Fallout from the Givewell affair

(This was in response to a comment in the old thread about the civility of metafilter. jessamyn closed the door on me, probably for good reason.)

I have been in meetings (years ago at Microsoft) where the people in charge were at least as harsh as the strongest words in the givewell thread. People literally crying at the meetings, which I, as a contractor, could only wonder at (both sides--that people couldn't take it and that other people were as blunt as they were) until someone pointed a finger at us contractors and said "leave, this has nothing to do with you."

At the time, I thought "Christ, that guy is an asshole," and, well, he probably was/is. But he was actually making good points and calling people on bullshit. Rather than saying "well, that's nice, but what about this?" he said "you've had two months and have done jack shit, and what little you've done is unimpressive. I've studied this for an hour and can see eight gaping holes that no one in here has even considered. What gives?"

It's not the best way to build a team but it is a good way to wake people up. Whether they're willing to do good work for you later is another question.

I do cringe a bit when I read a comment directly and harshly criticizing Phil and others. Some of it is uncalled for personal attack, but a lot of it is just very blunt criticism. I know I really dislike receiving blunt criticism in my own work, but often it's all that wakes me up to the fact that what I'm doing wasn't very good or I wasn't seeing the entire problem. That's what prompts me to sometimes make my own fairly blunt observations.
posted by maxwelton at 9:42 PM on January 6

(Not saying she closed it on me personally, I was just caught in the revolving part when the blots slammed home.)
posted by maxwelton at 9:43 PM on January 6

I think this is a reasonable outcome. The board had to act against Holden's actions but also demonstrate that they were not wrong to follow him initially. Demoting him shows some faith in his ideas and hopefully helps donors from bailing.

Good work Mefi! Really impressive.

Thank you for the new thread. The old one took almost 3! minutes to load last time I tried!
posted by typewriter at 9:46 PM on January 6

Ah, the familiar smell of CYA PR hackery! The GiveWell board "believes that the acts of misrepresentation that were committed are indefensible and are in direct conflict with the goals of the organization and we condemn them in the strongest possible terms", but they don't fire Karnofsky.

So much for trust and transparency.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:47 PM on January 6 [3 favorites]

It's kind of shocking that a metatalk call-out could have such real-world implications.

Did anyone really want someone to lose their job over sock-puppetry?
posted by empath at 9:47 PM on January 6 [4 favorites]

[thanks HM, took your advice - this is sort of an unprecendented move but with the big news and the superlong thred this seemed like a decent move. apologies again for the abruptness]
posted by jessamyn at 9:47 PM on January 6

Jeff Doyle asked, in the now-closed GiveWell thread:

Speaking of rules that ought to apply in both worlds, why should you not be judged by the company that you keep?

My take on the somewhat harsh response to Phil is that several Metafilter members were frustrated by Phil's continuation, on Metafilter, of the tiresome lectures on his literary antecedents, woodcuts, characters created by Dryden, Swift, and Johnson, and rhetorical traditions of the past 2000 years, that we found so baffling at Gift Hub, and which seemed be an elaborate way of evading the issues at hand. It appeared that Phil's strategy for dealing with difficult questions about the conduct of his colleagues and peers was to baffle his interlocutors into silence, by cowing them with his supposed learning: the implicit message seemed to be, "Are you really that stupid? Are you not aware that what I am doing has a 2000 year history in Western culture?" In short, Phil's digressions were bizarrely evasive.

We were asking some fairly straightforward questions: Why do you insist on making excuses for Holden's lies and subterfuges? Why are you criticizing us for brutish incivility while at the very same time, rushing to the defense of a regular commenter on your site whose comments included, "I wipe my a** with Metafilter"? Why are you more perturbed by the criticism of your colleague than the violation of trust represented by your colleague's conduct?

We didn't get many straight answers. In fact, I suspect Phil has not been truthful with us. I think he has finagled an apology out of a Metafilter member where none was due, and I think his trumpeting of the apology was in bad faith that starkly contradicts the moral traditions he claims to cherish. I suspect other members of Metafilter share my thoughts about Phil. So that's why the response to Phil has been harsh.

But nowhere in this thread has the discourse been lowered to the level of words that Phil himself defended on his own blog. And because Phil defended words from his friends far less civil than we have seen here, I do not see how you can really object to what has been said on Metafilter.
posted by jayder at 9:49 PM on January 6 [12 favorites]

Notified CNBC of the statement from the Board of Directors about changes at Givewell.
posted by netbros at 9:54 PM on January 6

Wow. That Holden is so valuable to the GiveWell that they kept him around as Program Officer. He sure must know a lot about non-profits, and about how the web works.

Um, speaking of transparency, how much was the "financial penalty" GiveWell "imposed" on Program Officer Karnofsky? Was that in addition to the "financial penalty" that naturally comes with a demotion to a (presumably) lower-paying position?

And the statement says nothing about co-founder Elie Hassenfeld's astroturfing. Is he going to be made a "Program Officer" too?

I suppose the larger question is, what does GiveWell bring to the table that isn't already done better by other organizations, organizations with established track records and not besmirched by a pattern of repeated duplicity? Why should anyone give money to this self-appointed middle-man that still diverts some portion of donated money to Holden Karnofsky and other cronies, when all that money could go directly to the needy, and not to privileged ex-hedgefunders with dreams of winning social accolades for skimming charitable contributions?
posted by orthogonality at 9:55 PM on January 6 [3 favorites]

In addition to being removed from his positions, a financial penalty has been imposed on Mr. Karnofsky.

Ouch.

Holden will be moved to a Program Officer position, where we believe he will be valuable in helping GiveWell meet its outstanding commitments to applicants and donors.

Ah.

I just hope he actually learned something about honesty, transparency, dicking people around, and how to behave as a civilized member of a web culture. If he did, he might very well have rejoined us using a new name.

That's one of the beauties of web life: you can have a name that is recognizable to others and repected or tolerated, that has a reputation; and yet if you screw the pooch on it, you can get a second chance. Or until your IP is banned or blocked.

I frankly thought the web reputation punishment would end up being enough punishment: Holden is part of a large web mythology now, a lesson to others.

I am somewhat surprised Givewell's overseers don't understand the detriment of having that organization's name associated with the history of internet communication/community fuck-ups. Look up canter siegel usenet.

Add to that the complexity of Givewell Australia already having legitimate claim to the charity namespace and particularly the specific "non-profit review and accountability board" charity namespace, changing the name is a legitimate escape from the tarnish. It's not like you guys told the dumbass to be a dishonest self-serving asshat.

I do have to admit that what I actually want at this point is for a bunch of jackasses who leapt to Holden's defence by attacking us. I am truly sorry that you do not understand.

I don't know whether I should tell you to drink the kool-aid or not. Or take the blue pill. Or the brown acid. Whatever the hip term is for taking MeFi as a serious social organism. Come, join our cult.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:57 PM on January 6

(glad I previewed, so I knew to cut and paste)

Maureen Doyle wrote...
I am particularly interested in the taboo in our society concerning identity, including the question of alternative discursive styles or communication techniques, which is, as you all know, at the heart of the givewell crisis and the ensuing debate on GiftHub.

Hello Maureen, thanks for dropping in.

Identity is (quite obviously from these threads) a squirrely topic. Let me suggest a continuum.

One could imagine taking the shifting identities of Phil's blog one step further, and having a taboo on placing any identifying marks on a message. I've seen communities like this from time to time but they don't last. With the rare exception of the Buddha, humans just don't feel at home without their egos.

A little closer from that end we have Phil's blog, where archetypes are shared and assumed as needed. This is a fine tradition, and as Phil is quick to point out is what literary masters have done throughout the ages: grab the character of a God, or a King, or a Philosopher and speak their own words through his or her mouth. Jung would approve mightily of this method of exploration, but it proves too abstract for some. It is a beautiful tool for understanding the theory of humans, but can lack that gritty edge that accompanies humanity.

In the middle we have the anonymity of every day living. The people we sit next to on the bus, the strangers in traffic, the unidentified mass of humanity. We believe them to have fixed identities, but in truth we'll never know.

And here we come to acquaintances, where Metafilter largely lies. We know parts of each other here -- our online personas are every bit as fractional as the ones we show to people in the workplace. Even those of us who strive to bring our entire selves to the table are hampered by the medium. At this level of identity there is an ongoing tension between making a good impression and "just being yourself". This particular community tends toward the latter on good days, but our egos are as vain as everyone elses.

Beyond acquaintances is the sometimes frightening world of real identity and real intimacy. I say frightening because egos like being stripped bare about as much as they like being obviated. We all want a little protection from these extremes.

In any case, that's how I would draw things in this case:

No Identities-----Shifting-----Anonymity-----Acquaintances-----Intimacy

(I would also note that in this case, the collision between Phil's blog and Metafilter was (and is) marked by a misunderstanding by several mefites who confuse the shifting indentities with people attempting to show off for new acquaintances. And frankly there may be some of that going on.)

As others have more rudely pointed out, it's not clear that Holden's actions here were really of the same nature of the collision between Metafilter and Gifthub. He didn't come here with archetypes or attempting erudition: he came to claim familiarity and acquaintance under false colors, in order to push a pet project. This is, I think you would agree, a very different activity than what is being carried out at Gifhub.
posted by tkolar at 9:57 PM on January 6 [6 favorites]

Thanks jessamyn, and greetings to the new members.

It is welcome to see that there are consequences to dishonest actions, especially when they constitute a pattern of behaviour. The actions taken at Givewell seem to be appropriate (though a financial penalty seems a bit odd? is it normal to get fined by one's employer?). I look forward to knowing if there will be consequences for Elie as well, as well as reading the minutes, as promised.

on preview:

and we condemn them in the strongest possible terms

This has always struck me as an odd way to express oneself -- I mean, use the terms, don't just denote them collectively as the 'strongest possible ones'. Was it stupid? Idiotic? Dishonest? Just say it.

For those wondering why the emotion arose in that thread, fourcheesemac nailed it, I think, as being about a microcosm of recent trends in the world. So you don't have to wait for that thread to load, here is the start of his/her comment:

After reading nonprofiteer's smart post above, this occurred to me. Maybe some of the visceral anger here is scapegoating, in a sense, but man is the anger deserved.

We have had years, now, of being told that rational and efficient market-based forces would radicalize the hitherto flabby and emotional ways we have thought about social justice and morality. Across all sectors, not just philanthropy. There have been many prior Holdens, waving stopwatches and sliderules and books of rational choice theory and quantitative methodology at us and telling us that being "good" and being "competitive" are the same thing. The left -- and "liberalism" -- has been repeatedly humiliated by this rhetoric, not least in the last 7 or so years of a CEO president who also seems to have managed to surround himself with fellow incompetents who, behind their moralizing discourse, were busy fucking everything up while robbing everyone blind and lining their own pockets.
posted by Rumple at 10:01 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]

empath wrote...
Did anyone really want someone to lose their job over sock-puppetry?

I don't think anyone lost their job over sock-puppetry.

Lying, attempted bribery, identity theft, and creating a PR hassle? That the lost their job over.
posted by tkolar at 10:02 PM on January 6 [3 favorites]

I don't think anyone lost their job ~~over sock-puppetry.~~

Fixed.
posted by typewriter at 10:06 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]

To quote Holden himself on the issue of plain speech when delivering criticism:

I’ve given up a great job with great pay for one that has more hours, more stress, and less comfort. I’ve already struggled, I’ve already felt pain and demoralization, and I know that I’m just getting started. But to give me “sympathy” by tempering your feedback would hurt our project, and my desire for the project to succeed is the only reason I’m doing any of this in the first place. So please, honor the following wish for me. If you ever talk to me, be totally blunt with me about the job you think I’m doing. And if I ever complain that your language or your tone or your criticism is inappropriately harsh, and focus even a speck of my energy on making you “nicer” rather than learning from you, please do these two things in succession:

1. Remind me of this letter; call me a crybaby and a hypocrite; and repeat your feedback, as harsh as or harsher than before.

2. If that doesn’t work, and I continue to focus on my feelings rather than your feedback, kindly bludgeon me in the head.

Best,

Holden
posted by Rumple at 10:09 PM on January 6 [4 favorites]

I hope that, as a program officer, Holden will have more time to learn some of the nuts and bolts of how NPOs operate - how much reporting they already do, to whom, and in what form, and what the associated time-costs of that kind of reporting entail.

thank you, jessamyn, for closing that monster and opening this one. Welcome to the new members; please do take some time to click through to people's profiles, skim some of our previous comments on this and other posts, and watch that last step - it's a doozy!
posted by rtha at 10:10 PM on January 6

a financial penalty has been imposed

I don't really understand this. I mean, I've never heard of a person being "fined" by their employer. (Shrug.)
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 10:12 PM on January 6

Mr. Doyle --

There has been a lot said here about how the same rules of honesty and transparency that apply in the real world should apply on the web. (I couldn't agree more.) The one thing I don't quite get is this. Isn't it also true that the same rules of civility that apply in the real world should apply on the web? Look at how you all are treating Phil who has come over in the spirit of peace and reconciliation. Is this the way you would treat someone in the 'real' world?

Three things:
1. Not to be a six year old, but he and his Merry Band did have quite a number of nasty things to say about us, some of which have been quoted, so, well, he started it. It's like expecting the kid who throws the rocks at the hornet's nest not to get stung.

2. I see 2-3 downright nasty things people have said. I don't like that at all. But I see what, 12-15 other comments that range from curt to polite? Are you saying we're supposed to be circumspect and passive aggressive instead of direct?

3. And let's talk about ratios here.

18 people show up to a city council meeting to protest how their particular neighborhood has been treated -- a council member called them all "bumpkins and trailer trash."

At open mike time, 15 of the 18 people say, in varying levels of anger, that this is an uncalled for slam. Some suggest the council member resign. Others say he should apologize to the community. Some point out the features of their community, and hasn't the council member been down to see what people are like? Others point out that they live in ramblers, not trailers, thank you. In general, they have well-reasoned arguments, some a little more heated than others, but generally of the sort of discourse you find in an editorial page.

The other three get up and call the council member all sorts of names, suggest he's incompetent, moon him, suggest untowards things about his family, and say that if he doesn't resign, they'll make him resign.

Question 1: Are the 18 people who went to the meeting an "angry mob?"

Question 2: The three people who acted inappropriately live in the same neighborhood as the other 15. What should the other 15 people do?

Question 3: Can they really do anything?

Question 4: Do the three bad actors excuse the behavior of the council member?

If you can't find the answer to your rhetorical question in Jessamyn's or jayder's response, I think you'll find it in the answers to these questions.

And I don't hold anything against Phil. He's a strange one, and that's a strange group. I certainly don't like the anger and cynicism some have shown him, but his communication style is a tough thing to understand.
posted by dw at 10:14 PM on January 6 [4 favorites]

I don't really understand this. I mean, I've never heard of a person being "fined" by their employer. (Shrug.)

Demotion and a paycut.
posted by IronLizard at 10:16 PM on January 6

a financial penalty has been imposed

A loss or curtailing of salary and bennies, most likely, commensurate with Holden's downgraded position.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:17 PM on January 6

a financial penalty has been imposed
I don't really understand this. I mean, I've never heard of a person being "fined" by their employer. (Shrug.)

I'm interpreting it as another way of saying "appropriate cut in pay with the demotion" (or, probably, sideways slide. I don't get the impression Givewell has a flock of employees.)
posted by five fresh fish at 10:18 PM on January 6

Did anyone really want someone to lose their job over sock-puppetry?

I hadn't really settled for myself the question of whether I thought Holden should keep (or be allowed to keep) his position; when I saw the verdict post at the Givewell blog, it hit with some weight, though maybe not with any more than it would've if they'd brushed the whole thing aside as not actionable.

What I did, very much, want in all of this was for Holden's actions—whether they can be best summed up as sockpuppetry or astroturfing or deception or simply bad faith behavior—to be considered, by people with their hands and their principles tied to this issue by one vector another, as something that someone could, without question, lose their job over.

In some of the fine details, probably no two people in all of this will agree completely; there are things about the language of the Board's post that don't sit quite right with me as a characterization of what happened; but I am satisfied at this point that we haven't seen ethics stepped around with a convenient dismissal. If Givewell has the potential as an organization to do some good, I hope they succeed; and I hope that Holden makes the best of this and his future endeavors; and most of all I hope that everyone who has been watching and participating in this conversation for the last week—mefites, other bloggers, the folks at Givewell—comes away from this wiser and more careful about how they trade on their honesty and integrity and on that of those communities and organizations they represent.
posted by cortex at 10:19 PM on January 6 [11 favorites]

So he wasn't fined. Yep, typical PRspeak. For a group so hellbent on rooting out trustworthiness, they're chock-full of slippery, disingenuous assholes.

Go to hell, GiveWell.
posted by fandango_matt at 10:20 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]

[conspiratorial] Or maybe the board refused his expense account items for the bogus MeFi accounts. [/cons]
posted by five fresh fish at 10:21 PM on January 6

What I did, very much, want in all of this was for Holden's actions—whether they can be best summed up as sockpuppetry or astroturfing or deception or simply bad faith behavior—to be considered, by people with their hands and their principles tied to this issue by one vector another, as something that

is offensive to a meaningful community, and to apologize for it sincerely and unreservedly, without using weasel words. I still do not feel we have been given any reasonable sort of apology for the way we were treated.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:23 PM on January 6

My take on the somewhat harsh response to Phil is that several Metafilter members were frustrated by Phil's continuation, on Metafilter, of the tiresome lectures on his literary antecedents, woodcuts, characters created by Dryden, Swift, and Johnson.... In short, Phil's digressions were bizarrely evasive.

Yes, and hopefully we can just avoid talking about him. He's just a waste of time.

Anyway, Do feel a little bad for Holden. But he made his mistake, and it is his fault. I don't really know what to think about the fact that they demoted him, rather then firing him outright. It's not too surprising, since it's obvious that Holden was the major force behind the organization. The guy needs to learn a lot about Humility, and not just judging other people's lack thereof.
posted by delmoi at 10:24 PM on January 6

So he wasn't fined. Yep, typical PRspeak.

Hang on here. He's going to a Program Officer position. He was making $65K. Most Program Officers I know make $30-40K. Assuming they're now going to pay him commensurate with his new position, a ~30% pay cut has gotta hurt.

If they're keeping him fairly close to his original pay rate, though, then I'd agree with you. Of course, we don't know, do we?
posted by dw at 10:24 PM on January 6

dw wrote...
Question 2: The three people who acted inappropriately live in the same neighborhood as the other 15. What should the other 15 people do?

Question 3: Can they really do anything?

The other 15 people should speak up and apologize for the behavior of their own. If you want to the right to speak as a community, you can't just gloss over the bad behavior of some members. Yes, that's probably not fair or just, but thems the breaks.

(Interestingly enough, this backends right into the classic Metafilter "All Christians are evil gay-bashing womens-bodies-controlling closet pedophiles" discussion, where the vast number of upstanding and reasonable Christians are called upon to answer for their whacked out brethern.)
posted by tkolar at 10:25 PM on January 6 [3 favorites]

Since the changes were effective January 3rd, one could surmise the board meeting was held that day. January 3rd is the same day Lucy Bernholz polled her blog readers about what to do relative to the Givewell situation. It apparently took Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to prepare the statement of the Board. It seems a tad bit weird to announce the changes on a Sunday night rather than the next business day, particlarly if the decisions were made three days prior.
posted by netbros at 10:27 PM on January 6

How Metafilter was treated is almost beside the point. What mattered was the web-wide pattern of astroturfing, the use of bogus e-mail accounts, and so forth. Until the full story came out, he was just another self-linker, albeit slightly sleazier one than most since his self-link was to a charitable organization specializing (supposedly) in transparency and accountability. But really, he was never more than a very minor pimple on our collective ass.
posted by Rumple at 10:28 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]

My comment above was in reference to Five Fresh Fish's earlier post re: how MeFi was treated/no apology

It was never clear to me whether there were any more than two employees at Givewel in the first place. For example, Holden is the one posting on message boards about technical issues re: tweaking the web site.
posted by Rumple at 10:32 PM on January 6

I still do not feel we have been given any reasonable sort of apology for the way we were treated.

Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? How is any of this (after the first two comments in the original thread -- astroturfer found, account banned) in any conceivable way about the way 'we' have been treated?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:32 PM on January 6 [3 favorites]

Yeah, why the "reasonable apology" thing? We got an apology. That's more than we usually get from these folks who try to game the site.
posted by dw at 10:35 PM on January 6

Stuff like this gives me genuine hope for the future of accountability post-mass media. Good work, internerds
posted by bonaldi at 10:41 PM on January 6 [4 favorites]

Help Wanted: Executive Director of charity aggregator. Honesty, integrity, and transparency required. Experience not necessary; willing to train. $65,000/year. Contact Givewell.net.
posted by netbros at 10:43 PM on January 6

I wrote...
The other 15 people should speak up and apologize for the behavior of their own. If you want to the right to speak as a community, you can't just gloss over the bad behavior of some members. Yes, that's probably not fair or just, but thems the breaks.

And in that spirit, may I apologize for the apparently rabid turn that five fresh fish has taken tonight? That's particularly addressed to Maureen Doyle, who dropped in with a civil question only to be met with a barrage of vulgarity by fff.

It's embarrassing really. And this is one of the *better* on-line communities.
posted by tkolar at 10:43 PM on January 6 [2 favorites]

I find it hard to leap to any conclusion about all of this with any certainty or righteous indignation. We are no court and it is not within the usual purview of this grey forum to present all the evidence and all the facts, for and against, in any balanced way. Dude certainly fucked up and got a web kicking that will follow him around. We are told he was demoted and there is financial penalty. On the face of it, those are some serious consequences and although there will always be those baying for blood over this, these penalties are not outside what I would expect on the continuum of choices available.
posted by peacay at 10:43 PM on January 6

If they're keeping him fairly close to his original pay rate, though, then I'd agree with you. Of course, we don't know, do we?

It might be in the Audio. Has anyone listened to it yet?

And Holden certainly apologized, "Rachael Tension" also apologized, according to Phil. (Not that it matters, because I would really not like to see this thread also derailed by their odd behavior)
posted by delmoi at 10:46 PM on January 6

Wow, Lucy is now covering her ass very comprehensively (cravenly) (sarcastically) now in this unrelated post:

*FULLEST POSSIBLE (511) DISCLOSURE: I have worked with, in some fashion, almost every individual and organization mentioned in Caruso's article. I have championed Caruso's book as as a "must read" and a critical resource for philanthropy. I have read all of the studies she mentions in her piece and may have even contributed to some of them in some small way, shape, or form. Oh, let me not forget that I've spent time in New Haven and met with some of the folks mentioned in that story also. If I have somehow omitted or mischaracterized an affiliation or attribution, I have done so only in error, not as an attempt to mislead.
posted by Rumple at 11:03 PM on January 6

I've had a Lot of interesting and conflicting thoughts about online identity and whatnot after this and the orginal givewell thread. There's so many possible learning experiences in the original thread (thanks Miko, dw, nax, and others..) and so many here. Though agnostic to whatever happens to holden, this whole experience has prompted me to write and think and talk a lot about online identities. It's crap, I know, but it's crap that needs to be figured out by myself, and I'd love any help from y'all in doing so!
posted by localhuman at 11:12 PM on January 6

Jeff Doyle wrote...

Speaking of rules that ought to apply in both worlds, why should you not be judged by the company that you keep?

Clearly, unequivocally, yes.

I'm quite proud to call myself a member of a community which includes the likes of Jessamyn, cortex, and Miko. There are also a few hundred other people who have not played a part in this particular drama that make Metafilter a place I return to and a place that I recommend to my friends.

Then there are some other folks. Most everyone here has redeeming features, but there are some terribly offputting themes running through this community -- religion bashing, cop bashing, and hatred for the wealthy are all things that are returned to again and again. And of course there are all of the issues that come with any cross-section of humanity: sexism, racism, anger, arguments for the sake of arguments, etc.

For me the question is not "does the Metafilter community perfectly reflect my values", but rather "is there any place out there that comes closer?". And I have to say if I could find a community this large, this varied, and this useful that somehow managed to exclude the nasty human side of things (including my own nasty human side, which certainly makes appearances) then I would join it in a second.

Unlike Jessamyn and cortex it is not my job to be here. I've chosen the place, and chosen to publicly represent myself as a member of Metafilter. I'm comfortable with that, so please do judge away.
posted by tkolar at 11:13 PM on January 6 [3 favorites]

According to this, GiveWell only has two full time employees. I guess this makes Elie Holden's new boss. And yet Elie is not exactly an innocent bystander in this.

I look forward to seeing the announcement of Holden's demotion on the Givewell.net site as well as the Clear Fund site, and not just on their blog.
posted by Rumple at 11:16 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]

oh, and props to fourcheesemac as well (the idea of him kept me well fed throughout this whole thread...)
posted by localhuman at 11:18 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]

Let this be a lesson to all of you sockpuppets out there.
posted by Dave Faris at 11:21 PM on January 6 [2 favorites]

Metafilter: let this be a lesson to all of you sockpuppets out there.
posted by gnome de plume at 11:28 PM on January 6

Let this be a lesson to all of you bloggers out there.
posted by I Got My Own Blog at 11:31 PM on January 6

Huh, whaddya know. Good to see.
posted by blacklite at 11:32 PM on January 6

. . . if it hadn't been for those meddlin' kids!
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 11:36 PM on January 6 [3 favorites]

Now we go after the king.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:55 PM on January 6 [1 favorite]

Let me rephrase what I said in the closed thread:

Those who gravedance should be stripped naked and dragged across astroturf until rug burned.
posted by dw at 11:58 PM on January 6

Yeah, I have to say that I'm both relieved to see it turn out this way but bummed to see someone lose their job. And to have it all play out in a public forum like this is a drag.

I think the Givewell board did the right thing -- the core issue was a director acting in ways that were antithetical to the aims of the organization he helped found, but then I'm not one to dance on graves or say it wasn't enough. It sounds like there were real-world consequences to how Holden acted online at this site and other places and while some may be unhappy he wasn't ousted from the organization completely, it feels like a good, but difficult decision was made that should be better for Givewell going forward.

My hope is that Holden uses it as a learning experience (a painful one at that) and never makes the same mistakes again.
posted by mathowie at 12:05 AM on January 7 [6 favorites]

The release seems deliberately phrased to sound dramatic but probably amounts to very little. And it doesn't address the actual issue raised on the thread - the "Givewell cause" being a crock of shit. I suppose that was too much to ask.
posted by cillit bang at 12:29 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

I suppose that was too much to ask.
MUCH too much to ask. If MetaFilter were capable of breaking down an organization's entire reason for being, I can think of a lot of other organizations we should've gone after first.
posted by wendell at 12:49 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

My hope is that Holden uses it as a learning experience (a painful one at that) and never makes the same mistakes again.

The problem is that what you and I think his mistakes are, are not the same same things he (and his friends, supporters, and fellow board members) think his mistakes are.

You and I think his mistakes were using deception means to promote his organisation - doubly bad, because the organisation purports to rate others by their openness and honesty - and, when caught, attempting to cover it up via disingenuity.

He and the others involved think his mistake was getting caught. The evidence of that is all over the other thread, their own blogs, and other 3rd-party blogs.

I'll leave the discussion of whether the consequences fit his actions up to others - I don't think I'm really ready to think about that part of it objectively.

The only thing I will say on that part is that while the great tradition of giving someone more than a fair go and allowing them to learn from their mistakes is a wonderful thing, it seems to allow far too many weasels with a glib tongue and an ability to convincingly fake sincerity to slip though the mesh...
posted by Pinback at 1:22 AM on January 7 [3 favorites]

Blazecock Pileon writes "A loss or curtailing of salary and bennies, most likely, commensurate with Holden's downgraded position."

Could also mean he's lost part or all of an annual bonus.
posted by Mitheral at 1:23 AM on January 7

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- GiveWell Elects Billy Maulana To Executive Director Position
posted by jojopizza at 1:41 AM on January 7

I just spent the weekend getting caught up-- the Board's statement came just a few hours after I had finally reached real-time commenting here and was reading the last of the related Gift Hub discussions. My head is still spinning.

Things that surprised me:

1) The early "donation" offering. Actually, H00's quick apology and the posting of same on the GiveWell blog surprised me nearly as much, which is probably why the MeTa thread lost my attention early on; it seemed close to settled when I left it way back on the 31st. A plea on the transgressor's part for suggestions of adequate acts of contrition was unusual enough, but I can't think of another example of someone offering money in exchange for MeTa absolution. Poor thing was obviously panicked and ethically confused (not to mention apparently sleep-deprived), but I still find it a bizarre response. Can anyone point to any examples that bear any resemblance to a callout reply such as this?

This "No Charity Left Behind" model of philanthropy management, however, perhaps elucidates how someone might somehow be/become predisposed to the conclusion that throwing money at something is one's best defense.

2) I was also surprised at Metafilter being referred to elsewhere as bloodthirsty and vicious. I mean, people here were getting excited by and chatty about the unfolding drama (as we are wont to do), but the discussion was, I thought, largely earnest and thoughtful as well as often quite gracious. Not to mention the fact that it was at least 90% contained to MetaTalk. I have to wonder how much, if any, moderation by deletion actually occurred in the thread; perhaps I missed something.

It could be relevant that I was deeply enmeshed in reading outside threads' protestations of inappropriate discourse while simultaneously watching what little I could stomach of last night's Presidential debates. Wait, was that last night? I am still halfway down the rabbit hole.

3) Being called "largely anonymous" posters (was that Lucy early on?) should not have surprised I suppose, but it did in part because as an avid longtime reader, the majority of the posters in the original MeTa thread (as well as the AskMe thread, come to think of it) were well known to me-- if not by name, at least by handle, occupation, location, writing styles, and opinions and expertise on a variety of subjects. "Anonymous" seems like an antonymous description of the MeFi community, at least from inside. Of course, the subjects of web anonymity, affected personae (& "pseuds"), and the pros, cons, and even often irrelevance of supplying one's "true name" online or elsewhere are too large and convoluted in this instance to be addressed by me just now. I hope_well that whoever writes the book devotes a chapter or two to the subject, however.

Finally, after wading through the various blogs associated with this ordeal, I have a renewed appreciation for the relatively feather-light moderation hand here, and realize that it is a more crucial reason for MeFi being my chosen web home away from home than I knew. Seeing our mods being chastised for not being more stringent wranglers was as dissonant to my thinking as the suggestion that there is some fundamental difference between MeFi and a "real" community.

Okay, I think I need to go read some YouTube comments or something to snap out of this.
Kudos and thanks to all for a weird-ass weekend.
posted by obloquy at 2:07 AM on January 7

He sure must know a lot about non-profits, and about how the web works.

Or about where the bodies are buried.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 2:15 AM on January 7 [2 favorites]

"Holden Karnofsky has been removed from his position as Executive Director of GiveWell and from his position as Board Secretary"

The way that this was written interests me. Not "has stepped down" but "has been removed". From this it sounds like Holden wasn't ready to give anything up so the board had to act. I'll certainly be listening to the mp3 of the board meeting when it gets published.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:26 AM on January 7

I have to wonder how much, if any, moderation by deletion actually occurred in the thread; perhaps I missed something.

I'm not sure if I missed a stray comment deletion by Matt or Jess in the last six days, but the only comment I've removed was a lame softball jab at Holden's appearance some time on probably the 1st. It wasn't vicious so much as just completely ad hom—I'd say there's nastier stuff we've let stand, but nothing more arbitrarily aggressive.

Seeing our mods being chastised for not being more stringent wranglers was as dissonant to my thinking as the suggestion that there is some fundamental difference between MeFi and a "real" community.

Heh. Imagine how I've felt. Jessamyn and I have talked a lot about this over IM and email in the last week. I think often (and have commented some here and elsewhere lately) about the perception of Metafilter by the outside world, and this situation is a perfect example of why that is.

One of the things that is hard to convey to a new observer is why a Metatalk thread would be allowed to contain angry or nasty or ugly comments. We do not hang a sign over the door that summarizes any of it; I'm not sure what that sign would say, and whether it would actually be a sufficient explanation or just seem like a preemptive excuse, and since the vast majority of Metatalk threads are internal social or policy discussions that are likely to be both boring and opaque to non-mefites, I don't think there's any change to be made there.

Which leaves us with this sort of situation: once in a great while (when was the last time a Metatalk thread, specifically—not a Mefi post, not an AskMe question—got heavily discussed off-site?) we'll end up directly or indirectly presenting Metatalk to the world. Without signage, generally without more explanation than "we're (or they're) discussion x over at Metatalk".

We do very little deletion of individual comments in Metatalk. We will often close threads when they seem to have met their useful purpose, and we'll outright delete threads that seem like a bad idea from the start, but if a thread seems worthwhile and still has some legs, we'll pretty much let it run as is, and let people get out whatever they need to get out with the understanding that this place, if any place on the site, is the release valve where people can vent and chatter.

On top of that, in a situation like this we've got a lot of chatty and/or venting people responding to a situation that's transgressive in terms of the site's social and ethical mores. Gaming and deception are, as far as I can tell, more fundamental errors than harsh words in a lot of folks' eyes, and so the former gets met with the latter by some folks—both those heavily invested in the discussion and those mostly just double-taking at the transgression against the site. And, again, we generally don't delete that.

So we find ourselves in this position where we have for sound reasons built over the years a policy for very lightly moderating a part of the site intended as and used for, far more than any other part of the site, internal consumption only. And then we present, in this odd hyper-visible outlier, our least-mannered, least moderated, and probably least-flattering face to the world. Not because we want that to be the face we present the world, but because circumstantially it's the part of the site where this sort of thing can reasonably happen.

Again: there's no sign explaining all of this. And I don't think it's odd that people unfamiliar with the site would read the previous Givewell thread and balk at some of the (very much in the minority, thanks) vitriol. It'd stand out to me going somewhere else, I'm sure. I don't think it's odd that they'd wonder why this is how we "choose" to present ourselves, as much of a misunderstanding of the site and the community as that may be.

But we weren't and aren't about to begin retroactively moderating the hell out of that thread just because it is the odd hyper-visible exception. The moderation policy on mefi in general is built around a certain assumption of trust and reliability and the notion that if there are going to be significant changes, the community will be involved in talking through them. So editing our way to some cleaner, more-flattering, less-bantery version of that thread would be strange and irresponsible behavior in the context of the site and community, as convenient as it might be for aiding first impressions from folks outside.

The creation of the Givewell wiki writeup seems like a good precedent for compromise, then: there's a place where people can distill the substance of the thread out from all the inside baseball and banter and offhand commentary in the thread, and give outsiders a more neutral, controlled view of what's going on here. I hope that, should something similar in scope and visibility to this last week's events come up again, we'll repeat and refine that approach and maybe help ease the process of acclimation for outside readers thereby.

This is a very long comment explaining and trying to contextualize (in a still hopelessly brief space) why Metatalk moderation policy is what is. I want to be clear that it's not intended as a defense of those nasty and ad hom and overtly angry comments that can be found in the previous thread. They suck, in my humble, and as I said elsewhere they're just about my least favorite thing about Metafilter; insofar as I speak for myself and not the whole site, I apologize for the offense they've caused. In a perfect world, we wouldn't see that sort of thing, even in the face of behavior as lousy and out-of-touch as what Holden was revealed to have pulled here and elsewhere over the weeks running up to the 31st.

But Matt and Jessamyn and I don't let the ugly comments stand out of some unprincipled willingness to let a satisfying jab under our radar; we let them stand on the principle that (barring comments so off-the-wall or egregious that they're likely only to badly damage the discussion) what people have said, they've said, and sweeping it under the rug isn't likely to help anything.

So, welcome, new readers and new members. Consider this an ad hoc sign hung on the door.
posted by cortex at 2:49 AM on January 7 [34 favorites]

Although I know you're primarily speaking to a larger, newer audience, I thank you for your response, cortex-- I didn't suspect that there was much moderation going on, but the clarification of that point, I think, is useful.

Certainly the fact that this saga found its way out into the larger internet from within MetaTalk is unusual and somewhat uncomfortable. It's like having unexpected guests drop by, but instead of keeping themselves to your cluttered and eclectic yet acceptably clean blue living room or immaculate professional green kitchen, they instead insist on spending all their time in your unkempt, dirty laundry-strewn gray bedroom; a room that most of your closer acquaintances have never even thought to enter. It's embarrassing, but only because of the brutal reality of it.

The fact that from the perspective of one who lives here the mess is relatively tame is not much consolation, especially if the guests have come through the back bedroom door, having never seen the rest of the house at all.
posted by obloquy at 3:35 AM on January 7

Consider this an ad hoc sign hung on the door.

ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE.
IF YOU WANT TO HOLD ONTO YOUR HOPE, ENTER HERE OR HERE.

or maybe...

The First Rule of MetaTalk is you do not talk about MetaTalk.

But seriously, cortex's comment, as well as the existence of the Givewell Wiki Writeup seem to suggest a need for a separate section of the site for the handling of Serious Issues, kind of a MetaStraightTalk as opposed to the existing MetaLooseTalk. Of course, this kind of thing does not happen every day, but looking at all the problems, scandals and issues that could use a little MetaFiltering, it almost could. We are cursed to be living in interesting times, and a lot what MetaFilterites are accused of en masse (including by some of our own)... Liberal, Anti-Business, Anti-Religion, Single-Issue, Disrespectful and Snarky... used to describe the "crusading reporters" of what was considered (by some) the Golden Age of Journalism. Nowadays, some people try to pass off Bloggers as "Citizen Reporters"; well, that would make MeFi a "Citizen Mass Media". Or maybe not. I'm about two sentences away from arguing something completely different, so I'll just throw out this bone for others to chew on and hope nobody swallows it whole.
posted by wendell at 3:38 AM on January 7

Wendell, your idea is interesting, in that there are a lot of really knowledgeable people here who could probably provide all sorts of investigative insight on all sorts of issues/problems/etc.

However, "give well" was, in many ways, a perfect storm:

1) A clear transgression of the site's terms on a sensitive issue and
2) Quickly discovered transgressions at other sites; which lead to
3) A skivvy apology by the perpetrator, including cash money offered; which
4) Clearly seem to be against everything his organization stands for, where
5) He is the king, so to speak, which makes the whole organization look crappy;
6) It turns out the organization is at best fairly amateur and unorganized, and
7) Their board comes to the rescue in about the worst possible way, which just stirs up the hornets;
8) His friends come to the rescue, which, after a bit of light poking, turns out to be another mistake.

Etc, etc.

I'm happy that it at the very least lead to some corrective action, and the discussion has been truly best of the web--I've learned more about philanthropy here than I ever expected to know, and that's great. The signal to noise ratio was very very good for an essentially unmoderated discussion online.
posted by maxwelton at 4:03 AM on January 7

Metafilter: community weblog.
posted by iamkimiam at 4:12 AM on January 7 [8 favorites]

Metafilter: We will get you fired.
posted by sneakin at 4:55 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

haven't read through the new thread yet, still catching up on the old one, so my apologies if this is old news.

I’m curious as to whether MeFites (?) know of any other charity / foundation is as active in engaging / transparent with its donors as Give Well

First, a word from the grownups. (go halfway down first link for pdf of study)

geoff: The manager gets a relatively modest fixed fee as a percentage of assets under management and a performance bonus based on the profit turned. The Association of Fundraising Professionals considers it unethical to base your fee on a percentage of donor dollars raised. This is so basic to the profession that I sincerely doubt (and would be horrified) that Givewell is operating like this.

Damn, only got halfway through the new thread, and I have to go to work. I'll reload the new monster later!
posted by nax at 4:58 AM on January 7

The last thing we need is an empowered mob.
posted by smackfu at 5:33 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

I bet he quits in a month or two. No way he wants to be a 40K a year program officer when he could be making ten times that at a hedge fund.
posted by mattbucher at 5:35 AM on January 7

Man, this has been fascinating.

One of the things I love about this site is its ability to show me -and explain to me-things I would not otherwise have run across in life. It has broadened my view of the world considerably (which is one reason I stick around.)

I hope our new members do stick around, poke around on other parts of the site, and come to know why this place really is one of the best places to spend one's online time.
posted by konolia at 5:38 AM on January 7

I'm very tempted to parse the original givewell thread for commenter longevity vs contributions. It's fascinating to see the makeup of a discussion change as timezones and interest shift. Of course I'll need another gig or so of ram to load the page but still.
posted by Skorgu at 5:46 AM on January 7

I bet he quits in a month or two. No way he wants to be a 40K a year program officer when he could be making ten times that at a hedge fund.

Except that he already was making ten (ok, well, 5) times that at a hedge fund, and he already did quit for a large pay decrease (to 65k). Your point is kind of moot, no?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:52 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

oh, and props to fourcheesemac as well (the idea of him kept me well fed throughout this whole thread...)

Just doin' my bit to sustain the filter. . . . Here, try some.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:16 AM on January 7

From the GiveWell statement: We would also like to make clear to all donors to GiveWell since December 1 that we will contact them directly about these recent changes and will provide them the opportunity to have their gift returned if they so choose.

This is the part I'm glad to see; I've been wondering how much cash GiveWell had hauled in from all those MSM puff pieces and blog posts (and astroturf comments) from people who forked over end-of-year donations before learning about the unpleasant antics of the folks they were dealing with.
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:26 AM on January 7

Metafilter: The last thing we need is an empowered mob.
posted by jeanmari at 7:00 AM on January 7

The our people page at givewell.net is not updated. It only lists Holden and Elie as full-time employees and the only other people mentioned are the boardmembers. Was it ever clear who the "new employee" whose account Holden sent mail from was? Shouldn't complete transparance also include showing all who works there?
posted by boogieboy at 7:10 AM on January 7

I note that no penalty has been announced for Elie, who was certainly involved in some of this, but who has escaped discussion as a partner in Holden's deceptions. Unless Holden was also stealing *Elie's* identity, why is the Board of Givewell not announcing *any* sanctions on Elie Hassenfeld?

Because they don't have to. I believe that, behind closed doors and off the record, the problem is still seen by GiveWell as, not "Holden did a grievously bad thing," but "Holden got caught." Holden is the whipping boy in all this, the primary name being decried all over the web and MSM and philanthropy blogs. Elie will be the media's afterthought in all this. He's safely "the other guy" -- the Andrew Ridgeley of the duo.

By removing Holden from the board and demoting him from executive director, they've given us our pound of flesh: they've "done enough." Call me a cynic, but I believe that what the GiveWell board has done is exactly on par with what a for-profit business would do in the same circumstances -- not one iota more than the bare minimum needed to Demonstrate Action and quiet the majority of the detractors.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see the following: GiveWell goes quiet for a while, 3 - 4 weeks, while they lick their wounds and let the presidential race and various Spears pregnancies knock them out of popular memory. Meanwhile, they conduct the most perfunctory lip-service search for a new ED, and conveniently cannot find an external candidate who is willing to work for the "peanuts" represented by $65K. So, they are forced to search internally.

Enter Elie Hassenfeld, one of the co-founders, who has been bravely, diligently toiling away as a mere program officer all these months. Conveniently, Elie has the passion and willingness to make "the financial sacrifice." By Q2, Elie is named the new executive director, and given an ex officio, non-voting position on the board. By Q3, due to his stellar, spotless performance (i.e. no new scandals created), Elie is a voting director. And Holden, his Bridgewater pal, remains his Rove-like advisor -- all the influence, none of the inflammatory public view.

And in order to support this strategy, if I were running their PR, I would appoint a completely above-board, totally spotless "ethics officer" with a scary title like "Director of Oversight and Compliance," who will be charged with "recalibrating the organization's moral compass."

And as insurance against the possible outcry over putting Elie in a position of leadership, I would find early investors (like a Jason Rotenberg, or maybe someone even more detached), to make a comment on this or that blog which goes mostly unnoticed -- to the effect that he is "worried about GiveWell and Clear Fund maintaining their original vision," without either co-founder at the wheel. This lets leadership point to investor concern and say, "We risked losing our financial backing by shutting out Elie and Holden completely, and without donors we cannot save all the poor children, so you can see our hands are really tied here."

And when MeFi or anyone else brings it up again in the future, GiveWell is fairly close to bulletproof: they've taken a big demonstrative action... they make good business cases for all subsequent decisions... and they just want to put the past behind them and look to the future, because no one is perfect and yes, Holden was a 26-year-old who didn't really think things through but we took away his crown, what do you want us to do, take him out back and shoot him??? And the people who won't stop bringing it up will be positioned as unreasonable and obsessed.

Again, I hope you all don't think that I'm a despicable cynic or "just like them." But this is what I would advocate to the GiveWell board, if I were Lucy Bernholz. (Thank [$DEITY] I walked away from orgs that needed this sort of crisis PR. No one should have to work a job that erodes the soul.)
posted by pineapple at 7:11 AM on January 7 [17 favorites]

We have had years, now, of being told that rational and efficient market-based forces would radicalize the hitherto flabby and emotional ways we have thought about social justice and morality. Across all sectors, not just philanthropy. There have been many prior Holdens, waving stopwatches and sliderules and books of rational choice theory and quantitative methodology at us and telling us that being "good" and being "competitive" are the same thing.

And this is exactly what Phil is trying (pretentiously and ineffectually, yes) to fight with his Wealth Bondage shtick. He's on the side of the angels, so I really wish people would quit bashing him for not being as cool as we are.

Note that Phil is not responsible for Holden; he felt himself to be in a mentoring position and defended a guy towards whom he had friendly feelings, and that's fine. He never suggested that Holden hadn't done anything wrong and has said all along it's up to the board to decide how he should be punished.

My thanks to jessamyn for making the desperately needed thread switch, and to cortex for that excellent summary of MetaTalk policy. To any outsiders or new members reading this: please don't be put off by a few cranky bastards; the conversation around here is wide-ranging and occasionally abrasive, but it's stimulating and educational once you get used to it.
posted by languagehat at 7:11 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

Bravo and good show. This seems about as forthright and proper a response as we were likely to see. When people are digging and excited about shady dealings, the instinct is to call for blood and then to say that the amount of blood offered is not enough. Speaking as a non-digger, this strikes me as a pretty appropriate action to take. Don't forget that the whole incident is going to make their work a lot harder too-- the marketplace will impose its own penalty.
posted by norm at 7:18 AM on January 7

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports, linking to this thread, among others.
posted by Rumple at 7:30 AM on January 7

Interesting...

I'm still a bit confused about who has what title and what it means. Is Givewell planning to hire a third administrative employee? That's a bit topheavy for a small NPO. Is Holden still doing the same job under the new title?

My gut feeling is that, once the hoopla fades, it may be business as usual at Givewell, with the same players.

I'll be curious to see if any of the Board Members decide to cut ties, I certainly would if I were in their shoes.
posted by HuronBob at 7:34 AM on January 7

To any outsiders or new members reading this: please don't be put off by a few cranky bastards; the conversation around here is wide-ranging and occasionally abrasive, but it's stimulating and educational once you get used to it.

And that's the rough-and-tumble thing we've been talking about. That's the learning curve. You have to learn how to adjust your personal filter and learn that some people here are just like that, pick your battles, and be ready to defend yourself and your beliefs.

I do feel like Holden's transgression somehow got us admission to a tea party we weren't supposed to be at. And there we were, looking like Rodney Dangerfield at the country club while the NFP folks were in the Ted White role. I don't think they liked us being in their world, and we were going on about getting "no respect."

Sticking my head into a land I haven't been near in a decade and at the same time have never been in has been eye-opening. As one of those people who is still optimistic about the Internet I see great opportunities for the NFP and philanthropic world in the Web. However, they'll never know those opportunities until they stop acting insular and condescending and start really embracing openness and transparency. That sector desperately needs someone who can translate their vernacular so that people on the ground can ask the right questions.

The potential is great. Other sectors have been able to realize the potential. Eventually, maybe the philanthropic world will realize their own potential in this new world. And maybe they can do it without once using "2.0" or "Black Swan" or "Long Tail."

I hope Phil, Jeff, the Doyles, nonprofiteer, and the others stick around. I think they have a lot to add to the conversation.
posted by dw at 7:47 AM on January 7 [2 favorites]

Speaking of rules that ought to apply in both worlds, why should you not be judged by the company that you keep?

I favourited more comments in that thread than I would normally do during months of reading Metafilter. I'm perfectly happy to be judged by the company I'm keeping here, thanks.

Also: I thought the Givewell board's decision was a reasonable and just one. Despite his recent actions, Holden looks like a fast learner from what I can see. I'm sure this will only be a temporary blip in his career.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:51 AM on January 7 [2 favorites]

fourcheesemac: Curse You!
posted by nax at 8:08 AM on January 7

Except that he already was making ten (ok, well, 5) times that at a hedge fund, and he already did quit for a large pay decrease (to 65k). Your point is kind of moot, no?

No. I'm not sure if he'll quit or not, but there is plenty of speculation in the other thread about the relative value and potential growth in the paycut that Holden already took. Any of that (a sterling resume edition, a large bump up in salary as ED after GiveWell starts pulling in more) doesn't really apply to his new job. Certainly if he stays it will say something about his motives that was not said by his "leaving" his hedge fund job to start GiveWell.
posted by OmieWise at 8:18 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

Just wanted to chime in and say, "Well done!" to the Scooby Gang that brought this all to light, especially Miko. If this isn't grounds for a gold star, I don't know what is.

Many of the other problems that have been analyzed in this and the last thread, especially the wrongheadedness, inefficacy, and wastefulness of GiveWell itself, and the likelihood that something like pineapple's scenario will play out are well beyond our reach here. Charitable foundations and non-profits limp along long after they've outlived their usefulness: I've seen other NGOs survive for literally years as nothing but a name, address, and an Executive Director who simply fires the development staff every six months as they realize that they're working for an organization without aim or purpose.

I'm not sure there's a way to fix that when the waste is widely viewed as a private matter between donors (who have expiated their guilt and washed their hands of the matter once the check cleared) and the organization itself. If someone wants to turn the GiveWell affair into a wider expose of the pathetic 'long-tail' of orphaned donations, we're going to need a lot more than a MetaTalk thread. Moreover, the whole technocratic thrust of the accountability/transparency movement strikes me as significantly more dangerous than the wasted dollars. Is there anyone here who has the media savvy and connections to redirect the development of this story to some of these issues?
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:21 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

It'll also be interesting to see if the NY State Attorney General's office decides to investigate this affair (although the Federal Trade Commission ultimately did nothing with John Mackey's similar ruse). I'm sure Givewell would like this to over and swept under the mat as quickly as possible, but has the Charities Bureau had time to investigate yet?
posted by mattbucher at 8:26 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

And Holden [...] remains his Rove-like advisor

Uhh.... W. T. F?

While I'm certain that Holden is capable of learning much from his stumble here, I somehow don't see him jumping directly from "somewhat naive but earnest do-gooder" to "master political adept".

Even if we were to accept (which I don't) that Holden is cynically playing the charity game for his own enrichment, he has many many years to go before he's ready to advise anyone on anything but hedge funds.
posted by tkolar at 8:27 AM on January 7

Notified CNBC of the statement from the Board of Directors about changes at Givewell.

Thanks for starting a new thread, jessamyn. Now I have two places I can go when I need to brush up on state-of-the-art self-righteousness. This Holden guy could lose his job, be imprisoned, waterboarded, and stripped of his citizenship, and I think the whole episode would still mean less to him than it does to some of the posters here.

Not to say he doesn't deserve his fate, but Jesus you people just lock on and never let go, and before you start in with the IF Stone comparisons, I meant that in the annoying yipping poodle way.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:38 AM on January 7 [2 favorites]

Full disclosure man. Full disclosure.
posted by netbros at 8:44 AM on January 7

I meant that in the annoying yipping poodle way.

Annoying yipping poodle sharks, circling a papercut in the water.
posted by tkolar at 8:46 AM on January 7

"The truism of the web: people talking about you is far more effective than talking about yourself." -Seth Godin.
posted by phaedon at 8:47 AM on January 7

Granted, I haven't been following this very closely. But his "demotion" seems rather laughable.

This isn't a real company. It's not like he just lost his job as Chairman of the board for GE or Microsoft. This is a stupid little website that has a "board" in order for unimportant friends to give each other important sounding titles. It feels absurdist to pretend that (a) he had any real power or was important beforehand; or (b) he won't have the same influence he had otherwise. This is just words on a paper.

This feels like 10 friends getting together and voting to have Bob stripped of his position as vice-commissioner of the Fantasy Football League as punishment for getting drunk and puking on Greg's floor and being demoted to assistant chair of the rules committee.

(Also, the monetary penalty? Is that different than the tax-deductible contribution he was going to make anyway?)
posted by dios at 8:52 AM on January 7 [18 favorites]

Geez guys, just because cortex put a disclaimer in doesn't mean that NOW it's pile on time.
posted by garlic at 9:03 AM on January 7

So ready to stop caring about this.
posted by nanojath at 9:06 AM on January 7

I somehow don't see him jumping directly from "somewhat naive but earnest do-gooder" to "master political adept".

The Rove comparison was meant to be that Holden could easily become a behind-the-scenes player, one who affects policy and procedure without being media bait on the frontline. As dios pointed out, just because Holden's new title is Program Officer doesn't necessitate his job description changing in any notable way.

Even if we were to accept (which I don't) that Holden is cynically playing the charity game for his own enrichment, he has many many years to go before he's ready to advise anyone on anything but hedge funds.

And yet, until one week ago, he was the executive director and sat on the board. So, while we around here might doubt his value as an advisor on charity matters, the GiveWell crew clearly thinks differently.
posted by pineapple at 9:25 AM on January 7

I'm not at all interested in 'blood', and there have been times that I've wished I had just emailed the mods about the self-link, watched it disappear, and moved on. But as each new facet of the situation came to light, it became more interesting: the responses from those connected to the organization; the structure and model and operations of GiveWell itself as compared to other entities; the stated purposes and assumptions of GiveWell in the wider context of the nonprofit world and in the cultural climate in general; the donor world that their focus emerges from; the community of philanthropic bloggers who work with those donors; the power and money in play and the uses of the tax structure; the issues of accountability, transparency, and identity in a relatively new medium and also in the world at large; the specifics of management and strategy within the organization; and finally, the results of the board of trustees' deliberations and chosen course of action.

It is because this situation offers so very many facets that so very many people have chosen to follow it and discuss it for so very long, not because of a unified vengefulness.

At the same time, I recognize that some of the rhetoric employed has been vengeful, and unnecessarily so, because this matter has always been serious enough to warrant real consquences and close examination without acting from vengefulness. But infairness, I think most of the hyperbole evolved in response to the 'no-big-deal' evaluation of other voices in the debate. Since it is a big (enough) deal, the rhetoric occasionally became heightened and somewhat aggressive, because it seemed as though only using very strong terms would elicit a sense of proportionalism from defenders of the questionable actions in the web community at large. I'm not defending that rhetoric in others and really tried to avoid it myself, sometimes failing, but I'm also recognizing that at least some of it was employed to convince the outer world that this situation was worth addressing, not dismissing. The public views these sorts of things as serious, affronts to the systems we place faith in. Of course people of generally good faith will get a little hot under the collar when they're told not to worry about it, it happens all the time. It's happened in a thousand small towns and in some large organizations. It's a reality of work in the sector.

There's no enjoyment in seeing consequences levied, but there was also no enjoyment in seeing deceptive practices used to promote one charity at the expense of others or in seeing the entire sector trashed for presumed failings. The consquences are fair, and we can only speculate about how the internal operations may be changing or not changing at GiveWell. I think all citizens witnessing this could ask for is that the board of directors be accountable to take action in ways they believe appropriate to guard the public trust. They've taken action and believe they are doing the best they can on behalf of the public and, at the same time, to advance the cause they care about. We may not agree with the route they chose, but they're doing their jobs now. I hesitate to congratulate them overmuch, but I also wouldn't condemn them. A board effort to rebuild the organization is what was needed, and this is the form that effort has taken. Perhaps it was the correct one and all shall be well. If the organization or the model is truly diseased or unworkable, that will show. This is where market analogies do apply. We'll see what happens. Though I found an examination of the operations interesting from an organizational-analysis standpoint, noting that the charity was running sloppily and without sufficient guidance is only that and no more - I've seen no real reason to believe there is any sort of scam or deep ill intent. There are a lot of badly run charities out there, no doubt about it, and that alone is no reason to nuke this one out of existence (though it is a factor in individual donation decisions). It's the tension between the pronouncements of quality and superiority made by GiveWell, brought into conflict with the lived values of the organization, that made the discovery of that reality interesting, and disheartening to see.

As for MetaFilter, Jessamyn's 'town' analogy is an excellent one. In my own town, I don't agree with every letter to the editor or candidate sign or point of view expressed in council meeting or on the street. I argue for my convictions, but it's not my role to curtail the public speech of others. There is plenty of room for calls for general calmness and that sort of thing, and a few times some of us have sent and received emails saying things to one another like 'it might be better not to press such-and-such a point,' or 'you'd be easier to support if you'd tone it down,' but beyond those efforts to influence the atmosphere of the discussion, I can no more say that I'm ashamed of views within MetaFilter than I can say that I'm ashamed of views of individuals within my town. Unless we're acting as a body in the way a town's structure sometimes does - for instance, if an important decision were preceeded by public hearing, votes, and the approval of an official position taken as a body - then we can't be considered a body and can't even be assumed to be in agreement. This is where "the views expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the organization as a whole, its members, its supporters or associates" yadda-yadda-disclaimer that will be intimately familiar to anyone who is a member of a board. There are plenty of disagreements here between us, and as all have seen, anyone can jump in and disagree some more. It's a forum. Not a forum without rules, but with a commitment to allowing a wide range of viewpoints to be aired. If some of us have agreed with one another, it's because we've won support from one another with ideas and argument, not because we all signed a blood oath in Tom Sawyer's cave to act as one, do or die.

Thanks to the mods here, who I doubt got any sleep this past week. I will continue to follow this topic and read my updates on GiveWell with interest. I've learned a lot too, and come away with some stronger commitments to certain areas of my own work and some resigned acceptance of certain realities within the NPO sector and in the changing culture.
posted by Miko at 9:41 AM on January 7 [15 favorites]

Of course people of generally good faith will get a little hot under the collar when they're told not to worry about it, it happens all the time. It's happened in a thousand small towns and in some large organizations. It's a reality of work in the sector.

That was so unclearly written. It should read something like:

"People of generally good faith will get a little hot under the collar when told "Don't worry about underhanded dealings in your nonprofits, they happen all the time." Such responses have happened in a thousand small towns and in some large organizations (though usually on talk radio or in the local paper, not on the internet. Yet). Public response to public missteps are a reality of work in the sector."
posted by Miko at 9:53 AM on January 7

The Chronicle of Philanthropy article is decent; it recognizes that the AskMe question is serious enough to explain:

On Metafilter, an online message board, Mr. Karnofsky promoted GiveWell without identifying himself. In one message he asked for ideas on how to choose a charity to support and then “answered” as another writer by touting GiveWell’s evaluations of nonprofit groups.

Curious to see if the NYT does any sort of follow-up to its Dec. 20 puff piece. One would expect *something.*
posted by mediareport at 9:53 AM on January 7

Well put, Miko.

/Coals to Newcastle, but so what?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:54 AM on January 7

Also, wanted to confirm that I have never heard of a fine or 'financial penalty' being levied for something like this, and would be interested in clarification as to whether that's a pay cut, a donation, or what. It's unusual.
posted by Miko at 9:54 AM on January 7

I think Miko has summed this up pretty well, with her usual even, reasoned tone. She's truly the Best of MeFi.

I wish we could let her have the last word and the moderators would close this thread up. I really think we're done here now, nothing more to see, move on. I'd rather leave it to history and PhD dissertations to continue this discussion.
posted by dw at 9:58 AM on January 7

Jeez, dw, let's at least get to lunchtime on the west coast before the discussion is closed off.
posted by mediareport at 10:26 AM on January 7

You accusing me of East Coast MeFi Bias? Because I'm Northwestside representing.
posted by dw at 10:37 AM on January 7

But infairness, I think most of the hyperbole evolved in response to the 'no-big-deal' evaluation of other voices in the debate. Since it is a big (enough) deal, the rhetoric occasionally became heightened and somewhat aggressive, because it seemed as though only using very strong terms would elicit a sense of proportionalism from defenders of the questionable actions in the web community at large.

Exactly. If the response had been "Goodness gracious, that's awful—thanks for alerting us! We'll investigate and take appropriate action," the reaction here would have been very different (though of course we would still have watched with eagle eyes to see what action was taken).

I wish we could let her have the last word and the moderators would close this thread up. I really think we're done here now, nothing more to see, move on.

Oh, come on. If you're tired of it, quit reading. I think there's lots more to see, including whatever ripples appear in the mass media, and I'm still learning from every comment Miko and other knowledgeable posters make. This isn't about getting Holden ("OK, we got 'im, boys! On to the next malefactor!"), this is about a whole complex situation that MeFites are doing a great job of clarifying for those of us who didn't have a clue.
posted by languagehat at 11:09 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

Hey, sorry, late to the party. I've had the flu and pink eye for the last week and totally missed out on this. I'm still groggy as shit and was just wondering if someone could summarize what the hell went on with GiveWell and MeFi. Cheers.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:20 AM on January 7

There's a MeFi Wiki on the subject. Here you go, lazaruslong.
posted by stagewhisper at 11:37 AM on January 7

How sure are we that he actually was the one doing that? Given Holden's willingness to use a new employee's identity to pretend to be a disinterested proponent, wouldn't it be just as likely it was him as Elie doing those things? Things he was doing rampantly all over the internet at the same time?

No, and its one of the things that pushed me away from taking a more forgiving stance.

Tim Ogden, himself, admitted that Elie was participating in blog posting in at least one thread (the one Ogden pointed out in his post that was at the WSJ). It proved that it wasn't a lapse of judgment, but rather, a concerted action between both founders. Holden was made a fall guy over this mess, mainly I think, because the role he played in it being uncovered, and his direct participation here on Metafilter.

I think Elie's activities should have also been addressed, and perhaps they were at the Board meeting, but I won't be running around calling for Elie's blood over the matter. It seems that a decision was made, the gravity of which cannot really be decided without more information. If a replacement was hired for Holden's previous post, it might prove that Holden has been relegated to a less important and influential position.
posted by Atreides at 11:37 AM on January 7

One of the things that is hard to convey to a new observer is why a Metatalk thread would be allowed to contain angry or nasty or ugly comments. We do not hang a sign over the door that summarizes any of it; I'm not sure what that sign would say

Here there be assholes.
posted by shmegegge at 11:41 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]

Search for "posted by Miko" in the other thread, lazarus; it's a great way to get caught up and miss most of the dumb stuff.

Basically, GiveWell made a splash last year by aggressively attacking what it called a "lack of transparency" about "effectiveness" in the charity world. One of the founders, Holden Karnofsky, seemed to get off on being something of an obnoxious punk while doing it, pissing off a lot of folks but hitting a sympathetic nerve with others who agreed that the charity world needed a bit of shaking up. Karnofsky and the other GiveWell folks decided that the December giving season would be a good time for a major media pitch, and so put out a press release that suckered in a lot of folks and resulted in puff pieces about their Important New Model for gauging charity effectiveness. At this point, Holden and his partner Elie also began a campaign of leaving non-transparent comments at a series of sites around the web, hyping GiveWell and attacking its competition without clearly identifying themselves as GiveWell founders.

It's worth noting here that Miko, who works in the nonprofit world, took issue with GiveWell's entire schtick, pointing out that not only are there already decent ways of judging effectiveness that other charities are doing, but that GiveWell's way of measuring it is, in fact, inferior to those other decent ways, and seemed more dependent on 1) folks believing GiveWell's arrogant, misinformed, self-absorbed PR hype and 2) a previous generation of charity types' lack of familiarity with the Web than on anything really new.

Anyway, at the tail end of GiveWell's December media push, Holden decided to game AskMe to boost his Google rank. He asked and answered his own question, using two different accounts, simply to get another GiveWell mention on a popular site. He was caught and quickly apologized for a momentary "lapse in judgment" caused by sleep deprivation but not for the rest, which was shortly discovered: that pattern of non-transparent comments hyping GiveWell and attacking its competition across a series of sites throughout

Fallout from the Givewell affair January 6, 2008 9:31 PM Subscribe

Fallout from the Givewell affair
January 6, 2008 9:31 PM Subscribe