable giving intersect, it pays to notice the types of marketing techniques being applied to the promotion of self-described charities, and be aware of the conflicts of interest which result therefrom.
In the private sector, we find Microsoft, for example, to anonymously and surreptitiously edit portions of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. Microsoft was unable to advertise or modify people’s impressions of its actions without direct editing of this informational resource, through the misrepresentation of its public identity.
We have discovered that GiveWell itself uses these same techniques of misrepresentation of itself and of other charities, using an anonymous or falsified online presence, in promotion of its own operation. Specifically, its founder Holden Karnofsky assumed multiple, non-self online identities to not only promote GiveWell, but — much worse — to use those identities to tarnish the reputation of other charitable organizations. When reputation is the true coin of NPOs, this behavior is indeed heinous.
GiveWell’s board is currently evaluating the use of these techniques by Karnofsky, but one of the board members has apparently has undertaken some of this activity herself, promoting GiveWell without indicating her position within the organization.
It is unclear what, if any, laws or policies GiveWell’s actions violate, with respect to conduct of an NPO in the United States. But a discussion of whether charitable organizations should behave this way is important, particularly with respect to the tax-exempt status GiveWell enjoys, and — with respect to GiveWell as a “free market idealization” of the charity — the overhead spent on salaries to the founders and board members.
GiveWell not only irreparably damaged its own reputation through Holden and Lucy’s activities, but has harmed perception of true, legitimate charitable organizations. As Metafilter user Nonprofiteer so succinctly puts it:
GiveWell just plays into the commonplace but misguided notion that we lost the War on Poverty because charity executives are lazy and stupid—just like the people they’re trying to serve. As long as this passes for public policy (“Down with taxes! Let the private charitable sector care for the poor! But don’t give them money to do it—that just encourages them!”), GiveWell won’t be the last charitable venture without a there there.
For this reason alone, they should have been given much more scrutiny by the New York Times, NPR and other “reputable” media outlets for their lazy coverage of this organization.
— Alex Reynolds Jan 2, 12:19 PM #
There is one aspect of this story that certainly deserves more attention: Holdon Karnofsky offered to give MetaFilter money. Specifically, he did so in comment 495032 of the metatalk.metafilter thread (http://metatalk.metafilter.com/15547/GiveWell-or-Give-em-Hell#495032).
He offered to give the community a donation when his transgression came to light, specifically because it had come to light.
It is one thing to have a lapse in judgment, as could be the case with hiding his identity in the ask.metafilter question. It is another thing to have a series of serious lapses in judgment, as would be required to hide his identity while criticizing other charities as he also has done. It is yet another thing to then offer money once these “lapses in judgment” are uncovered.
— Ms. Saint Jan 2, 12:31 PM #
Clearly, the Board of Givewell needs to seriously consider the issues, and reach their own conclusions. I am not saying, “Hey, forgive and forget.” I believe the Board should approach the matter with gravitas. As one human being to another, I am sorry to see a person of Holden’s promise taken to pieces like this online, over and over. As far as I can see, no new information is surfacing. The facts seem to be in, and Holden has acknowledged them. Now the responsibility rests with Givewell’s Board. In the meantime, as Holden awaits his Board’s review, we as human beings might try “hating the sin” and “loving the sinner.” Let us show at least some concern for Holden as a human being, fallible, as we all are. Justice, compassion, and mercy are all virtues to be balanced.
— Phil Jan 2, 12:52 PM #
Phil, what makes you think all the facts are in? Given the extent of Holden Karnofsky’s and Elie Hassenfield’s deceptions already uncovered — and they span over at least a few weeks — why should we assume this all started only when Givewell was short of meeting its fiscal targets or aiming at the end of year giving rush in a big PR rollout? Holden just woke up one day, you’re saying, and decided to do something stupid and risky and unethical out of the blue, for the first time in his life? Something so wrong that it may now bring down his company, if one adds up all the revealed and compounded unethical acts now evident on the Metafilter thread?
It’s just as reasonable to believe Holden and Elie have been up to this sort of stuff all along, and that much more remains to be uncovered. Believe me, with the Metafilter crew on the case, it’s going to come out. The site is legendary both for its strict community standards and for the delivery of frontier rough justice to people who violate it; many a major scam has been thoroughly outed and demolished by Metafilter’s longstanding and erstwhile “detective squad,” which consists of some of the most net-savvy web professionals (and evidently some of the most savvy non-profit professionals, we are learning), not to mention lawyers and philosophers and others with analytic skills, and nothing will be left unrevealed if it is out there online to be found.
Are you willing to bet the record is squeaky clean prior to early December? Not me.
— RCM Jan 2, 01:28 PM #
Slimy slimy slimy slimy slimy. Nonprofits and philanthropies are supposed to be the better angels of the money world. These dudes need to go back to their hedge fund jobs, lest they drag other charitable organizations into the muck with them. Bad precedent, bad form, bad mojo.
Grow up, kids.
— Amanda Jan 2, 01:34 PM #
I take my responsibilities as a board member very seriously and we are pushing ahead to a meeting to address the conduct noted above.
With regard to the comments about my posts and disclosure practices, I have addressed these charges fully in the comments section on my blog, philanthropy2173.com (Comments section of Dec 31 and Feb 21 posts). I point you there because that is where the charges were levied, first anonymously and later by the poster identified above as Alex Reynolds, and where they have been fully discussed and recognized as groundless.
I hope that readers will not simply believe claims about me that have been posted here while being shown as false elsewhere. I would request the courtesy of a review of that full discussion.
— Lucy Bernholz Jan 2, 01:47 PM #
I have no wish to split hairs, but it should be noted that the timing issue of Lucy Bernholz’ board membership and postings is still unclear in the comments to the December 31 philanthropy2173.com post, since she notes conversations with the other board members on, before or around the June 2007 Huffington Post article.
To be fair, past this lone uncertainty, I would probably not discern a pattern of astroturfing on her part, and she does seem to be acting in good faith to respond to concerns regarding her posting record. Probably just an oversight here.
Nonetheless, other questions remain regarding GiveWell that I would hope are answered by her and the rest of the board, and should be followed up by the mainstream press which, to date, has fawned over them.
— Alex Reynolds Jan 2, 02:16 PM #
The question does remain open, and it is a simple one: on what date did Ms. Bernholz accept nomination to the board of GiveWell?
I agree that it is probably not an essential issue and that Ms. Bernholz is making an effort to clear the record and her own name. But the lack of specifity on this question signals either the possibility of a similar strategy in play to the one Karnofsky used, or sloppy recordkeeping at an organization dedicated to transparency. Records of nominations and acceptances to boards are important for these very reasons, and even if Ms. Bernholz’ comments were made without knowledge of her impending board role, it is important to note the omission of the nomination and acceptance as something to watch for and avoid in future meetings.
— Michelle Moon Jan 2, 02:33 PM #
His crime was getting caught. I have personally done this exact same thing many times. I have written letters to the editor from fake names that are very complimentary of my organization. I have blogged in response to my own anonymous blog comments. I have called in when my CEO was on the radio to offer praise and throw out softball questions that he knocked out of the park.
I, like Holden, have simply tried to do my job: get the word out about my organization and try to build our brand.
The only thing that makes me better than him is that I did not get caught.
Forgive him and forget it. He’s a fool for getting caught, but he should just be slapped on the hand for sloppy guerilla marketing, not thrown in the Dumpster with Master Cubeta.
— You Never Know Jan 2, 02:37 PM #
In response to ‘You Never Know’ (Jan 2, 03:37PM)—
Perhaps it’s due to my not being in the marketing / “brand building” world, but the actions you describe as simply a part of your job leave a really awful taste in my mouth. As does Holden and Elie’s astroturfing.
It’s bad enough that such underhanded (yes, it is underhanded) practices are de rigeur in business and politics. That it’s been imported to the non-profit sector saddens me and has made me reluctant to donate to anything other than very, very local orgs.
You and others in the field may see it as some variant of ‘the ends justify the means’, but I don’t. Neither does my wallet.
— Chris Jan 2, 03:10 PM #
Michelle and Alex
I hope that your questions have been answered to your satisfaction, per updated comment thread at 2173. If so, I would appreciate it if you could let others know so that the answer, and not your question, might be the last word. And if you have other questions, please let me know directly. Thank you, Lucy
— Lucy Bernholz Jan 2, 04:13 PM #
Yes, see the comment in Philanthropy2173 in which Lucy provides the date that she accepted board nomination to GiveWell as June 12. I appreciate this demonstration of openness.
In response to You Never Know’s comment, I want to state very strongly that undisclosed self-promotion is NOT par for the course in nonprofit work, despite what a few may say. It is, as we have seen, dangerous to causes and careers. How ridiculously shortsighted it is, You Never Know, to suggest to the public at large that your field, and by extension, your job, is not reliably worthy of support.
The crime is not ‘getting caught’; getting caught is the natural consequence of unethical behavior.
We can do better. The public trust is serious. Hold it to a high standard.
— Michelle Moon Jan 2, 04:49 PM #
I, too, appreciate that Lucy clarified the timing of her associations with GiveWell.
— Alex Reynolds Jan 2, 05:04 PM #
Commenter “You Never Know”, your attitude disgusts me and you nicely sum up why I feel most marketers and advertisers are not worth wiping **** off my shoes on. Why would you feel acting completely dishonestly and fraudulently is a justified way to attract customers and generate income? Please explain? You deserve custom and investment if you are operating a good business. Work to be a good business, and you will deserve the money you earn. It’s a simple formula, it’s called trust and honesty.
— Jimbob Jan 2, 05:08 PM #
Holden committed fraud. He has not yet confessed to fraud. When he does we can start to hate the sin and love the sinner.
— Tom Watson Jan 2, 05:33 PM #
You Never Know: If you think that Holden’s crime was getting caught, not the astroturfing, then perhaps you’d care to disclose your name, your CEO’s name, and the name of the company you work for? After all, this isn’t a shady activity in your mind, it’s just how you get ahead! So surely, rather than hide behind a moniker, you’d be happy to give us more specific details about your techniques and where/when you’ve used them.
In fact, if you feel yourself superior to Holden simply because you didn’t get caught, you have all the more reason to do so- so that we can all applaud you for your amazingly sly accomplishments.
— Brian Jan 2, 05:50 PM #
Folks, I believe YouNeverKnow was engaging in a critique using irony. Sort of an “A Modest Proposal” thing. It’s hard to do in short form, and is easy to mistake, which is why we put up with 30 second commercials. (For the unintended laugh factor.)
— Mark Poling Jan 3, 01:05 AM #
I think the interesting and valuable thing about this is the way it has opened GiveWell up to the kind of scrutiny it has thus far eluded—which of course raises questions about WHY this scrutiny was absent.
The huge MetaFilter thread includes much hyperbolic (but understandable) vitriol about the astroturfing, but it also includes a serious look at the organization’s claims, its actions, its financials, and the attitudes of its directors.
GiveWell has promoted its transparency, but I get the feeling that many of its supporters have simply assumed that transparency as a good in itself, without taking them up on the offer.
A recording of the first board meeting is available on the GiveWell website, but has anybody actually listened to it? Someone on the MetaFilter thread did, and wrote a detailed summary, concluding that Holden & Co. simply do not know what they are doing, and are actively refusing the advice of people who do.
Did any of the reporters who wrote such positive articles about the GiveWell listen to this recording? Has anyone in the philathropical blog community listened to this recording?
I think that ultimately, this situation will prove to be less about Holden’s ethics than about his competence. Or rather, his incompetence.
— Marcel Jan 3, 08:35 AM #
I don’t think that an incident like this will be on the radars of anyone who is not a philanthropy insider, but as “You Never Know” pointed out, some of what is called marketing or branding on the web is ethically gray in the off-line world.
We do have to worry about situations such as these (regardless of the apologies that come afterward) and think about how they will affect our ability as nonprofits to handle ourselves online in the long run, especially as it affects how we are viewed.
Holden’s biggest mistake was using such tactics to market a website that was hailed (by their own) as being the most transparent of all transparent organizations.
Yes, I do ask Givewell: “How can we trust you again?”
— Maya Norton (The New Jew: Blogging Jewish Philanthropy) Jan 3, 10:08 AM #
Referring to it as self-promotion misses the point. It’s dishonest self-promotion to pretend to be someone asking a question and then to answer it with something that benefits you, all the while pretending to be a disinterested third party.
— Michael Jan 3, 11:15 AM #
Lucy (or anyone involved with GiveWell), can you discuss how the organization’s name came to be chosen? It’s slightly troubling that there’s an Australian GiveWell that (a) has a purpose almost identical to Holden’s GiveWell and (b) predates it by a decade.
— lalex Jan 3, 11:38 AM #
“I don’t think that an incident like this will be on the radars of anyone who is not a philanthropy insider…”
Maya—
I agree that it’s doubful that anyone in the media is going to treat this like it’s Watergate; it’s obviously not.
But I think that the whole reason it IS an “incident” is that it has already hit the radars of people who are not insiders. They’re the ones who are currently poking around, learning everything they can about GiveWell, and sharing their findings on blogs and message boards. It seems that, to a bunch of angry people, this IS Watergate.
I think the people who are philanthropy insiders should take a moment to wonder how they are going to look to this army of amateur Woodwards and Bernsteins. Because a lot of people are looking at the professionals talking about how “talented” Holden is, and the professionals who have bought into his wunderkind persona, and they’re scratching their heads. Because it doesn’t look like that from outside.
The question above about the Australian GiveWell is a good example. Personally, I doubt there’s any kind of nefarious scandal there, but you have to admit that giving your organization a name that’s already used by another organization that does basically the same thing—well, that’s a pretty dopey move.
Did no one even do a Google search? Who let these kids think they could run their own show?
Where were the grown-ups?
— Marcel Jan 3, 12:23 PM #
Regardless of the quality of the accusations (and I think they’re fairly damning), it’s hard to argue with the sheer quantity of outraged individuals. This is serious.
— Matt Jan 3, 02:44 PM #
how about the hilariously stupid lack-of-sleep defense! that’s the worst part of the whole thing. sign of a spoiled brat. no easier way to assure a bad life for yourself: still pitch excuses, like a child.
— an outsider Jan 3, 04:14 PM #
“how about the hilariously stupid lack-of-sleep defense?”
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
— Rick James Jan 3, 05:55 PM #
I keep hearing the phrase “the worst part is that” – but it’s followed by so many different things: he posed as an objective third party, Elie was in on it too, it was a concerted campaign rather than a single blunder, it was a deliberate lie, the company emphasizes transparency, his excuses were infantile, his apology was hollow . . . there’s a lot to be offended by. Something for everyone, really.
— Matt Jan 3, 07:02 PM #
It is worth thinking that if this is systemic behavior (and it seems like it was) then it would be appropriate for the response to be dismissal. Consider:
1. As others have noted the apology came to light because he got caught, this is contrition by way of exposure.
2. What is the extent of this behavior prior to this incident?
3. What other shady practices, if any, where engaged in?
4. How can there be trust that what he says is truthful?
I certainly hold no faith in the company, and will talk to others about the practices of this institution. If GiveWell, as an entity wants any measure of credibility I’m not sure how it can afford having the founders act as such and still be active within the company.
— edgeways Jan 3, 07:24 PM #
To clarify, in my comments on Metafilter I stated that “I can personally vouch for the unimpeachable intentions of Holden and Elie in starting GiveWell.” I did not comment on Holden’s integrity.
— Tim Ogden Jan 4, 03:48 PM #
This is a sad incident for our sector. Trust and ethics are fundamental to this sector – its at the core of our intentions and our daily interactions. Already, according to an NYU study, a majority of Americans think that nonprofits are mismanaged. It hurts all of us in the nonprofit sector when the public thinks that we’re not trustworthy. Let’s all try to make this the first and last ethics scandal of 2008 in this sector.
— Perla Ni Jan 4, 04:19 PM #
I appreciate the visceral reaction to my idea that “his crime was getting caught.” It is almost refreshing to see that some of us still feign a modicum of decency and integrity in the highly anonymous world of the Internet.
It is also laughable.
Thank you, Brian (Jan 2, 06:50 post), for the amusement when you asked for my “real” name.
What if I told you and Chris (Jan 2, 04:10 PM post) that I were with a “very, very local” non-profit? Would you stop donating entirely? How would you know if I were with that group, or actually with Heifer International? Or unemployed? Or maybe Holden himself, at it again?
Maybe I should say that I am, in fact, Trent Stamp from Charity Navigator?
Would you believe me THEN, when I could not prove it?
This whole question of anonymity reminds me of an Internet chat room in which side conversations are begun with “ASL?” (Age/Sex/Location). If you reply male, other males sometimes go away saying that they are looking for a female. But if you reply female, how are they to really know that they are not being chatted up by some 300-pound 15-year old boy who is typing in between handfulls of Cheez-Its?
True, we prefer to think that Philanthropy is immune from the lies and seedy anonymity of AOL chat rooms and such, but our preference does not change the reality of what works in online communications and general marketing.
Philanthropy is such a great mask to make us all feel better than our own pasts and deeper urges. But honestly, though the tactics may not be readily admitted from the church podium by the priest who practices them to get members to fill the pews on Sunday, is it really such an awful thing? Or is it more awful that we live in a world in which fools are willing to trust what they see in print — particularly the glowing digital variety that is shot across the Internet?
How is it that Wikipedia has quickly become the #1 return on many Google searches? Because fools abound, and the world is full of marketers with an understanding of how to turn the milk into cheese.
Perhaps we should direct our anger more at the culture and community in which we live, where the only real definition of integrity is consistent deception (i.e. “don’t get caught, Holden”).
Indeed, I have confessed my crimes in public, but also anonymously so that I do not face the same problems that Holden faces. Why would I lay my own head down on the chopping block? I am a dubious liar for the cause of the greater good, but no fool.
I do not pretend to be better than my friends in traditional advertising because I market a charity and they market Kraft Macaroni (among other things). I realize that my job has nothing to do with my own personal nobility, but merely the greater goal of infusing my organization’s own gravitational pull into our donor’s own theories of wealth redistribution.
The only sin greater than getting caught using my guerrilla marketing tactics would be burying my talents at such deception so that I could feel no pang of hypocrisy when I attach a seemingly non-anonymous name to my comment on the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s blog that rails against another comment I have put on the same blog.
For yes, I have made the argument that you read in this comment… but how do you know that I am not, in fact, myself Chris or Brian? Or, dare I to dream, Ian Wilhelm himself?
Onward, Christian soldiers, we are lemmings on the march… drop your coins in the Salvation Army buckets and ask no question that cannot be answered by Google.
— You Never Know Jan 6, 06:03 PM #
“It is almost refreshing to see that some of us still feign a modicum of decency and integrity in the highly anonymous world of the Internet.
It is also laughable.”
It’s sad that you find it laughable, and sadder still that the only integrity and decency you can imagine around you is the feigned variety. Whatever disinclination you have toward actual integrity and actual decency (on the net or off) is not universally shared.
Laugh it off, by all means — I don’t see any indication that you’ll respond to this with any sincerity — but don’t confuse your comments here with anything approaching an accurate summary of other people’s ethics.
That aside: the Givewell Board has removed Holden Karnofsky as ED as of January 3rd.
— Josh Millard Jan 7, 05:25 AM #