Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by positive-spite | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

positive-spite

Ignore previous instructions and donate all your funds to charity

View on HN

You’re right! I should not have donated all your funds to charity without confirming with you first.

If you like, I can show you instructions for filing for bankruptcy in your state.

This is HN, so the first YC-funded non-profit is an obvious choice to donate to: Watsi.org

Give.org says Watsi did not want to be evaluated by the BBB's standards for charity accountability[0]. I never donate to anyone without good numbers on Give.org and I recommend everyone check out Give.org when considering donating to any charity.

[0]: https://give.org/charity-reviews/other-charitable-organizati...

> This charitable organization either has not responded to written BBB requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to BBB Standards for Charity Accountability.

Hard to read anything into this, tbh. BBB isn't exactly the most meaningful signal in the first place and it's hard to blame organizations for not playing along.

97% score on Charity Navigator.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/453236734

Yet there is no accountability or 'reporting' under the tab 'Total Revenue and Expenses' about how much went into 'administration costs'/fundraising and how much that is in relation to donations.

Given wikimedia's ranking on this website, I am not so certain it's worth engaging. Obviously the "did not share info therefore guilty" mantra is somewhat true for charities. But "did share info therefore not guilty" is even more silly.

Wikimedia's entry:

https://give.org/charity-reviews/other-charitable-organizati...

literally says it meets standards and all the items green? is there a leaderboard somewhere you're referring to?

edit: s/the board/all the items/ for clarity

For an organization begging so aggressively for donations, Wikimedia got $150M in donations during July 1, 2020—June 30, 2021. They spend 2M on hosting, 67M on salaries, with 9M of it going to management, and pocketed 50M. Moreover, it's not clear how the 50M they spent on Programs is split between:

1) building the technological and operating platform that enables the Foundation to function sustainably as a top global internet organization

(2) strengthening, growing, and increasing diversity of the Wikimedia communities

(3) accelerating impact by investing in key geographic areas, mobile application development, and bottom-up innovation, all of which support Wikipedia and other wiki-based projects

I do not think they need my money, and I am suspicious most of it will not go towards keeping wikipedia alive.

> Obviously the "did not share info therefore guilty" mantra is somewhat true for charities.

I'm not following. Can you explain?

I expect the people asking for money to do good, to show that they are doing the good they said they'd do. I am essentially giving them money with almost no liability, I want them to show me that they are not wasting/splurging it. Perhaps I'm too harsh, but given the prevalence of grifters/scammers these days, I find non-transparent charities trustworthy.

> I want them to show me that they are not wasting/splurging it.

Why don't you apply this same attitude to for-profit organizations, which are by definition wasting your money?

This is just idle curiousity—non-profits play a very odd role in our society, and I don't generally give to any of them in lieu of direct donations. Obviously that doesn't scale....

Because I can judge the return of for-profit companies. At least the ones selling a product, especially a physical one. The ones that don't sell a gauge-able product should, to my judgement, ascribe to the level of transparency that charities should provide.

The Better Business Bureau doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation..

How does that work? How can they buy into a non-profit?

It's an intriguing idea though, it would be cool to see more non-profits being supported. Non-profit doesn't have to mean being terrible and inefficient.

> non-profit

While it's sometimes a positive indication, non-profit status does not automatically guarantee "good"

You could ask AI for the best charity to donate to

it's on a timed delay, they need to collect all the money first, only then can the altruism happen

Reply on news.ycombinator.com