Talk:GlobalGiving

Removal of material

I've substantially redacted material from the article. Most of what I removed was promotional sentences or sections, and non-encyclopedic information (such as the "Values" and "Mission" sections). Wikipedia isn't for promotion or for hosting "profiles", so having articles that read like such goes contrary to the project's goals.

Something other than a purely adulatory tone?

So, non-encyclopedic backstory: I was pretty surprised by the 15% fee/tip when I started to give to a charity (Seva Mandir). It might turn out it's a great contribution -- that each marginal dollar GlobalGiving gets leads to several more dollars given to programs I'd like. But I don't know that that's so, and it spooked me enough to look up where to mail a check instead.

Anyway, the relevant thing is that I went to Wikipedia and it didn't say anything about GlobalGiving that didn't sound like something from their own site or press releases. So, we should try and scrape together some info from outside sources and de-marketize what exists -- replace some of their jargon (e.g., "online marketplace") with something more descriptive and remove some bits that are opinion and/or not providing specific information about GlobalGiving (e.g., project leaders "are bringing innovative, empowering solutions to challenging social problems at the local community level," which many charities could say and, from any charity, would be opinion).

GiveWell doesn't think we can be sure our donations will benefit the projects we choose since money is fungible (that post links to more on the fungibility problem). GiveWell has something bad to say about everybody. :) The New York Times, writing about Kiva's problems linking donors to recipients, said that the newspapers questions may have prompted GlobalGiving to more clearly note when the recipient was a "social business" rather than a strict nonprofit.

Here is GlobalGiving's 990. They pay six officers more than $100k/year each (as well as two Web developers who are outside contractors, and $200k to a marketing contractor). That is not necessarily bad (good websites don't grow on trees...), and it's not for us to settle if it's good or bad, it's just the most salient data I could find on specific non-grant spending in the form. Pages 7 and 10 are where this came from and break it down into other categories too.

While looking for what folks on the Web said about GlobalGiving, I also found some seemingly noteworthy history -- not particularly critical, just likely worth some words. 75.24.209.149 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the wiki page for GlobalGiving. I work there, and think all of your contributions are useful and accurate. And the things that have been removed are admittedly self-promotional content - but every wiki has to start somewhere - so thanks again for filtering it out.

One thing not emphasized on the wiki and often overlooked in news articles is that GlobalGiving tries to supplement its overhead burden by working with Fortune 500 companies that pay for services. These companies are better able to pay than NGOs or individual givers. I looked at the overhead of about 2000 US 501(c)3 NGOs and found the average to be around 18%. So our current overhead is better than average but could admittedly shrink to 10% if more organizations were using it. From 212.49.88.97 (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Marc Maxson

New updates

Hi - I work at GlobalGiving and am making some updates to the page that I think would be useful, such as addressing language that was noted as being in need of clarification by other editors and adding some details about the organization's reach and impact. Please let me know, either or here or by adjusting my edits if any of my changes aren't acceptable for one reason or another. Thanks! Ggwill (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Ggwill

Hello again, it's Will from GlobalGiving, here to make some more updates to the page to reflect progress made since my last updates and to include content about GlobalGiving's disaster relief work. Ggwill (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Ggwill

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GlobalGiving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425205827/http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2002/11/the-world-banks-innovation-market/ar/1 to http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2002/11/the-world-banks-innovation-market/ar/1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201082647/http://www.america.gov/st/foraid-english/2008/January/20080111081241AKllennoCcM0.1503717.html to http://www.america.gov/st/foraid-english/2008/January/20080111081241AKllennoCcM0.1503717.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)