Systemic Altruism
← Back to the cohort
Justice & public goodsPreliminary editorial review

Open Knowledge Foundation

Supports open data and knowledge through reusable legal tools, data standards, software and an international network.

Visit the organization ↗

Systemic Altruism practice potential: 86–96/100
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.

Who this work enables

Tools & support for charities: Public-interest data tools, standards and legal resources for civil-society organizations.

Humanity’s Checklist source match

Gatekeepers — editorial, partial alignment.

Open data, standards and software can reduce control by proprietary intermediaries, without proving that affected people gain decision power.

Explicit checklist adoption: not verified. A mechanism match is not an affiliation, endorsement, evidence of effectiveness or a scoring bonus. Read the practice.

Focus classification: 2026-10-27. Based on the organization’s dated official sources below; earlier axis-review dates are unchanged.

Compare alternatives for a funder →

The proposed pathway

Open data standards and shared public-interest tools

Six dimensions, with rationale

Structural depth

4 / 4

Open definitions, permissions and interoperable infrastructure target recurring rules and barriers governing how institutions share knowledge.

Institutional reach

4 / 4

Public tools and an international network can operate across governments, research and civil society rather than one cause or locality.

Durability

3 / 4

Adopted standards and published tools can remain available, but institutions must maintain data, systems and governance.

Scalability

4 / 4

Open-source software, legal tools and standards permit reuse without building each system from scratch; deployment is not cost-free.

Funding additionality

Unreviewed

Unknown: a current marginal funding gap, counterfactual and delivery capacity have not been audited.

Community agency

Unreviewed

Unknown: openness of tools does not establish affected-community authority over organizational priorities or resources.

Evidence and selection

Organization reported; official mission and tool inventory

Illustrative inclusion to examine this mechanism. Inclusion is not an external recommendation or a verified comparative ranking.

A testable next question

Do institutions adopting the tools show sustained, independently observed improvements in data reuse, public accountability or service decisions relative to suitable comparators?

Review confidence: Moderate for documented mechanism; low for systemic attribution. Foundation-described legal tools, standards and public-interest software; not all network members or every CKAN deployment.

What remains uncertain

Open data availability is not evidence of accountability or better outcomes. Privacy, maintenance, usability and power imbalances need evaluation. This is an England-and-Wales incorporated nonprofit; no US tax-deductibility claim is made.

Sources to inspect

Propose a sourced correction →

Axis review: 2026-10-26 · weighting method v0.2 (2026-10-26) · Method, conflicts and coverage