well, it's not so dangerous, don't stop people to do it. Better to donate with chance 50% that this money will go to Nepal directly, than don't donate at all.
You assume that it's not dangerous even if it doesn't go to folks who would be helped. I disagree: the possibility of contributing to frauds is not harmless. There is also opportunity cost: if you've donated to someone who is incompetent, then you no longer have those resources to fund someone who can make better use of those funds.
Ideally, you want to focus on the folks who can make a difference. Just funding folks with good intentions isn't enough. As an example of a group that appears to want to help drug addicts, but is pretty dangerously incompetent at it, listen to the Prologue and Act One of the This American Life story "Not It": http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/554/n...
I don't assume, it's simply logic. If you donate you do have chance to help, if you don't - you don't.
It's easy enough to find well-known foundation and give them money.
I also use Google One and my weekly donation there is around $20. It's really easy, don't invent reasons against doing it.
Sure! The point I'm trying to make is: pick good representatives. It's laudable to help the needy. Make sure the representatives you pick have the will and capability to do good with the resources you're sending.
