That speaks to GWWC’s favor, I think. It would be odd for them to not take into account research done by GiveWell.
Remember that they don’t agree on everything (e.g., cash transfers). When they do agree, I take it as evidence that GWWC has looked into GiveWell’s recommendation and found it to be a good analysis. I don’t really view it as parroting, which your comment might unintentionally imply.
There’s also Effective Animal Activism, but although both GiveWell and EAA are meta-charities, there is no overlap: one focuses on human charities, whereas the other on animal organizations.
There’s also Giving What We Can.
They also provide a useful function, but so far, for the most part they rely upon GiveWell recommendations.
That speaks to GWWC’s favor, I think. It would be odd for them to not take into account research done by GiveWell.
Remember that they don’t agree on everything (e.g., cash transfers). When they do agree, I take it as evidence that GWWC has looked into GiveWell’s recommendation and found it to be a good analysis. I don’t really view it as parroting, which your comment might unintentionally imply.
There’s also Effective Animal Activism, but although both GiveWell and EAA are meta-charities, there is no overlap: one focuses on human charities, whereas the other on animal organizations.