Regardless of one’s specific personal beliefs, it seems likely that some of those members will focus on something you don’t personally think is very valuable
The relevance of this isn’t clear. Both before and after the change, every particular GWWC donor is giving to a charity that the donor likes but that some people don’t consider maximally valuable. The question is whether the change made things worse. On average, I expect it made things better, since I expect cause neutrality to be helpful.
Perhaps your point is that previously this impact was valuable to one constituency—people who prioritize development—whereas now the value is spread to a wider range of donors with a wider range of values. I can see why this might make fundraising harder, since it’s a classic example of a public goods problem, but it doesn’t seem to make the project less impactful overall.
but that they’ll see a higher dropout rate
I expect that GWWC’s dropout rate is increasing over time. I don’t see why this change in particular would be expected to lead to a higher dropout rate. At face value, one might expect a broader pledge to have a lower dropout rate.
On average, I expect it made things better, since I expect cause neutrality to be helpful.
I’m implicitly assuming that global poverty is an unusually uncontroversial cause.
I don’t see why this change in particular would be expected to lead to a higher dropout rate. At face value, one might expect a broader pledge to have a lower dropout rate.
I guess in the limit if the pledge became sufficiently expansive it would become impossible to fail to comply!
I think locally the effect is likely to be negative, though I don’t have much confidence either way till we see the data. Nor do I see much value in speculating on this, save to encourage the release of such data.
The relevance of this isn’t clear. Both before and after the change, every particular GWWC donor is giving to a charity that the donor likes but that some people don’t consider maximally valuable. The question is whether the change made things worse. On average, I expect it made things better, since I expect cause neutrality to be helpful.
Perhaps your point is that previously this impact was valuable to one constituency—people who prioritize development—whereas now the value is spread to a wider range of donors with a wider range of values. I can see why this might make fundraising harder, since it’s a classic example of a public goods problem, but it doesn’t seem to make the project less impactful overall.
I expect that GWWC’s dropout rate is increasing over time. I don’t see why this change in particular would be expected to lead to a higher dropout rate. At face value, one might expect a broader pledge to have a lower dropout rate.
I’m implicitly assuming that global poverty is an unusually uncontroversial cause.
I guess in the limit if the pledge became sufficiently expansive it would become impossible to fail to comply!
I think locally the effect is likely to be negative, though I don’t have much confidence either way till we see the data. Nor do I see much value in speculating on this, save to encourage the release of such data.