Thanks Elizabeth, Owen, Brad and Kirsten for the constructive feedback! I agree that the post in its current form doesnât live up to the epistemic standards we aspire to at GWWC, for many of the reasons you mention. My apologies for this.
The research team usually reviews any public impact claims we make, but this post slipped through the cracks of our review process in part because the main topic (i.e. âmisconceptions about the pledgeâ) didnât immediately seem research-related. Weâll tighten up the process to prevent this from happening in the future. Iâve now also reviewed and weâll edit the post on the points you mentioned + a few others. Weâll post here once thatâs done.
Thanks Elizabeth, Owen, Brad and Kirsten for the constructive feedback! I agree that the post in its current form doesnât live up to the epistemic standards we aspire to at GWWC, for many of the reasons you mention. My apologies for this.
The research team usually reviews any public impact claims we make, but this post slipped through the cracks of our review process in part because the main topic (i.e. âmisconceptions about the pledgeâ) didnât immediately seem research-related. Weâll tighten up the process to prevent this from happening in the future. Iâve now also reviewed and weâll edit the post on the points you mentioned + a few others. Weâll post here once thatâs done.
Thanks again for holding us accountable!