You're basically name-calling, which is unproductive. While I'm not in agreement with OP, some levels and methods of altruism/volunteerism can end up being counterproductive. A certain level of free <insert good> to a region is useful. Above that, or for too long, and you end up harming local farming and manufacturing, to the point where they may also depend on the free goods.

I'm lacking specific articles and lines of research, but charity seems to be better when it's establishing people on their own (teaching them a trade, providing them a global market for the goods they already produce, education, medical, etc.) than giving them a thing. We have to be careful when giving to others that we don't simultaneously diminish them. All of this is a balance, and the correct balance very much depends on the extent of the need and the existing capabilities and limitations of the people involved so no universal line can be drawn.

You may be thinking of this example: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1987628,00...

TLDR; sending a surplus of tshirts to Africa did nothing but crash local textile industries by introducing a surplus of existing, cheap product. Guy wanted to do good, didn't think about the consequences, and screwed up.

That was exactly the example that was in my mind, but I didn't have time when posting to look it up. Thanks.

Except you clearly haven't read the article - he didn't send the shirts, he listened to the aid workers and criticism over his plan and decided against it.

The local textile crashes referred to in the economy were from cheap second hand imports, not aid.