I think it's notable that this post doesn't provide any detail about who sponsored or funded this work. Presumably the assumption was the transparency about that would limit the perceived credibility? One could argue that the lack of transparency does so even more
Much (all?) of this work is being funded by MAPS (www.maps.org), which is a non-profit organization that relies on donations for its continued existence. If this research and advocacy is important to you, please consider donating.
The article _does_ say that the guy is planning on examining the funding on the other side of the movement, so we should get to see the pie chart for the other side eventually.
What happened to the money? Is it not contingent on delivery of the completed product? Or was it intentionally badly written in order just to funnel money/pork to big donors?
Can you provide some citations? I'm not finding anything with a quick search.
reply