Talk:Charity Navigator

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Effective Altruism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Charity Navigator. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2006022110008429.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Repeated removal of portion of methodology section[edit]

A while back, I noticed that a portion of the methodology section providing some balance on Charity Navigator's methodology had been deleted without explanation, so I revised that segment to make it more neutral and replaced it. Since then, an anonymous user has twice removed this portion without comment. I firmly believe that this section belongs in this article to provide an informed view of Charity Navigator's methods. If there's a reason for the repeated removal, I'd like to hear it articulated. Ashdog137 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the section you're talking about did indeed become part of the article. Thanks! ★NealMcB★ (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

last word[edit]

I assume the word in the last sentence of the article should be 'against' not 'again'. L.M. 3/22/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.247.112 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion for donations[edit]

I think it's a bit sad that there are some very prominent donation buttons on their front page, which are all to donate to charity navigator itself. One of them says: "By donating to us you are helping us to inform our millions of users of the best charities of all kinds. Therefore, supporting us leverages your dollars to do the most good!" Sounds fishy. JustJohan (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine to me, Wikipedia does the same thing once a year. It takes resource inputs to keep things going, without that they're going to exhaust their available resources and eventually won't be able to maintain their operations. It's not shady, it's normal. Indefensible (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of Charity Navigator[edit]

I am aware of some groups investigating Charity Navigator for deviating from GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principles), rewarding groups that accept government funding, punishing groups that operate according to free market principles, and discourage giving to conservative organizations. While it appears that definitive results from these investigations are still pending, I do think it would be worthwhile to include a section about the fact that Charity Navigator's evaluation practices have been called into question. Cghake (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relaying this unattributed rumor. Please see WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]