Yeah, lowercase (other than in titles) is what helps ensure that “effective altruism” isn’t seen as a single organisation.
Yeah, title case or proper case is common for page titles, article titles and headings (generally H1, H2, and often even H3).
Thanks Neel! Yep, this is what Toby Ord does (and others also do so) and was the original conception of GWWC, however the minimum % seemed to be more popular and easier for many people to understand and calculate.
I only capitalise it when referring to organisations that have effective altruism in the name (e.g. “Effective Altruism Australia”) – i.e. as a proper noun. I don’t capitalise it when referring to the philosophy and social movement (similar to feminism, environmentalism etc).
This is also our brand guidelines at GWWC and EAA.
Would the AWF be interested/able to indicate if the grantees have room for more funding from individual donors?
A grant from the AWF is a strong indication of a good potential donation opportunity, however the grant may have already filled the funding gap. If a donor (for whatever reason, e.g. tax deductibility, running a fundraiser etc) wants to donate directly to an animal welfare charity (instead of a fund), would you recommend they donate to any recent grantees or only follow the advice of a charity evaluator (e.g. ACE)?
Thanks for the very detailed feedback! I’ve shared this with the team and we’ll be addressing it and incorporating into an updated version ὠ0
Love this. I’m quickly penning a new GWWC strategy so we can try and incorporate the proposals of CWWG in their entirety.