February 08, 2005

Stray Bits

Posted by John Holbo

Per my Amazon Associates fundraising efforts, I was going to send another check for about $150 to the Singapore Red Cross. But they've maxed out their fundraising. In general, tsunami relief seem to be doing OK. So who should I give to, do you think? Oxfam general fund?

Moving along. My post below in response to Scott McLemee's column has been misunderstood due to the fact that I didn't bother to say what I meant. I can't help but feel somewhat responsible. Nor, however, can I be bothered to rewrite the thing. A bit of a dilemma.

Let me leave it at that and make amends to Scott for mangling his kettlechop by saying his tale of youthful exposure to Victorian pornography is amusing. His Mao poster sounds nice. I'm sorry he was too lazy to type in the Sontag passage because I'm too lazy to go down to the library and check it out. (Read the stuff today because it's all too-old-to-die, too-young-for-permalinks at Cogito, Ergo Zoom.)

One last stray thought, then to bed. I was browsing through the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem and noticing how loosely the traffic rankings and link rankings seem to be correlated. John & Belle Have A Blog, for example, is 399 by traffic, 1124 by links. Fellow CTer Brian's TAR - which has almost the same traffic as J&B, turns out - is 410 by traffic, 2416 in terms of links. There seems to be better convergence near the top of the rankings. I don't find overall looseness of correlation surprising, mind you. I can think of explanations and I'm pretty sure some of them are true. Starting with the incompleteness of the ecosystem. (Technorati knows more links. Not everyone publicizes traffic.) But I do wonder whether any whuffieologist has made any interesting study of this aspect of the reputation economy. To what degree do link numbers track traffic numbers? To whatever degree not, why not?

Posted on February 8, 2005 05:06 PM UTC
Comments

The ‘ecosystem’ seems a bit kludgy and weird and misconceived to me, but there’s a more interesting correlation in there. Have you noticed that the higher you look in the link and traffic ratings, the greater the preponderance of assholes?

I’ve just noticed that I’ve crept way up in the rankings there, and it has me worried.

At any rate, I fear that any studious assay of linkage and traffic might show that the whole notion of whuffie is doomed.

Posted by PZ Myers · February 8, 2005 05:48 PM

The ‘ecosystem’ seems a bit kludgy and weird and misconceived to me, but there’s a more interesting correlation in there. Have you noticed that the higher you look in the link and traffic ratings, the greater the preponderance of assholes?

I’ve just noticed that I’ve crept way up in the rankings there, and it has me worried.

At any rate, I fear that any studious assay of linkage and traffic might show that the whole notion of whuffie is doomed.

Posted by PZ Myers · February 8, 2005 05:48 PM

http://www.dec.org.uk/ are distributing funds according to need/best practice in the UK.

Posted by Cruella · February 8, 2005 05:51 PM

Try Habitat for Humanity. Once the immediate crisis is under control, the next problem is rebuilding.

Posted by kwijibo · February 8, 2005 06:04 PM

I would say Doctors Without Borders. The need for medical care is enormous.

Posted by Kathy · February 8, 2005 06:18 PM

I second the suggestion to Doctors without Borders. Or, perhaps the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. This would fund things like $4 for an insecticide-treated bednet, or $10 for a full course of drugs to cure TB.

Posted by Andrew · February 8, 2005 06:25 PM

I don’t know how you feel about sending your money to a US group :) but American Friends Service Committee does good work.

Posted by Auguste · February 8, 2005 06:30 PM

Give to the International Rescue Committee at www.theirc.org. They have a very high rating in terms of charities. They help refugees around the world.

Posted by miriam · February 8, 2005 08:28 PM

Give to the International Rescue Committee at www.theirc.org. They have a very high rating in terms of charities. They help refugees around the world.

Posted by miriam · February 8, 2005 08:30 PM

Medicins sans frontieres.

Posted by Bill Gardner · February 8, 2005 08:33 PM

Medicins sans frontieres.

Posted by Bill Gardner · February 8, 2005 08:36 PM

Or why not something deliberately obscure, but reasonably in lines with your interests, like the Science Fiction Writers of America’s Medical Fund? Comic Books Legal Defense Fund? Or something tsunami-related, like whatever funding there is for the warning system? Or any charity supported by Arthur C. Clarke?

Posted by Doug · February 9, 2005 11:15 AM

Or why not something deliberately obscure, but reasonably in lines with your interests, like the Science Fiction Writers of America’s Medical Fund? Comic Books Legal Defense Fund? Or something tsunami-related, like whatever funding there is for the warning system? Or any charity supported by Arthur C. Clarke?

Posted by Doug · February 9, 2005 11:16 AM

I’d like to recommend GOAL the Irish based third world development organisation

Posted by tony · February 9, 2005 11:44 AM

Your idea has merit, Doug, but having pledged tsunami relief, I think comic book legal defense would constitute something of a dishonorable abandonment of my pledge. Alas for the sake of a noble cause.

Posted by jholbo · February 9, 2005 12:56 PM

So who should I give to, do you think? Oxfam general fund?

Ken oath, John. I mean, “yes”.

Posted by Syd Webb · February 9, 2005 02:06 PM

I just noticed that the US Red Cross is still taking specifically tsunami relief-targetted donations. Through Amazon, for example. (I thought that had stopped.) Having pledged tsunami relief in particular, and having induced people to buy through me towards that end, I do feel some obligation to pursue my original course unless there is some reason to think the charitable world is presently glutted on this front and greater good can be secured elsewhere. Opinions about US Red Cross? (I gave to the Singapore Red Cross because they have local knowledge and appeared to have generally sound relief plans.)

Posted by jholbo · February 9, 2005 03:58 PM

I would also say medicines sans frontiers - except that they also said (on Jan 4) that they had as much money for Tsunami relief as they could spend, given that they were limited by the number of experienced medics they could send.

(http://www.msf.org/countries/page.cfm?articleid=1F31BDDD-6840-4368-AC061BF061867501)

This, of course, makes me much more likely to support them in the future…

Posted by Chris · February 10, 2005 12:42 AM

You should always give to the general fund of an organization in any case. NGOs really do spend the money they raise in the place (and on the place) you’ve earmarked. Their auditors demand it. And more than enough has been raised for tsunami relief.

MSF has explicitly asked that people stop giving them money for tsunami relief (they raised over $40 million). AFSC has raised over $3 million and they currently have no capacity in the region to spend that much (I’ve been talking to people there and they’ve had to pull people off of other work just to open the envelopes!; if you’re reading this and in Philadelphia, go down and volunteer).

Oxfam is always worthy. IRC is a good choice. UNICEF does good work. Mercy Corps is one of the best at the transition from relief to development. Danish Refugee Council does a good job in reconstruction.

I should add that the need for medical services in the wake of the tsunami was vastly overrated. Some of the resources sent to the region haven’t even been taken off the ships because there just isn’t anything to do with them.

Posted by Martial · February 10, 2005 01:58 AM

Oxfam gets my vote.

Here’s a press release from last month with a very simple point worth keeping in mind.

Posted by Jonathan · February 10, 2005 04:25 AM

How could I forget CARE Sri Lanka? They have nearly fifty years experience in Sri Lanka and are one of the best agencies in that country, both for disaster relief and for development. They also work closely with local NGOs.

Nonviolence International’s office in Banda Aceh was destroyed. Still, they are hard at work and they will make sure funds get to the grassroots level.

Posted by Martial · February 10, 2005 03:48 PM

Doctors without borders. Good medical care is always in demand, and they have a very low overhead cost- most of the money goes straight to projects rather than mailings and office space and such.

Posted by jif · February 10, 2005 05:26 PM

Darfur, perhaps via MSF

Posted by Claire · February 14, 2005 01:54 AM
Followups

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.