Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
76 63 88 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
Insufficient record: 1 prediction resolved, 5 needed for a score.
-
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
70 52 87
All types combined: 74 (likely 64 to 84, medium confidence), from 22 claims: 15 factual claims, 7 promises. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
GiveWell's claims
“we’ll be trying to examine ourselves as dispassionately and critically as possible, and sharing our self-review in something close to real time via this blog.”
GiveWell, unsigned blog post 7 January 2010 GiveWell's self-evaluation and plan (The GiveWell Blog)
GiveWell will examine itself critically over the coming weeks and share its self-review in near real time on its blog.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
What would count as true or false
True: in the weeks after 2010-01-07, GiveWell's blog published self-review / self-evaluation posts (e.g., a series examining its own performance, mistakes, strengths and weaknesses) posted progressively as the review proceeded, not only as a single post long after the review ended. Mostly true: self-review posts appeared on the blog in early 2010 but with notable lag or fewer installments than implied, while still clearly sharing the review publicly as it went. Mixed: some self-review content was posted, but most of the review was published only as a final summary months later. Mostly false: only a brief mention or a single late summary appeared, with no near-real-time sharing. False: blog archives for January–April 2010 show no self-review posts, or GiveWell states the self-review was dropped or not shared.
Evidence
- Self-evaluation: GiveWell as a donor resource - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog · 9 February 2010 Own record
“This is the first post (of four) we’re planning to make over the next two weeks focused on our self-evaluation and future plans.”
- Self-evaluation: GiveWell as a project - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog · 11 February 2010 Own record
“This is the second post (of four) we’re planning to make over the next two weeks focused on our self-evaluation and future plans. The first post is here.”
- GiveWell's plan: Top-level priorities - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog · 16 February 2010 Own record
“This is the third post (of four) we’re planning to make focused on our self-evaluation and future plans. The first post is here, and the second post is here.”
Reasoning
GiveWell's blog published a series of self-evaluation posts in installments: the first on 2010-02-09 (E1), the second on 2010-02-11 (E2) and the third on 2010-02-16 (E3). Each was framed as part of a planned four-post series on self-evaluation and future plans. This shows the review being shared progressively, within weeks of the 2010-01-07 statement, rather than as a single late summary. The posts are the subject's own published output, which counts as a specific record of delivery. The evidence does not show the fourth post, but the progressive sharing the criteria require is clearly documented.
Cite this claim
GiveWell, “GiveWell will examine itself critically over the coming weeks and share its self-review in near real time on its blog.” (said 7 January 2010). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_c3854ed90a2c, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_c3854ed90a2c
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for GiveWell? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.