Talk:GiveSendGo

This reads as incredibly biased

I learned of this when sent a campaign for a deserving single mom I know with stage 4 cancer. Clearly they do at least some good, and I imagine the proportion of benign vs controversial campaigns is favorable, but you wouldn't know it from this wiki highlighting nothing but 'alt-right' activity. Perhaps they just just censor at all? Who knows- such little objective information here. Disappointed in wiki for this (and I'm an annual contributor due to the typical objective nature of wikis). 2601:600:8500:19B0:3468:7E38:8FAC:E2F5 (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That's the nature of Wikipedia. Anything political is slanted and biased as hell. Left-wing power moderators run this site like their own little editorial.

Also given that this is the only talk topic I can see and being one week old, I wouldn't be surprised if this gets removed soon as well. Smankey415 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add content and reliable sources to flesh the article out. If there are notable, news-worthy campaigns that deserve mention, do add them; unfortunately, the news-worthy content tends to be the controversial stuff. I think the article could also benefit with stats about how many campaigns they run and how much donation money is received, if that's available, to put it all into context. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are two examples of current (as of Feb 2024) campaigns hosted by GiveSendGo

https://www.givesendgo.com/CCDS

https://www.givesendgo.com/scottiebigballs

In this context, CCDS stands for "City Council Death Squad". Note the Schutzstaffel insignia and the quote "We are a Pro-White activist family who have dedicated our lives to exposing jewish supremacy through Real Life action!" 205.155.237.193 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A few more

https://www.givesendgo.com/WhiteAustralianCommunity

https://www.givesendgo.com/IOTBW

https://www.givesendgo.com/Whitecivilrights 205.155.237.193 (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick search for terms like "Aryan", "Patriot", etc. and found more. The Blood Tribe (neo-Nazi group) and Nationalist Social Club-131 are both fundraising openly under their own names, as well as a bunch of Jan 6 rioters. If Walmart had a corner of the store where they sold neo-Nazi merchandise, the newspapers wouldn't dedicate much coverage to the dairy section.-Ich (talk) 09:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Penny fundraiser

Perhaps worth mentioning Daniel Penny, who was recently charged in the killing of Jordan Neely, has fundraised over $2M in legal defense funds on this platform. Some sources for notability:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/13/daniel-penny-raises-13-million-on-crowdfunding-site-after-being-charged-in-chokehold-killing-of-jordan-neely/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/14/nyregion/daniel-penny-jordan-neely-conservative.html
• https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/online-fund-raises-nearly-2-022804025.html

StereoFolic (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

100% of the entry is already so negative that its bias is painfully obvious. Such an addition should only be included if the competitor’s equally problematic funding is also reported, along with a noteworthy funding that has saved someone’s life. This is not an opinion piece. J.P.Dill (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@J.P.Dill: I'm not sure what you mean with "competitor"; this article is about GiveSendGo. Any claims made in Wikipedia must be WP:VERIFIABLE, so if you think Wikipedia should describe GiveSendGo as a platform that primarily helps raise funds for lifesaving endeavours, please find and add a WP:RELIABLESOURCE that supports that view. If you think the criticism of GiveSendGo for facilitating extremist fundraising is unfair because such problems are endemic to the entire crowdfunding sector, please find and add a Reliable Source that supports that view. I don't find the coverage WP:UNDUE, as the vast majority of the news coverage I could find in RSs specifically highlights GiveSendGo's willingness to allow fundraising for extremists and right-wing cause célèbres. The article mirrors that coverage. WP:BALANCED coverage isn't the same thing as sympathetic coverage. Including unsourced positive statements about GiveSendGo would be granting those views UNDUE weight because that isn't the consensus of reliable sources.

In my research, I could only find sporadic, fleeting mentions of GiveSendGo helping fundraise for noteworthy campaigns not involving extremists. For instance, I found a WP:FOXNEWS article here that mentions GiveSendGo exactly once ("according to the family's GiveSendGo campaign") about a family trying to get a heart transplant for their unvaccinated baby. (N.B.: there are serious problems with using Fox News as a source.) The International Business Times covered this case as well here but doesn't mention GiveSendGo at all, so I feel the connection is too tenuous to merit inclusion.-Ich (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong Bias, Not Enough Research

It’s ironic that the only two positive statements are linked to articles that are critical of the organization. This speaks of the author’s unreasonably biased position against it, which is unprofessional and suspect. J.P.Dill (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Truth. I have added the WP:NPV and WP:Undue Weight boxes to encourage improvements to the neutrality of this article. Hooky6 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hooky6: Can you please identify any parts of the article that you find are not neutral? I feel the content is a fair representation of the sources. The focus of the article is on GiveSendGo's relationship with extremists because this features centrally in press coverage by reliable sources. I tried to find some more sympathetic coverage to 'balance' the article but the closest I found were headlines touting donation totals to conservative causes. Even the generally conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal and Fox News didn't have much to offer. I made a few comments responding to J.P.Dill above but would be curious if you could identify any specific concerns.-Ich (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

ADL report / Daily Signal

There was a unreferenced sentence added in a recent edit by an IP address editor that raised questions for me:

The ADL never confirmed their findings with GiveSendGo prior to publishing, nor do they concretely define "extremism" in their report.

I searched for a ref and found this article published by The Daily Signal, a news and opinion site funded entirely by the Heritage Foundation (see the WP:RSN: here). After reviewing the RSN discussions, my takeaway is "use caution". The article itself consists almost exclusively of uncritical stenography of statements by GiveSendGo's cofounder. I'm hesitant to cite a de facto press release in this context.

I am removing the above sentence for now because the article shouldn't have unattributed claims, and I don't think the ref above meets sourcing requirements. If another editor thinks we should include the company's response, perhaps as an in-text attributed claim? (e.g. as one would cite a press release: "In an interview, a GiveSendGo cofounder...")

There were a few accurate changes made by our IP colleague. GiveSendGo is indeed a for-profit company, not a charity, which is an embarrassing error to have caught. (The company's for-profit status is also confirmed in the Time article "Crowdfunding Site for Right-Wing Causes Generates Windfall").-Ich (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality/undue weight dispute

I wanted to respond to this diff by Gjb0zWxOb. I'm glad to see another editor engaging with the topic. Simply put:

I believe the lead should explicitly state that GiveSendGo enables right-wing extremists to fundraise.

This has featured heavily in the news coverage and the lead should reflect that. I'm happy to submit an RfC e.g. "should the lead mention extremist fundraising or not?" and discuss wording if we can't reach a consensus here.-Ich (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded, I am moving the sentence about enabling extremist fundraising back into the lead.-Ich (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have once again reverted a change from an IP colleague that excised coverage from the lead about GiveSendGo's willingness to platform extremists. I encourage whoever is making these changes to engage in discussion on the talk page, and if we cannot reach a consensus, I will list this page for discussion at WP:DR and we can get a set of fresh eyes on the page. A WP:LEAD "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". USA Today, The Washington Post, Time, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Slate, The Wall Street Journal and NBC News have all described the site as facilitating extremist fundraising; not mentioning this in the lead would be a whitewash.-Ich (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

They also enable far-left extremists to fundraise. Why do you only emphasize the right? They are anti-censorship. Anyone who is not breaking the law is not censored.

This entry lacks a scholarly neutral tone. It is almost entirely composed of weasel words and an extreme anti-GiveSendGo bias. This is an encyclopedia, not a bashing site for competitors. 70.26.26.209 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. ICH has an anti right wing axe to grind. This must be one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia. 58.96.51.147 (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and accusations of bias.

The article should accurately reflect reporting by reliable sources:

• If you think there are specific statements unsupported by the cited sources, please identify them so we can find language we can agree on.
• If you think any underlying sources are biased or unsuitable, we can discuss that here or at WP:RSN.
• If you think the article should say new things that it currently does not, please find reliable sources that support those things.
• If you don't like things the article says, even though they are supported by reliable sources, it's because you're reading an encyclopedia, not an advertisement.

I have put quite a lot of work into improving this article and earnestly want to see it improve further, so I welcome constructive feedback. I also encourage you to create an account, as it makes collaboration easier.-Ich (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You're misreading the lead; it does not say it enables the far-right to fundraise, it says it has attracted controversy for allowing so. If you have reliable sources criticizing the platform for enabling far-left extremists, you're welcome to add it. NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)