Comments on: GiveWell, or Give 'em Hell?

GiveWell, or Give 'em Hell?

Miko — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:44:44 -0800

Is This Transparency? OP with very slim, one-year posting history asks a question about finding a good charity in AskMe, just prior to year-end tax-decision time. Newly registered responder posts a newly formed charity-aggregator/evaluator organization, without mentioning that he is, apparently, one of the two founders. Self-promotional setup leading to self-link? Or am I being too cynical?

[update, 1/3/08: a summary of events is being developed on the wiki. --cortex]

By: mathowie

mathowie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:51:04 -0800

Oh snap, good eyes. The question and "answer" were posted from the exact same IP. deleted, banned.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:51:24 -0800

Ugh. IP addresses for comments from geremiah and Holden0 in that thread match. I was hoping you were being too cynical, but it doesn't look like it.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:52:42 -0800

Simultaneous posts = proof that banning is the most stimulating part of this job.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:52:48 -0800

Also, the same person bought both accounts.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:54:48 -0800

Ha, awesome. Bet he thought he was being clever with that, huh?

By: localhuman

localhuman — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:55:05 -0800

Is this how justice is going to work in 08?

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:56:40 -0800

Sheesh, the irony! They're going to find the honest charities for us.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:57:16 -0800

Good eyes Mike!

Mike, did you bother to look at what Holden0 linked to? Granted, they don't look at enough causes, but they did a bunch of work to figure out who's good and published it. That's what I'm looking for. Telling every individual donor to go to mounds of research, or to forget it because they don't count enough, seems stupid and wasteful if there are websites out there (and there should be) doing the legwork and sharing it.

If anyone has more sites along the lines of givewell.net, please share.

By: scody

scody — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:00:43 -0800

~~Mike~~ Miko, Girl Detective!

By: mathowie

mathowie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:02:11 -0800

omg, on top of all this dishonesty, they named their "charity" for the .net version of a huge medical/visa campaign that resides at the .com version of the domain. Seems kind of like two dudes that thought "hey, what can we half-ass online and make money off under the guises of charity?"

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:02:24 -0800

That's slimy, even for self-linkers.

My skin is all crawly.

By: special-k

special-k — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:04:35 -0800

Awesome detective work Miko!

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:08:17 -0800

That was so cool.

By: small_ruminant

small_ruminant — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:08:56 -0800

Miko rocks!

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:09:07 -0800

Further on Givewell, here's the smarty pants fellas who pulled the stunt:

Holden Karnofsky graduated from Harvard in 2003 with a degree in Social Studies, and spent the next several years in the hedge fund industry. He founded GiveWell in August of 2006, as a part-time collaboration between 8 friends struggling with their personal donation decisions, and left his job to become full-time Executive Director in June of 2007.

Elie Hassenfeld graduated from Columbia in 2004 with a degree in Religion, and spent the next several years in the hedge fund industry. He was one of the original 8 part-time volunteer members of GiveWell, and in August of 2007 he left his job to become full-time Program Officer at The Clear Fund (our grantmaking entity). While Holden is responsible for the project as a whole, Elie is devoted to research: evaluating grant applications and determining how to help people as effectively as possible.

Gotta laff at two ivy league hedge fund boyz running this little game. And gotta wonder if they aren't looking to make a dishonest dime or two here too. And the putting on airs across that site is really hilarious. Frankly, I would not trust a pair of hedge-funders with a penny of my charitable money. But by pulling this stunt, they reveal they are just like all their rich kid pals.

If anyone wishes to call this little incident to the attention of the Board of Givewell here's the list:

Board of Directors

Bob Elliott (Chair) was one of the original 8 members of GiveWell, as well as co-founder of the national nonprofit Global Justice (not eligible for a Clear Fund grant).

Virginia Zink (Vice-Chair) is a former Head of Institutional Sales at ING Australia, and one of our project's major financial supporters.

Greg Jensen (Treasurer) is co-Chief Investment Officer at a major hedge fund, the former supervisor of both Holden and Elie, and one of our project's major financial supporters.

Holden Karnofsky (Secretary) - bio above.

Lucy Bernholz is President and Founder of Blueprint Research and Design, author of Creating Philanthropic Capital Markets, and maintainer of the Philanthropy 2173 blog.

Tim Ogden is Chief Knowledge Officer of Geneva Global, a philanthropic consulting firm devoted to results-oriented grantmaking in the poorest regions of the world.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:10:40 -0800

Just wait until you see their manifesto.

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:10:43 -0800

and I really hope that this thread shows up high when people 'research' GiveWell.

By: nanojath

nanojath — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:11:08 -0800

Note to self - when attempting to scam Metafilter for self-promotion, don't fucking call out Miko's answers in-thread. For her retribution is swift, and terrible.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:12:45 -0800

Hm. Someone who has never ever posted to MnSpeak previously just posted a comment about Givewell. I will leave it, because you are allowed to self-link in comments, but I wonder if they are astroturfing Web pages.

By: nax

nax — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:12:51 -0800

I am really angry about this. I took the question really seriously and spent a fair amount of time on my responses, which are now gone along with the other ones, many of which had a lot of good info in them. I thought he sounded like a putz. Good call Miko.

By: synaesthetichaze

synaesthetichaze — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:14:34 -0800

hooray

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:19:13 -0800

Yeah nax, I'm really bummed out as well because I thought your answer was really great and useful to someone like me who has very little idea how charitable giving looks from the other side. GRAWR scammers!

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:20:25 -0800

And at least if those folks google themselves, they'll come across this thread and find out what kind of "board" they belong to.

By: clockwork

clockwork — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:21:15 -0800

A decisive victory for the cabal.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:26:14 -0800

Hey Miko and Nax, I learned a ton from your comments in that thread. Perhaps you could repost them here? Despite the idiots who ran the scam, y'all's answers are very helpful for potential donors.

And even had you not called out givewell's bullshit as a self-link, your comments would have guided me away from having anything to do with them. Shows you know what you're talking about. Bravo.

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:27:52 -0800

Miko's got skillz.

By: AwkwardPause

AwkwardPause — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:29:20 -0800

What dicks. I'm also pretty impressed that you need an Ivy League education to learn how to spell 'refridgerators'...

By: mykescipark

mykescipark — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:29:21 -0800

Gotta laff at two ivy league hedge fund boyz running this little game.

Previously.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:31:07 -0800

Here is the Givewell blog

http://blog.givewell.net/

You can leave comments. I just did, with a link back to this thread. Maybe this way the "board" of the organization will become aware of what the "founders" are up to.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:32:06 -0800

Sorry, that's
http://blog.givewell.net/

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:33:56 -0800

LOL.

These dudes made it into The New York Times. Pictures and all.

By: Skorgu

Skorgu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:39:19 -0800

Man that's slimy.

Question-and-answer from same IP might be a nice thing to flag automatically for review?

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:39:42 -0800

Very clever, these Shinto priestesses. Good work, Miko.

By: SteveInMaine

SteveInMaine — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:42:37 -0800

Yep, a web search of givewell shows that at the very least they know how to spread the word, and it appears they're in a big end of year push. They're showing up in a ton of blogs, and getting more traction from the Times article.

It's really a shame that both Nax and Miko's comments are part of that deleted thread, as they both offer valuable information about charities. If their responses don't fit elsewhere, it might be a good idea to post them in this thread, and/or sidebar this thread.

By: holden00

holden00 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:44:14 -0800

You're right. I tried to promote GiveWell, and you caught me, and I deserve to be banned.

I just want to clarify that this is not about trying to make money or scam people. GiveWell is an honest attempt to help people make informed giving decisions. We don't ask that anyone trust us on anything; all our reasoning is out in the open. We are certainly not trying to ride the Highmark card; I can document that we've had givewell.net since more than 6 months before they released their product or published a thing on givewell.com.

I tried to get the word out there in a way that wasn't right. It was a lapse in judgment. It was terrible. I really hope that you can understand the difference between this mistake and running a scam.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:44:39 -0800

If their responses don't fit elsewhere, it might be a good idea to post them in this thread, and/or sidebar this thread.

Or just delete any comments referencing GiveWell, leaving the post to stand.

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:48:33 -0800

"...GiveWell is an honest..."

Ho ho ho! Hee hee hee!

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:49:32 -0800

We don't ask that anyone trust us on anything

I don't think that's going to be a problem!

*joins throng of worshippers at Miko's altar*

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:51:32 -0800

I really hope that you can understand the difference between this mistake and running a scam.

I really hope that you can see that you wasted people's time and abused the trust of this community. People have actually been pretty civil here most likely because you don't also seem like a scam artist, but it puts the question more up in the air than it really should be. Or, to toss your own words back at you...

To me there is a necessary link between transparency and quality. Transparency is more important than evaluation, more important than anything really, if you believe in your own fallibility.

I really don't see people here as being the ones who are lacking in understanding.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:51:48 -0800

Is it just me or did they just wipe their whole blog?

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:51:58 -0800

Well, well. Holden, you have an ivy league education from the same school where I once earned my A.B. As I recall, we had a "moral reasoning" requirement back then (which is how I had my encounter with the grotesque Harvey Mansfield).

Surely you know that lying once means that everyone will henceforth think you a liar, right? This is exactly why Miko was right to call out givewell in the thread simply because its founders are too young.

Y'all tried to play us. But you poked a tiger. A very smart tiger. You had better be squeaky clean in every other respect, because some of us intend to find out, and watch you in the future. It's nice to believe a couple of spoiled kids would chuck the Cristal and Lexus set and give their all for charity. But you just made it a lot harder to believe.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:53:50 -0800

Yep, wiped the blog clean. So much for being honest and admitting their mistakes. I'd posted a link to this thread in the comments of several articles there.

Wouldn't want the truth coming out, would we?

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:53:50 -0800

Holden, surely you can understand that choosing to do something as unethical and deceptive as what you did here—even if it is objectively yards away from someone running a Three Card Monte on the corner—is pretty damned troubling in the context of a charitable organization.

Noboby is mistaking you for Hitler, here, but this sort of crypto-stumping is the sort of thing people associate with slimy scammers rather than charitable orgs for good reason.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:54:03 -0800

Is it just me or did they just wipe their whole blog?

It's not you — they wiped it.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:54:23 -0800

GiveWell is an honest attempt to help people make informed giving decisions.

Except, of course, for the part where you post fake questions and answers in an effort to advantage of the generosity of AskMetafilter in order to pimp your website. And when you're called on it on your own blog, you delete comments, and apparently, wipe the blog in an attempt to cover it up. Honest. Transparent.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:54:34 -0800

GiveWell is an honest attempt to help people make informed giving decisions.

Fuck you, Holden.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:54:49 -0800

Oh shit, the fucker showed up again to do damage control.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:56:17 -0800

And as for the difference between a "mistake" and a "scam," I'd say it is a difference in *intention.* You *intended* to deceive us by using language that did not reveal your own ties to the charity you were pitching, as well as by posting a self-link in the first place. So that's not a mistake; it's a lapse in honesty and judgment, and it only elicited an apology because you got caught.

Character shows.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:56:49 -0800

Maybe someone should contact the author of the NYT piece and clue her in to this aspect of the Givewell story.

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:57:27 -0800

Is there a website somewhere where one can post this in order to give spammars a black mark on their e-reputation?

By: BitterOldPunk

BitterOldPunk — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:57:44 -0800

This rocks. Go, Miko!

By: mullacc

mullacc — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:57:44 -0800

Has someone already emailed all this stuff to the reporter that wrote up the NYTimes piece?

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:57:48 -0800

Blog seems to be around still, folks. We can charitably presume badly-timed server hiccup on that one.

By: mullacc

mullacc — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:58:06 -0800

On preview, monju beat me to the punch.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:01:18 -0800

If anyone would like to call this episode to the attention of Stephanie Strom, who wrote the NY Times article (assuming it's not one of Holden's aliases), please click this link:

here

Then click on "send an email to Stephanie Strom." The NYT story was such a glowing puff piece that I think it might be worth it to let the author know that she missed part of the story. The part where the heros are dicks.

By: SteveInMaine

SteveInMaine — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:02:03 -0800

Mmmm... I have a taste for these all of a sudden. Good, and good for 'ya - until you read the ingredients, that is.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:02:14 -0800

BTW, I just did send the Times reporter a link to this, but it couldn't hurt for her to get a few more.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:02:32 -0800

Looks like the blog is back, minus the 'recent comments' widget that had been on the front page.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:02:34 -0800

Their Alexa rank is in the 700k range. Weak.

By: holden00

holden00 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:02:40 -0800

"Y'all tried to play us. But you poked a tiger. A very smart tiger. You had better be squeaky clean in every other respect, because some of us intend to find out, and watch you in the future. It's nice to believe a couple of spoiled kids would chuck the Cristal and Lexus set and give their all for charity. But you just made it a lot harder to believe."

I agree with every word of that.

I don't know what to say. I am low on sleep and I'd like to think that had somethign to do with it. I did a horrible thing, I did it without thinking much - to me it was the equivalent of shouting. But it was horrible, I feel horrible, I absolutely understand your wish to now keep a close eye on me (and I encourage it), and I want to know if there is anything I can do to make it up to the Metafilter community.

I don't have a lot of money. I am not from the Cristal set. I spent 3 years at a hedge fund and gave enough to charity that I wanted to know more about what I was doing. So I can't offer a lot of money, but I can offer a donation to Metafilter from my pocket. I'm not offering this in return for your ceasing your criticism, I'm offering it to make up for abusing the rules. Would that be appropriate? Would anything else?

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:04:13 -0800

And while they may not have wiped the blog, they are working furiously to remove comments that link back to this thread. More are being added, but my original ones (which were civil in tone) have been removed.

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:05:00 -0800

What would be appropriate is a public admission of what you did and a link to this thread on your blog. That would be better (for YOUR business, which is an analyst and trades on accountability) than if the NYT reporter gets to it first.

By: BitterOldPunk

BitterOldPunk — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:05:41 -0800

And then he tries to buy us off.

Man, I might hafta start drinking early. What fun.

I have a saved copy of one of the blog page with fourcheesemac's comment showing if anyone needs it.

Whee. Happy New Year!

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:06:33 -0800

Seriously, you JUST again seemed shady, by offering to bribe the metafilter community! Money doesn't solve everything.

Also it's usually better politics to negotiate with the mods outside of the mob-filled thread. :)

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:07:56 -0800

Your apologies ring pretty hollow, Holden, when you have a company that insists on the value of transparency, but are simultaneously erasing comments on your blog that reference this thread.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:08:40 -0800

And ... they just put the 'recent comments' widget back. Do you think we're stupid, Holden?

By: holden00

holden00 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:08:49 -0800

I didn't wipe a single comment. We were playing with the blog format, bad timing, I have put it back as it was. I didn't remove a single comment.

Hopefully you can understand what it means to have a lapse in judgment. The lapse was quick and relatively thoughtless. To me, the best thing I can do is recognize what I did wrong, do what's necessary to make up for it, and move on. To me, that makes more sense than abandoning 12 months of sweat and blood because of a relatively thoughtless and temporary lapse in those principles that I now fully recognize adn want to admit and make up for.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:08:53 -0800

I can offer a donation to Metafilter from my pocket. I'm not offering this in return for your ceasing your criticism, I'm offering it to make up for abusing the rules. Would that be appropriate? Would anything else?

Sure, here's the routing numbers to my savings account. When can I expect the first payment to come in?

By: BitterOldPunk

BitterOldPunk — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:09:35 -0800

To me it was the equivalent of shouting

NO, THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF SHOUTING

What you did was the equivalent of lying.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:10:35 -0800

We may be a mob, but this time of year this really hits home. Many of us are considering our end of year giving, which has to be *exactly* why Holden and co. ran this scam on us in the first place. Many of us also believe in new, web-based ways of doing old things -- Charity 2.0, as Lucy Bernholz, one of Givewell's board members, calls it.

I think a little mob action is not out of place at all here. In a way this is *worse* than three-card-monte on the streetcorner or someone scamming MeFi to sell crap. There's a pretense to good intentions and honesty and accountability here. This makes all of us more cynical about giving money to charity in general, not just to these guys, I think.

And the mods, bless their wise souls, are in no position to tell the rest of us what to think about Givewell or anything else.

I personally would be happy to see a reflective mea culpa piece about this on the givewell blog, written by Holden, and admitting fully what went down here. That would do it for me. Just sayin'.

By: holden00

holden00 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:11:05 -0800

Forget the donation. Someone suggested it to me, I see how it is perceived as a bribe, and I take it back.

If I wanted to hide your comments I would have deleted them. The hiccups with the sidebar were not that.

I am now asking you:

1. Do you agree that it's better for me to treat this as a lapse in judgment - yes, in the very principle I believe in most - do what I can to make up for it, and move on trying to promote the principle of transparency?

2. If so, what should I do? I am open to roughly anything.

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:12:32 -0800

Well, it's healthy and realistic to think that we can affect the reputation of your business. Your behaviour on Metafilter can indeed have a negative impact on givewell, and rightly so. Unfortunately the scandal-horse has just left the barn. The comments have gone out to the Times and probably lots of other people relevant to your business. What's left for you is an expression of contrition and an explanation (the ones you've made here are good) on YOUR website. Seriously, transparency is as transparency does, and with proper behaviour and marketing of your response to your error, you can recover from this.

So take a deep breath and say you're sorry on your blog. It'll be better received if it's there first than if it's there after a reporter or three call you about it.

By: holden00

holden00 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:12:45 -0800

Fourcheesemac: your proposal makes sense. Do others agree?

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:12:51 -0800

Cunts. In. Hats. Fedoras, I bet.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:13:49 -0800

A full, public mea maxima culpa on your own site is good policy. This is not a minor lapse in judgment. This was an attempt to put one over on a community of 40-some-odd thousand, and that is a very, very grave error for a relatively young business to make. Especially a Web-based business, and one that trumpets the importance of transparency.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:14:33 -0800

I honestly feel sorry for your predicament here Holden, however, Holden, you aren't making things better for yourself right now. Get some rest. Talk to Matthowie in a personal email later. That is the way to clear up the mess, perhaps, with time people will return to their Wii's and forget this ever happened.

If you truly are trying to do what you say, good luck to you. If you are the scmmer that people suspect, you deserve far more retribution than MeFi is capable of dishing out.

By: mds35

mds35 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:16:13 -0800

Maybe you can't buy these guys off, holden00, but I have a lot of loans to repay for my stint at Columbia. Email is in profile. Have Paypal.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:17:37 -0800

Digg this.

By: holden00

holden00 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:18:05 -0800

Mea culpa posted. Is it honest enough? Please let me know what you think.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:18:10 -0800

Also, if you or someone from your company is astroturfing, and I'm not saying you are, it must be stopped immediately. You will be found out, and it will be an even bigger black eye that this. Go back to the sites that have been astroturfed and come clean. Mention it in your mea culpa. If there has been any additional whiff of deception in your dealings with others on the Web, it has to end and come out now, from you. Because it will come out.

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:20:51 -0800

Here's the mea culpa.

I'll be tracking the progress of your blog and company for the next year and seriously wish you good luck for an honest and prosperous 2008. Don't do that again!

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:21:21 -0800

Well, no one thinks you are going to roll up givewell and go away. At least I don't. But a dent in your reputation is appropriate punishment for doing something that sullies your reputation, don't you think? Stop being a baby about it and asking us what you should do. Own up to it on your own site's blog and let us know when you do. My opinion, anyway.

I went to your college (and worked my own way through, by the way), and teach at another Ivy League school now. I've seen way too many spoiled brat kids who think they will change the world while getting rich, and too many of the same kind of kids resume-padding efforts to do "good work" to believe you're not one of them. A whole lot of them buy domain names and pronounce new paradigms on their websites.

Hedge fund work of the sort done by recent Harvard grads, even at the bottom of the ladder, pays about $150-200K a year. You may not be rich or from money, but in three years you earned more than some of us will make in a decade or more, or many of the recipients of the charity you are soliciting will see in a lifetime of hard toil. Beyond that, most of us have formed the impression of the kinds of self-promoting, entitled people who work as hedge fund managers after getting elite educations at places like Harvard and Columbia to be doubtful about your altruistic intentions in starting something like givewell to begin with. All you've done is confirm the stereotypes. You may not deserve them, but welcome to reality.

So if you want to learn from and admit your "mistake," do so. But there are consequences to dishonesty, and you're looking at them. Sometimes it's the little lies that do us in; they tend to make people think there are big lies somewhere below the surface.

By: holden00

holden00 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:23:20 -0800

I asked what I should do because I can recognize that I'm not thinking well right now. The suggestion to own up to it on the blog was a good one. I should have thought of it. I should not have done this. I am sorry.

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:24:14 -0800

See, thing is, you can't apologize to us any more than you could buy us off (or fool us). There is no 'us' that you are dealing with! On Metafilter, or in the world in general. It's just many individuals, some will forgive and forget, some will snark, some will remain vigilent.

When the entire conceit of your project (I was going to say 'business' but I am feeling charitable (heh)) is how to figure out who to trust, and yet you cannot master that basic fact in your own dealings with the people who you hope to have trust you, what you need to do, in my humble opinion, is figure out why you are doing this.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:24:15 -0800

I don't know what to say. I am low on sleep and I'd like to think that had somethign to do with it.

Of the many things that wane with fatigue, I never knew that ethical fiber was one of them.

Offering money... ho man. You are a piece of work, my friends.

Someone please contact the NYT for a follow up piece. They will absolutely love the "outed by the online community sleuths" angle. Seriously, with all the trouble we've already got in routing donations to charities ethically, effectively and efficiently, I don't think we need these characters operating in the sphere any longer. It's time to end some careers, here.

By: found missing

found missing — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:24:49 -0800

Time to close this thread?

By: Evangeline

Evangeline — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:25:41 -0800

Yes, please.

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:26:26 -0800

Happy new year everybody!

By: found missing

found missing — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:26:29 -0800

Piling on is fine, but there is no more room on the pile.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:26:29 -0800

I read your mea culpa, Holden. It works for me. Appreciated.

By: mds35

mds35 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:28:16 -0800

I'm starting to feel bad for the guy, even though I haven't heard anything from paypal yet.

Do we need to torture the poor sleep-deprived guy any more? He seems humble enough. We're just gonna look like a bunch of pricks when the NYT article comes out.

By: BitterOldPunk

BitterOldPunk — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:29:13 -0800

Before this thread is closed, I'd like to mention that I'm soliciting funds for my Home for Wayward Girls. Donations appreciated, PayPal in profile.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:29:38 -0800

When there is no more room to pile on in hell, the pile-oners will walk the earth.

By: wheelieman

wheelieman — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:31:33 -0800

Wow a civil ending. Well that may change but for now I'm keeping these rose tinted glasses on.

By: mds35

mds35 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:32:10 -0800

If my hinting about for cash donations comes off as unseemly, I'd like to mention that I am in the market for a new Mac.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:33:35 -0800

Before this thread is closed, I'd like to mention that I'm soliciting funds for my Home for Wayward Girls. Donations appreciated, PayPal in profile.

Incidentally, I'm soliciting "wayward girls" for my home.

By: box

box — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:34:10 -0800

I'm waywarding solicits for my.. oh, the hell with it.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:35:13 -0800

When there is no more room to pile on in hell, the pile-oners will walk the earth.

Put another round in that pile over there! Look! She's a twitcher!

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:37:05 -0800

I am taking money for the Buy Me an iPod Touch so I can Hack It fund!

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:39:03 -0800

Upon reflection, Holden, does your BOARD know about your astroturfing? ah well, they will do now..

By: found missing

found missing — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:40:30 -0800

Hey, what did y'all get for christmas?

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:40:44 -0800

I absolutely understand your wish to now keep a close eye on me (and I encourage it), and I want to know if there is anything I can do to make it up to the Metafilter community.

*Delete your accounts here.

*Go away.

*Never return.

By: mds35

mds35 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:43:14 -0800

I absolutely understand your wish to now keep a close eye on me (and I encourage it), and I want to know if there is anything I can do to make it up to the Metafilter community.

*2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme

*2GB memory

*500GB hard drive1

*8x double-layer SuperDrive

*ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory

By: found missing

found missing — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:44:15 -0800

I got a swiss army knife, although not that brand. It is kind of hard to open all the different blades, etc., but I expect they'll be easier to open with more use.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:44:44 -0800

Hey, what did y'all get for christmas?

I got a bribe from a charity.

By: found missing

found missing — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:45:04 -0800

nice

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:46:14 -0800

Heya -- I've gotten the sleep-deprivation excuse more and more often from my Ivy League undergraduate students in recent years for "lapses in judgment" (usually minor but significant episodes of plagiarism). It's in fashion. It's the kids these days. I guess they don't sleep because they are so busy saving the world while getting rich at the same time.

I think he's learned a lesson here, and I very much suspect that givewell's bottom line will reflect the real punishment this will engender, which is mistrust from the very people he tried to convince to donate. Credibility is such a valuable thing in life, and online, and really they are the same thing. But for a charity, in any setting, it's the only thing that matters.

By: urbanwhaleshark

urbanwhaleshark — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:49:35 -0800

"I'm offering it to make up for abusing the rules."

I don't think you understand. You didn't just abuse the rules, you, and your partner, abused the trust of many people. And you got found out. Deal with that in whatever way you seem fit. I doubt more sleep and money would make you any less of a weasel.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:51:59 -0800

Well, I understand where he's coming from. I get less than eight hours of sleep a night and I also have lapses in judgment. Once, after a six-hour night, I invaded Cuba.

By: nanojath

nanojath — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:52:39 -0800

I do think that making a public statement in a forum where most visitors would not otherwise ever need to be aware of this unethical choice sets Holden a step above the run-of-the-mill scammers, who typically try to cover as much of the evidence as possible and disappear.

But I hope Holden understands that this is not merely "protecting our turf" or anything like that. Because of the potentially dramatic promotional power versus cash expenditure ratio, abusing voluntary discussion platforms is a real and persistent problem that in a very real way damages a whole burgeoning new approach to public conversation.

The whole principle of a service like GiveWell is for quality to rise on its own merits. Respect that principle and keep it clean from now own, Holden.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:54:22 -0800

So I can't offer a lot of money, but I can offer a donation to Metafilter from my pocket.

Woo-hoo, pinstripes and fedoras for ALL (followed by girly coos)!!!

By: availablelight

availablelight — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:55:20 -0800

"Lapse in judgment": Posting the question to "fish" for the givewell answer, without revealing your connection/intentions.

Another possible "lapse in judgment": Replying to the question (as asked by someone else) without revealing your connection.

DOING BOTH: Premeditated, manipulative, brazen site abuse. Not just in poor taste (like astroturfing) but out and out lying on top of a lie.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:57:44 -0800

For posterity, here's the link on Lifehacker that Holden acknowledged in the comments of the givewell mea culpa post.

By: konolia

konolia — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:08:51 -0800

Why is he even still able to post? Shouldn't the banhammer have swung by now?

By: nanojath

nanojath — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:10:13 -0800

He opened a third account, konolia, and Mathowie and Cortex clearly immediately started hitting the bottle in the flush of a good hard banning. No moderation for the rest of New Year's! Anarchy!

By: urbanwhaleshark

urbanwhaleshark — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:11:01 -0800

"Once, after a six-hour night, I invaded Cuba."

LOL. I think we missed each other by minutes.

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:11:48 -0800

Given the interesting developments of the last couple of hours, I would suggest one thing to you, Holden00. If you are sincere about a career in philanthropy, you need some humility in the form of some good, ethical consultants to help keep your strategies in line and to develop a marketing plan, business plan, and philanthropic philosophy before going forward. What's clearer to me than anything else about your organization is that you are (all) inexperienced. You have a nice idea - you want to operate as a sort of certifying organization for charities, saving your donor/clients the time they would need to properly research sizeable donations - but it's not a new idea, and there are a lot of people -- a field's worth of people - who know vastly more about it than you appear to. The rookie-ness of your mistake is a signal that you aren't ready to handle people's money in significant amounts.

You might benefit from contacting the Center on Philanthropy and considering one of their seminars or querying them for a consultant list. Also, consider expanding your board, making sure you add people with legal experience as well as nonprofit leadership experience. Someone from a journalistic form of media would also be a good choice, to vet your plans for business promotion.

Admitting your mistake and moving on is all you can do, although I agree that it's a method that the privileged are often able to do smoothly while others are stuck with consequences. In this instance, you may very well experience real, irreversible consequences. Or you may find a way to construct this as a responsible fundraising activity, or work with clients who don't care how you do what you do - but in any case, it has the potential to be a very important learning experience which should impact your management decisions in future.

If I've been extra sensitive on this point, it's because I am employed, and have been all my life, in non-profit organizations. I'm honored to work in a values-driven field and believe that the public trust is a serious responsibility. It can be abused, and if your methods don't get a bit cleaned up, you are running the risk of abusing tax dollars and carefully earned funds given in good faith to help change the world.

Good luck.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:13:06 -0800

I cannot believe how seriously people take this stuff.

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:13:26 -0800

If anyone would like to call this episode to the attention of Stephanie Strom, who wrote the NY Times article (assuming it's not one of Holden's aliases), please click this link:
posted by fourcheesemac
Done. Suggest all 60,00 of us do the same.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:14:35 -0800

I'm sure it does good for the people helped, but "resume padding" charity work irritates the hell out of me. Reminds me of the Blair Hornstine type. I mean in reality there is no reason to judge the good work done by people based on their motivations, but at the same time it's just kind of gross.

And these guys are paying themselves $65k each for their trouble. I realize that's less then they could be making, but at the same time I feel like they're probably just doing this for the networking and promotional opportunities, rather then a real desire to change the world.

And go back and read the thread, he didn't just promote Givewell, he actually criticized Miko for pointing to charity navigator, and said "what Holden0 linked to ... That's what I'm looking for". It wasn't just a simple spamming attempt, it was actively deceptive. Sock puppetry and all. People can and do get fined by the SEC for doing that about companies they are involved in.

Those are not the kinds of things that someone who is truly passionate about making the world a better place would do.

And plus, all they're doing is is supposedly making the process more "efficient", and then taking their cut (the $130k in salary, plus operating expenses) out of the supposed efficiencies generated. Just like Enron! While at the same time imposing more paperwork on the charities they are supposedly helping.

I wonder what their own metrics are for how much more efficient they actually make the donor-recipient-person in need process. But with at least $130k in salary, they are going to have to bring in and put out a lot of money to make the extra step even remotely valuable.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:20:24 -0800

I cannot believe how seriously people take this stuff.

If you don't make much money, but you have given some of it to a non-profit for a cause of personal interest to you, would you find it unreasonable to be concerned who receives it and how it is spent?

By: CKmtl

CKmtl — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:21:20 -0800

Belated (fuck, a few hours late to a super-active thread and I feel the need to throw in "belated") Booyas to Miko.

By: holden00

holden00 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:22:26 -0800

Miko: you are right that we are inexperienced. We got help from as many experienced people as we could early on, but we are trying to ramp this up more now.

Yes, I opened a third account so I could respond and apologize. Please don't ban this account unless *it* does something ban-worthy. I won't use it for any purpose but this conversation.

Yes, I engaged in sock puppetry. The final comment from my old account (geremiah) was the worst. That was a pure emotional reaction to Miko's comment.

All of this is true, yet saying that it means I can't be genuine in my wish for a better world sounds to me as simply incorrect as saying that you can't be a good person if you've done something wrong. Every value I hold is a value I've compromised in a moment of weakness, including the values most important to me. I wish that weren't true, but it is. The fact that I made this horrible mistake does not change the reason I started GiveWell.

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:22:30 -0800

And go back and read the thread, he didn't just promote Givewell, he actually criticized Miko for pointing to charity navigator, and said "what Holden0 linked to ... That's what I'm looking for". It wasn't just a simple spamming attempt, it was actively deceptive.

He also bashed Charity Navigator on the LifeHacker comment. Gaming the MeFi system to get exposure for your site is one thing, but actively pretending to be an objective bystander and posting negative comments about a competitor is much worse in my opinion. Hopefully Holden is honest when he says that he realized his mistake, and hopefully anyone else reading this thread who thinks about doing this will realize how wrong it is. Do not abuse the anonymous nature of the internet to deceive people.

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:27:10 -0800

Yes, I must say that by any metric, a charity that takes in $300K in its first year, only to spend $150K on program services, $130K on salary, and the remaining $20K on unknown, is not what you're looking for in a charity. That's a 50% administrative cost, astronomical, only 50% on program services. And then, think about the amount of money it costs on the recipient's end to answer the 'intensive questionnaire' - more investment that does not produce direct aid.

By: holden00

holden00 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:27:28 -0800

burnmp3s and others: this may sound stupid to you, but my goal in not disclosing my identity was not to appear "objective." It was simply to not be automatically discarded as a spammer. I simply figured that if I put "the project I founded" people would look right away. I wanted what I was writing to be judged on the merits.

I've made a lot of comments about GiveWell using my name (Holden) while not putting the fact that I founded GiveWell in the comment itself. The reason is that it didn't bother me if people found out I was the founder - I just didn't want them automatically discarding/ignoring my comment.

Now that I see how people have interpreted this, I realize how stupid and wrong it was. I'm not giving this explanation to show that it was right, just to clarify the stupid and wrong things that were going through my head.

By: ClaudiaCenter

ClaudiaCenter — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:29:21 -0800

Delmoi, I just did the same thing (re-read the thread) and felt the same way about the active and repeated promoting (and dissing of the other charity monitor). Also, I have to wonder how many times this has already happened on other sites without people like nax and Miko. (Some examples have already been posted here.)

By: jamaro

jamaro — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:29:26 -0800

He tried to threadjack a different Lifehacker post with the same question about a half hour after his AskMe post.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:30:13 -0800

Another astroturf setup on Lifehacker (separate from the one mentioned above).

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:30:34 -0800

Oops, jamaro beat me to it.

By: konolia

konolia — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:32:01 -0800

You know, when you are stuck at the bottom of a hole, it's probably time to stop digging.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:32:30 -0800

I'm surprised more people aren't gaming AskMe. Have you noticed how fast questions get into the top 10 on Google? I asked about beer glasses yesterday and right now my question is on the first page for "belgian beer glass" and all useful variants. It would be totally worth it to sign-up and suggest your shop as a place to go.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:35:20 -0800

You know, I personally don't have a problem with people suggesting their own businesses in response, as long as they are transparent about the fact. Of course, if their business really isn't a good solution, they'll probably be raked over the coals for it.

By: nax

nax — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:36:16 -0800

holden what you did here was simply prove me (and others) wrong in all the moralizing about what good intentions the vast majority of charities have. Thanks bunches. You have now given the members of this community the idea that, in fact, one should be suspicious of charities, because they are run by either idiots or scammers. Not sure which category you fit into.

It is such a daily uphill battle for those of us fighting the good fight, and then you come in here with your "good intentions" and "lapse in judgment" and want us to say , oh that's okay buddy, you haven't been getting much sleep boo hoo hoo.

Fuck you man. I need you like I need a splinter under my fingernail. Happy fucking New Year.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:39:07 -0800

Well there are no more fingernails in hell, then splinters will ...

Oh, fuck it.

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:39:19 -0800

This whole thing makes me feel sad and yucky, so I try to ignore it, and yet I cannot deny that I yearn to come back and pile the fuck on. It so clearly warrants it, but there is no joy left.

Sigh.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:41:09 -0800

You know what would be really awesome? If this guy wasn't holden at all, but one of his competitors, and this whole thing is just a massive double-reverse reputation whammy.

By: rcade

rcade — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:41:44 -0800

Every value I hold is a value I've compromised in a moment of weakness, including the values most important to me. I wish that weren't true, but it is. The fact that I made this horrible mistake does not change the reason I started GiveWell.

My opinion: You made a mistake and apologized for it, both here and on your charity's blog where it will be remembered by your critics forever. That's enough of a hair shirt. People here should show a little more charity.

By: salvia

salvia — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:45:31 -0800

I'm beginning to think that Harvard neither graduates nor employs many ethical people.

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is confirmation bias or what, but it seems like past leaders were extremely concerned with what it meant to have good moral character and what it meant to have virtue. While today's lessons-for-the-would-be-successful seem to be about self-promotion and learning to game the scoring system. But I dunno, maybe it's always been that way.

(I say this as someone who, in 1994, belonged to the Key Club, Students Against Drunk Driving, and every other zero-time-commitment organization that existed for padding one's college application.)

By: Rumple

Rumple — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:50:46 -0800

I'm surprised more people aren't gaming AskMe. Have you noticed how fast questions get into the top 10 on Google?

It would be worth considering for Matt to not "no-follow" the givewell thread, right now it is not on the front page of google for "givewell" but I think it would be if not treated like a normal deleted thread.

Though maybe that is just vindictiveness. Holden00 seems eager to make amends and in the spirit of the season perhaps a second chance to live up to the generous sentiments givewell purportedly stands for.

By: jayder

jayder — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:52:24 -0800

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a bit of a conflict of interest in Givewell's activities? On the one hand, they are setting themselves up as an arbiter of what charities are effective and what charities aren't effective. On the other hand, they are acting as a charity themselves, soliciting donations that they use to pay themselves and make grants. How can these guys be deemed impartial if they are competing for, and paying themselves with, the same donations?

Am I missing something here, or is Givewell's "business plan" a recipe for trouble?

By: salvia

salvia — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:55:48 -0800

I'm beginning to think that Harvard neither --

Oh, and I meant my comment as a general "how does education for would-be leaders today compare to yesteryear?" derail, rather than as a diss on Harvard or Holden00. (I went to an Ivy League school too, if it matters.)

By: wemayfreeze

wemayfreeze — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:57:27 -0800

Givewell? Nothing but a bunch of phonies.

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:00:12 -0800

jayder, that's the usual general working model for a public foundation. The problems can arise when the program services (actual charitable efforts funded) take a back seat to the foundation's self-sustaining activities. Foundations can serve some excellent purposes: assembling experts in a given charitable area, who can better advise the grant program; conducting research (which GiveWell plans to emphasize); creating powerful, large donations from individual, small gifts; and gathering several aid areas under one recognizable, and hopefully trustworthy, brand umbrella (for instance, a famous one, the Pew Charitable Trusts). The donor gives money and invests his or her trust in the foundation's knowledge, judgement, and history of impact in a program area. The foundation, in turn, does its best to apply the funds most effectively.

By: ClaudiaCenter

ClaudiaCenter — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:05:35 -0800

The problems can arise when the program services (actual charitable efforts funded) take a back seat to the foundation's self-sustaining activities.

A strong board is important.

By: jayder

jayder — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:10:29 -0800

Miko, thanks for that explanation. That makes sense.

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:12:06 -0800

Holden, if you are still reading this thread: you need to detailed-ly catalogue and link each of your astroturfing attempts in your blog post, and demonstrate (I'm not sure how) commitment to never doing it again and understanding why it is wrong. Full transparency on yourself.

By: nowonmai

nowonmai — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:17:32 -0800

Wow, taken in combination, those comments on LifeHacker linked above are incredibly incriminating. Yesterday he disingenuously asked "I'm looking to make a donation by New Year's and can't find a website that gives any useful guidance" and only a few hours later he was knocking Charity Navigator with "Really tired of seeing this website trotted out there as 'the answer for smart giving.' ... I'd much rather see more websites like www.givewell.net.". This is not just a minor lapse in judgement; this is a consistent pattern of using deceit to promote givewell.net and to detract from Charity Navigator.

By: desjardins

desjardins — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:50 -0800

I was prepared to be charitable in my judgment until I read the lifehacker thread derails posted by monjo_bosatsu and jamaro. Really, dude, lack of sleep is no fucking excuse. You did this intentionally and repeatedly on multiple Web sites. I'm one of those who'd never heard of GiveWell - too bad for you that this is my first exposure to it.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:21:00 -0800

Doesn't this seem like the sort of thing that people used to resign over?

By: vapidave

vapidave — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:25:04 -0800

Lucy Bernholz, a member of the Board of Directors of Givewell.net blogs about Givewell at http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2007/02/givewellnet.html without identifying herself as a board member.

I donl't know if she was a member of the Board of Directors as of the posting date in February but she has not updated her blogspot profile to reflect that information. She should probably rectify the omission.

By: small_ruminant

small_ruminant — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:28:31 -0800

Yes, I opened a third account so I could respond and apologize. Please don't ban this account unless *it* does something ban-worthy.

I hate this kind of reasoning- it's so loopholey/Enron-ish.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:29:34 -0800

Shh. The third account might hear you and freak out.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:32:47 -0800

Strangely, the name and the concept both appear to be rip-offs of a much older Australian charitable foundation.

By: rockhopper

rockhopper — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:35:04 -0800

Frank Abagnale, is that you!

Seiously, Holden is a con man and what we're seeing is Plan B for when he gets caught.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:36:45 -0800

Jesus Christ, some times I just fucking love Metafilter. Nice catch, Miko.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:42:14 -0800

And in that alternate astroturf setup on lifehacker metioned above, someone named "Penguino" responds with a link to the FIRST lifehacker thread, where we conveniently get the riff about givewell.

http://lifehacker.com/338969/fun-ways-to-live-longer#c3496408.

Check it out.

Also, givewell.com.au appears to be an entirely unrelated Australian entity that would (on first appearance) give the impression of doing exactly what givewell.net purports to be doing. It looks a god deal more settled and older, also on first impression only. So on top of everything else, we have a potential international trademark dispute here to entertain us as well.

Cool.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:43:09 -0800

Rumple beat me to it, sorry (the Aussie givewell). Credit is due.

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:43:59 -0800

The budget is informative.

$145.00 NYU course: Moving into Nonprofit Personnel Training

$2,000.00 Recruiting expenses Recruiting

More detail here would be nice. Seems as though the two staff were partners already; who was being recruited?

$10,000.00 Website design & development Public info Website

For that website?

$5,000.00 FMA - Budget development process Accounting

For this budget?

By: scarabic

scarabic — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:47:17 -0800

I hate this kind of reasoning- it's so loopholey/Enron-ish.

Yep - I love how he's telling the admins what to do. And that his banning just amounts more or less to getting a clean name and a fresh start. And damn it - don't fuck that up unless I do something else wrong!

By: scody

scody — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:51:18 -0800

This is not just a minor lapse in judgement; this is a consistent pattern of using deceit to promote givewell.net and to detract from Charity Navigator.

Evidently he's very sleep-deprived.

And can I just say: FUCK YOU AND YOUR SLEEP DEPRIVATION EXCUSE, HOLDEN. I'm here at my job editing multiple books on killer deadlines with about 3 hours of sleep under my belt, and if some huge fucking mistake gets through I don't get to plead sleep deprivation when it's my head on the chopping block. My sister -- a fellow Harvard alum, Holden, by the way -- has 3 kids under the age of 8, a full-time job as the chair of her college's history department, and crippling chronic pain; she hasn't had a decent night's sleep since you were in high school. By your reasoning, she ought to be engaging in major lapses of judgment befitting the Bush administration's Iraq strategy -- yet somehow (somehow!) she manages to keep her professional and personal judgment intact. So you really want to do the world a favor? Stop being the fucking poster boy for a generation of spoiled fucking narcissists with an endless supply of excuses, and this might be the last of the ass-kickings that get delivered to you by those of us in the real world who remain wholly unimpressed by your Special Snowflake status. But otherwise? GODDAMN.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:55:09 -0800

memo to self: buy scody a beer

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:55:29 -0800

@Miko - did you notice how the entire budget was approved minus the trip to Africa? I've been looking through the other ClearWell meeting docs but I'm not sure what the trip was about.

I don't know if she was a member of the Board of Directors as of the posting date in February but she has not updated her blogspot profile to reflect that information. She should probably rectify the omission.

She's been above board about her role with GiveWell in later blog posts, my guess is she's just sort of clueless about the usefulness or importance of updating her profile.

I'm still a little confused how this organization manages to do both things -- report on charities and fund charities -- well. The only way to get evaluated is to apply for a grant from them if I'm reading the docs correctly. This is fine in theory, I mean you can set up any hurdles you want, but it does mean it's a totally different animal than Charity Navigator which is really trying to report on the broad world of charitable giving. I can get how it's like the United Way or Pew as Miko says above, but if that's the case, then it's not really like Charity Navigator, or rather that's not its major focus.

It's simple to pick apart the budgets of other people, but there is a real difference between transparency in the world of non-profits and charitable giving where all this stuff is public and above board -- in an online world no less -- and just trying to be a good person in a more general sense. I have no doubt that holden thought maybe he was trying to be the latter group generally but then fell way short in the "million internet eyes on the problem" way where data gets collated and analyzed by a hundred people at once. That's the sort of power you want to harness for your teeny non-profit, and that's the sort of thing that makes people do stupid stunts like this, but it's likely to backfire more often than succeed for exactly the reasons it's so appealing to try in the first place.

By: lalex

lalex — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:55:32 -0800

Holden, I know you used your real name here, but in comments like this it's probably best to explicitly state your association with GiveWell.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:57:09 -0800

Eh, the request to not have the holden00 account banned makes reasonable sense in context. I can't imagine he'd intend to use it for anything other than what he says: commenting in this thread. And as bumpy a ride as this has been, I think that hearing from him—and having him be involved in this discussion and maybe get better enclued as to the nature of the transgression than he would have been just watching from the outside (if he'd even had the patience too, in such a position)—is a positive aspect of what's gone down here.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:58:36 -0800

Wow. MeFi mob justice strikes again. Good catch Miko.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:01:12 -0800

He's on boingboing, too. Seems to have a thing against Heifer International, though he claims to "know nothing" about them. Which is strange for someone who runs a foundation that researches charities.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:01:20 -0800

in comments like this it's probably best to explicitly state your association with GiveWell

Or this.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:05:18 -0800

Hmm, also gotta wonder about the second (lower-case) "holden" who registered there four days ago just to post a followup comment pimping givewell again.

By: jamaro

jamaro — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:06:16 -0800

or this.

By: dirtynumbangelboy

dirtynumbangelboy — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:07:56 -0800

Wow.

Honestly, an entire MSM article could be written about this.. some pretty fancy detective work.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:09:41 -0800

At what point do we find out that kaycee nicole or u n owen are on the givewell board?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:11:52 -0800

If the NYT follows up, Holden has probably permanently crippled his organization through these shenanigans.

By: jayder

jayder — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:12:46 -0800

At what point do we find out that kaycee nicole or u n owen are on the givewell board?

Yes, they serve on the board, along with airnxtz and Laurie Garrett.

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:14:07 -0800

or this.
posted by jamaro at 3:06 PM on December 31

He says "they quote me" and his name is holden. It may not be explicit in the comment but its a matter of clicking the link.

Don't go overboard here.

By: blasdelf

blasdelf — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:14:23 -0800

Christ, what an asshole!

By: Sailormom

Sailormom — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:15:45 -0800

Great job Miko!

By: jamaro

jamaro — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:20:47 -0800

Don't go overboard here.
posted by vacapinta at 3:14 PM PST on December 31

My point is he should be explicit in clearly identifying his association in the comment. His last paragraph is oddly passive voice. It's not going overboard to expect that and given that he made that comment a half month in advance of his blunder here, the slope got pretty damn slippery fast.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:22:46 -0800

Good work Miko! Bad work, GiveWell.net!

By: jayder

jayder — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:26:21 -0800

Yes, they serve on the board, along with airnxtz and Laurie Garrett.

I just realized that my comment placing Laurie Garrett alongside Holden and airnxtz, is not merited by anything Ms. Garrett did. I was just throwing out a couple of folks from metafilterhistory threads, but I realize now that I lumped her in with two people who behaved dishonestly. In the rush to "make a funny" I was unfair.

As Laurie Garrett might advise, I should step away from the computer now.

By: box

box — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:26:40 -0800

Holy crow, nobody told me the NYT article had a picture (that's Holden on the left).

By: FelliniBlank

FelliniBlank — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:26:42 -0800

Few things infuriate me like the self-justifying apology, the one that goes: "I'm so sorry for what I did. What I did was inexcusable! . . . now here are all my excuses." For fuck's sake, just admit what you did, clearly and specifically, and then apologize. Then shut the hell up already.

The self-justifying apology does not primarily aim to admit culpability or express regret; the real purpose is to attempt to preserve one's self-image and get people to say, "Wow, way to step up! Look at you, admitting that you were wrong. What a mensch!"

BullSHIT. It is not heroic to apologize when you have, in fact, done something reprehensible, especially when you apologize only after being caught and being told outright by several people that you had better say something before a reporter outs you.

By: maryh

maryh — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:29:03 -0800

Wow! This is an amazing thread. Bravo everyone!

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:31:31 -0800

I love it when a plan comes together.