Talk:Crowdfunding/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article title

Crowd Financing or Crowd Funding? Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 00:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just spotted Adrian Hunter's wiki research at [[1]] - accordingly will rename this article Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 00:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Title: Crowd financing is now redirected to Crowd funding as funding is a more known, and somewhat broader concept. BenediktG (talk) 08:20, 07 October 2009

Thanks BendediktG 07:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This page should really be titled "Crowdfunding" without a space. In current usage, the term is rarely seen with a space. (Lacixodarap (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC))

Agreed. Searches for "Crowdfunding" and "Crowd funding" reveal "Crowdfunding" is the more popular term. --Sanglorian (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Oxford english dictionary lists as crowdfunding. --Karl.brown (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Article content

There is an established consensus that concepts like Crowd funding and Mass funding should be two words. BenediktG (talk) 08:22, 07 October 2009

Happy to go with that - thank you 07:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This page should really be titled "Crowdfunding" without a space. In current usage, the term is rarely seen with a space. (Lacixodarap (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacixodarap (talk • contribs)

First paragraph

The first paragraph of the crowdfunding article is lacking in evidence and support, it should therefore be removed and placed for open discussion until a consensus is agreed upon. The paragraph reads 'Crowd funding (sometimes called crowd financing or crowd sourced capital) is an approach to raising the capital required for a new project or enterprise by appealing to a group of people (crowd) for contributions from one or many. When everybody is invited to contribute it is mass funding. The purpose of the appeal may be commercial, or to benefit a social enterprise.' The definition below the first paragraph has more weight and support as it is described by Michael Sullivan who coined the term crowdfunding. I would like to hear anyone's feedback.119.12.123.97 (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Feel free to be bold when dealing with unsourced dubious content. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Be bold is good, but a neologistic internet term like Crowd-funding is not physics. Road of consensus is the only road in an encyclopedic context for such a term like crowd-funding. The meaning of the term changes, and evolves with technology, reach and usage. Who coined, wrote a book and defined how - is interesting, but not more than that. At the same time, the mechanisms and criteria used in the term should be covered in the description of it, like if only one single contributor makes the funded case disqualify from the term even if fully funded, if it is about funding money or funding any type of resource, if the term is about the act of trying or the act of succeeding the funding, if investing and buying are excluded or not, what the purposes can be, if the personal-trust factor can have been replaced with central control mechanisms expanding thereby the potential reach, if the invited is everybody or only a defined group, etc. Several of these aspects are weak in the found citations. BenediktG (talk) 20 January 2010

There appears some confusion with the 'First Paragraph' and 'Earlier and other Definitions of the term' crowdfunding 08:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 27 January 2010

Hmmm... I hadn't realised this was such a recent term. Wikipedia actually has a relevant guideline: WP:NEOLOGISM. This article should be about the concept of crowd funding, not the term itself, although it appropriately uses "Crowd funding" as a title. I understand BenediktG's point above about the use of the term changing over time, but we need to avoid original research. If anyone can find a recent definition from a reliable source that seems to be accepted by other sources, then we should cite that definition. Otherwise, I would suggest we avoid trying to precisely define the term, and instead open the article with a loose description of the kinds of approaches that various parties have called "crowd funding".

On a related matter, it would be great if contributors could include their sources. Even a link to a URL in square brackets in the article is fine, or the title of a book given on the talk page; myself or other contributors can easily convert these to properly formatted references. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I think it's fine to include Sullivan's original description, provided we don't imply he has the last word in defining the term. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with Mr. Hunter. Allthingsonline does obviously not, and has now again changed the entire first paragraph to be Only a citation of Mr. Sullivan, giving Mr. Sullivan the first and the last word in defining Crowd-funding. That citation includes "collective cooperation, attention and trust by people who network and pool their money together", that is requiring networking interaction with contributors, excluding those that do not. Furthermore a funding case that can only have, or ends up having, only one contributor is obviously excluded from the term. The citation is also success-oriented and not intent-oriented. Additionally the citation says "in order to support efforts", indicating that this is about charity and giving, excluding investing, lending and conditioned/co-buying which can not be "supported" - and that exclusion is in line with what some advocate. These limitations exclude large part of those that claim to be using Crowd-funding, and are even listed in the growing example farm on the page about Crowd-funding. Furthermore the exclusion is now clearer than earlier of those that are not only inviting members in a specific crowd to contribute, but are inviting everybody to contribute, without interaction, like the Red Cross and many others do in their Mass-funding. According to my research the most used citation in Mass-media about Crowd-funding, also online, is the one from Wikipedia. That might easily change now if the definition of Crowd-funding keeps being locked to the oldest found written mentioning. Imagine if the definition of "Media" was locked to the oldest found citation... This is the second time Allthingsonline does this citation locking. I reverted his first round back to the established consensus, that basically defines Crowd-funding as the intent to obtain funding of a case from one or many in the crowd that is invited to contribute. Ergo disregarding both how many do contribute as well as the purpose - only roofing when everybody is invited to contribute and not only a crowd. And left such premature and excluding definitions in a new, separate paragraph about earier and other definitions. But as Allthingsonline insists, he is maybe right? BenediktG (talk) 12:41, 01 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Benedikt, if you accept I will converse with you on your talk page? In short this term has not only been created by Michael Sullivan but the many registered users who have contributed to the www.crowdfunding.pbworks.com page since 2006. You are 100% right in saying crowdfunding is and will evolve, however implying massfunding (unsourced definition) is now crowdfunding is incorrect. This article is also not about me its about what the actual definition is and as Adrian said "If anyone can find a recent definition from a reliable source that seems to be accepted by other sources, then we should cite that definition". This is exactly what has been carried out. You will also notice Jeff Howe’s (person who coined crowdsourcing) mention of crowdfunding points to http://crowdfunding.pbworks.com/, you will find Jeff's page here http://www.crowdsourcing.com/cs/2008/08/sellaband-spawn.html. I'm in no way attempting to upset anyone here, apologises if you took it that way, this page just needs to stay true to the crowdfunding definition. Allthingsonline (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear before – by "recent definition" I meant more recent than Sullivan's original definition. Wikis aren't generally considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia, especially in this case given that the article is based on a Wikipedia article (WP:CIRCULAR). I don't see the link at Jeff's page as an explicit endorsement of the definition at crowdfunding.pbworks.com; he seems to have just given the best link he could find to help readers who had never heard of crowd funding.

I think there are a couple of points we all agree on:

• The original definition from Michael Sullivan – which is the same as that from crowdfunding.pbworks.com – should be included in the article, somewhere;

• The original definition is too restrictive today, because it excludes many projects that are described as crowd funding, including many listed at crowdfunding.pbworks.com and in this Wikipedia article.

So I propose an opening paragraph that has this kind of structure:

Initially inspired by crowd sourcing, the term "crowd funding" was coined in 2006 to describe "the collective cooperation, attention and trust by people who network and pool their money together, usually via the Internet, in order to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations."^[1] Today the term is used more broadly, and is applied to many projects that do not meet this original definition... (I'll leave expansion of this point to those who know more about crowd funding than me)

The advantage of this structure is that Wikipedia itself does not define crowd funding. This is important because:

1. It ensures compliance with the policies on original research and keeping a neutral point of view;
2. It does not restrict the scope of this article by excluding projects that fail a particular definition;
3. It does not imply that every project described as crowd funding in this article meets any particular definition.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Hunter for paying attention to the Crowd-Funding article. Your suggestion about how to resolve the conflict on the page about Crowd-funding looks fine to me, in our search for consensus. I think it was important to get unstuck from the first-found quoting. Your suggestion to a solution will leave allot of imprtant gaps open for interpretation, like when the invited is not only a definable crowd, if investing is included or only gifts, interacting through networking how, etc. On the road of resolving these gaps I am not all that sure suggested definition would be long-lived on Wikipedia. My suggestion was and is to go back to earlier definition, and try to define the mechanisms broadly, like is done on page Mass-funding. But in search for consensus Mr. Hunter's suggestion is maybe the only viable. This does though not change that many have been Mass-funding for decades, long before Crowd-funding was coined as a networking mechanism for smaller players. Red Cross is an important example with its 97 million volunteers and invitation to contribute to its budget of more than 1.1 billion Swiss francs to fund its work in 2010. Red Cross is not inviting a definable crowd to contribute. It is inviting the masses, including countries and individuals, to contribute with resources as money and tasks, in form of gifts - in their global, continuous Mass-funding. In my opinion it would be turning things upside down to merge Mass-funding into Crowd-funding. To say that crowd is sometimes mass is like saying small is sometimes large. It is simply wrong. We need both these terms if we want to be able to express us clearly. It is not enough for us to say wind when we mean hurricane. BenediktG ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:31, 02 February 2010 (UTC)

There will be gaps, yes – but it's not our role here to fill in those gaps. Wikipedia's policy on original research is a core policy that we're all required to follow. It's true that readers may come here hoping for a simple, all-inclusive definition, but if no-one's published such a definition in a reliable source, the article needs to reflect that; we can't just invent our own definition, especially not for a neologism. I think the original research policy is also critical in the proposed merge – although the distinction you draw between mass funding and crowd funding sounds logical, it still seems to be original research and thus not strong enough grounds to keep the two articles separate. I do take your point that funding from the masses has been around since long before 2006, and of course any merged article ought to reflect that. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Investment or not?

Hi Hugh, sorry account logged out and I did not pick-up on it. I will move this to user talk page. Thanks for heads up, I'm by no means a wikipedia expert, learning everyday. Allthingsonline (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever contributed the points above. Please could you identify yourself as there's only an IP address registered for your addition and it would be good to greet you as a person not a number! I pick up from all the discussion on this page that, as BenediktG rightly says, this is an evolving concept and so there probably isn't a hard answer to your question out there to be found and reflected here. Addressing your question's content more specifically is probably out of order here as I am mindful of the wikipedia rule that these discussion pages are not a forum for general debate on the issues covered by a page, ie this is not a place to come for advice on doing crowd financing, and this page should be used to discuss the page itself. If you want to pick up your question, however, do feel free to contact me via my talk page. Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 07:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanations for recent reversions

1.

On January 25th, 2010, RocketHub emerged as the first platform to publicly embrace the term "crowdfunding."

This has been added three times by 66.108.48.116. A claim as bold and absolute as this needs a citation to a reliable source, but in any case, it seems to be refuted by [2].

Nothing in the text of [3] refutes the current toned-down statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.48.116 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I missed that edit when it was made. The toned-down statement simply replaced "crowdfunding" with "grassroots crowdfunding". There's still no reliable source supporting the claim; in addition, there's no reason to believe "grassroots crowdfunding" is such an important pairing of words that the first group to put them together deserves special mention. You're welcome to contribute to this article, but you should be aware that Wikipedia should not be used for promotional purposes. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

2.

I was asked by email to comment on my removal of the following text:

The fundamental principles of the crowdfunding model are unified under the Kapipalist Manifesto.

This was added to the lead. I have no problem with the link to the Kapipalist Manifesto in the Further reading or External links section, but to include this in the lead gives undue prominance to a description given by just one of many crowd funding projects. A link like this might be appropriate for a textbook or journal article or some other source fulfilling Wikipedia's concept of a reliable source, but not for a commercial site.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking again I realise that the second time this text was added it was added not to the lead, but to the approaches section, where there is less of a problem with undue prominance; also Kapipal is not (currently) a commercial site as it does not charge and does not display advertisements. Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources (WP:SELFPUBLISH) this doesn't seem to belong in the article body. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

History

The first application of crowdfunding in the media and artistic industry dates back to 2004 ... Is this really the first instance? In the 18th Century it was common for authors to appeal to friends to 'subscribe' to their book before it was written Hugh Mason (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of crowdfunding is it has to involve online contributions. I'm guessing in the 18th century there were no pc's around then. I'm not sure though if 2004 is correct.Allthingsonline (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an old archive page where the blog post entitled "Crowdfunding" can be found:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070224191008/http://fundavlog.com/community/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=9&blogId=1 and http://web.archive.org/web/20070915155214/http://crowdfunding.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.1.252 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The first use of crowdfunding in independent film seems to be up for debate. As far as i'm aware it was first used by Spanner Films for The Age of Stupid. The only evidence proferred for Demain la Veille being the first to use the funding model is a scan of a flyer (?). Please provide more evidence ... Madsy19 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Age of Stupid was released in 2009 but the crowd funding for the film was launched in Dec 2004. if anyone has evidence of earlier crowd funding, they should add it. Madsy19 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to Subscription business model

This is not the place for original research and so I wonder if anyone has come across sources that distinguish Crowd Funding cleanly from a Subscription business model? Clearly there are differences but both involve large numbers of individuals unconnected to an author paying towards the production of work. Neither this article nor that one make them clear and at present there is no cross-referencing Hugh Mason (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

With the advent of copyright 'Subscription' transitioned from funding the production of an intellectual work into purchase of copies. It is ironic that as copyright comes to an end we must utilise a new term (crowdfunding/micropatronage) to distinguish the commission/purchase of work from purchase of copies, and yet we are simply reverting to the original meaning of 'subscription'. Compare with 1p2U.com - a site that enables readers to subscribe to a blogger at a penny per article (readers do not purchase copies, they collectively procure articles), and yet to call this 'subscription' risks causing confusion. Crosbie Fitch (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Protecting ideas on crowd funding sites

I redid the earlier contribution on this subject according to the suggestions of other editors. Below is a draft. Any additional comments or edits? --Nowa (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the challenges of posting new ideas on crowd funding sites is there may be little or no intellectual property (IP) protection provided by the sites themselves. Once an idea is posted, it can be copied. As Slava Rubin, founder of IndieGoGo said: “We get asked that all the time, ‘How do you protect me from someone stealing my idea?’ We’re not liable for any of that stuff.” Inventor advocates, such as Simon Brown, founder to the UK based United Innovation Association, counsel that ideas can be protected on crowd funding sites through early filing of patent applications, use of copyright and trademark protection as well as a new form of idea protection endorsed by the World Intellectual Property Organization called Creative Barcode.

As I've already stated in a userpage discussion, I take a dim view on using Inventors Digest as a verifiable and reliable source. Second, it's problematic to source a legal article (Intellectual Property Magazine) to what appears to be a copyright violation. The repeated desire to include synthesized material is suspicious. tedder (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think I see your point about synthesis, but let me be sure. The Inventors Digest (I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on it being a reliable source ) makes the point that at least some crowdfunding sites do not see the need or even dismiss the need for intellectual property protection for projects on their site (See also the FAQ page of Kickstarter). Intellectual Property Magazine emphasizes the importance of early patent filing as well as copyright protection and something new called “Creative Barcode” to protect posters' rights. So is linking the two observations with the modifier “nonetheless” synthesis? Do I understand the concept correctly?--Nowa (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• I've edited the draft to remove what appeared to be synthesis. Let me know if I've missed anything.--Nowa (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Regarding the use of Inventor's Digest as a reliable source for the quote by Slava Rubin, Inventor's Digest is used repeatedly as a reliable source for inventor information in Wikipedia. See for example Invention of the telephone, David Silverman (activist), 2suit, List of African-American inventors and scientists, etc. I see no reason why it should not be regarded as an equally reliable source for this article.--Nowa (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just because a source is used in a handful of other articles do not verify its reliability. Steven Walling • talk 22:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• True, but major news organizations, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and various refereed journals, consider Inventors Digest a reliable source for inventor related issues and associated quotations. See, for example ENGINEER AT PLAY: LONNIE JOHNSON; Rocket Science, Served Up Soggy--Nowa (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

External links

Dear Ohnoitsjamie, for what reason did you revert these links? 67.6.191.142 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

iPledg

An editor added the following

iPledg, a leading Australian crowd funding site, has amoungst its partners IP specialists from whom project creators can seek guidance about IP protection prior to listing their projects

iPledge, however, does not appear to be operational. See It will have to become both operational and notable (e.g. independent secondary source coverage) before anything about it can be added to the article.--Nowa (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed from main page

I removed the following section from the main page because it confuses ideas with intellectual property. Ideas cannot be protected by IP, at least not directly.

I don't think the section adds anything. The intellectual property concerns on crowd funding sites are exactly the same as those on every other site. However, if it's worth discussing confidentiality and non-disclosure (which can protect ideas) and/or intellectual property (which cannot) then the section will have to be rewritten. --Sanglorian (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

==Intellectual property on crowd funding sites==

One of the challenges of posting new ideas on crowd funding sites is there may be little or no intellectual property (IP) protection provided by the sites themselves. Once an idea is posted, it can be copied. As Slava Rubin, founder of IndieGoGo said: “We get asked that all the time, ‘How do you protect me from someone stealing my idea?’ We’re not liable for any of that stuff.” Inventor advocates, such as Simon Brown, founder to the UK based United Innovation Association, counsel that ideas can be protected on crowd funding sites through early filing of patent applications, use of copyright and trademark protection as well as a new form of idea protection supported by the World Intellectual Property Organization called Creative Barcode.

I think this is worth exploring further, but let's keep the status quo on the article until consensus is reached. In response to Sangalorian's comments

• "ideas" can be directly protected using patents if the ideas are inventions. See MPEP 2138.04 for a discussion of conception of an invention under US patent law.
• The intellectual property concerns on crowdfunding sites are not exactly the same as any web site. See for example the upcoming American Bar Association program Crowdfunding/Crowdsourcing Inventions and the IP Challenges.
• Some discussion on confidentiality might be worthwhile. I get a number of patent inquiries from people that submit ideas to crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and are concerned whether or not those sites will keep their ideas confidential.--Nowa (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nowa, maybe I was over-zealous in removing the section altogether. However, I still think the section is based on misunderstanding of IP. The first three sentences, for example, make it sound as if the lack of protection for ideas is a function of the business model rather than international IP law. And while I'll admit that patent law allows for the protection of a - very limited - class of ideas, the sentence on Simon Brown suggests that 'copyright protection' is something that needs to be invoked rather than an instantaneous and mechanical process. Finally, the 'Creative Barcode' is a mechanism for ensuring confidentiality, not a 'new form of idea protection'.

I haven't been able to access any materials for the 'Crowdfunding/Crowdsourcing Inventions and the IP Challenges' seminar - just the title. There's no doubt that crowdsourcing raises challenges (managed by Wikipedia, for example, with the CC BY-SA licence), but crowdfunding just raises the same concerns that going public with an idea always does.

A section on confidentiality could be very useful, I agree. --Sanglorian (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The ABA materials will be available after the conference. We can use them as a reference then. I wonder if "designs" might be a better term than "ideas". That's where the real challenge comes in terms of protecting IP on crowdfunding sites. If you look at the design projects on Kickstarter, you'll see many have "patent pending", many have "open design" license, and many say nothing. There is, however, a lot of copying and imitation, especially of successful projects. See Fake Lunatik vs Real Lunatik. Some of the materials from the ABA conference will address these.--Nowa (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree 'designs' is a better term than 'ideas'. The Lunatik counterfeiting appears to be the kind of patent/trademark violation/passing off that can occur with any creation: what role did crowdfunding play in the counterfeit? If it's simply that a product that used crowdfunding was - incidentally and some time after - counterfeited, that doesn't merit a section in the article on crowdfunding.

The section needs to contribute something of value now: if we delete it and the ABA conference produces useful material then we can always create a new section. But at the moment, the section on IP only reproduces confusion and misinformation. Good to discuss it, though: --Sanglorian (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

History

There seem to be a lot of really small, "up and coming" crowdfunding sites trying to use this article to promote themselves. Not saying they all aren't notable, but I think it would be better if the history section at least was a little more selective.

About that: It's a shame that fundable.org is left out. It was founded in 2004, and was according to themselves (http://www.fundable.org/online-fundraising/)) the first to use the everything or nothing model which Kickstarter would later be so successful with. 195.1.73.1 (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Please see my suggestion regarding an objective "Platforms by Traffic" chart below. Something along these lines will help readers determine which platforms people are actually using. An objective chart also deters clones and other unworthy services from confusing the marketplace. Just my 2 cents. Braddamp (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Added the historical "timeline" of companies based on the Wharton Business article. I agree the sites were adding themselves to the list should be deleted. perhaps just stick to the article source. I disagree about the "traffic" approach as it does not dictate "history" which is the heading and focus of this section. Jamesrand (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of crowd funding services

What about creating a comparison of crowdfunding websites? --almaghi (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Many lesser-known platforms are vying for attention. Anyone else in favor of an objective "Platforms based on Traffic" chart? I did the following research last week: (Chart below updated on March 26, 2013)

Top 10 Crowdfunding Sites by Traffic (USA/Global Alexa Rank)

   1. Kickstarter (269/718)
   2. IndieGoGo (976/2,374)
   3. GoFundMe (1,767/8,696)
   4. GiveForward (7,024/34,043)
   5. Crowdtilt (25,881/110,315)
   6. Fundable (25,252/101,894)
   7. RocketHub (30,314/92,343)
   8. ChipIn (44,327/58,074)
   9. Crowdfunder (51,914/228,462)    
   10. AppBackr (73,321/231,175)

SOURCE: http://www.alexa.com

This will at least give readers a better gauge of what's out there and who the credible service providers are. If you're aware of higher ranking crowdfunding sites that should fall within the top 10, please feel free to keep this list updated and fresh. I would also suggest actually including this data in the main crowdfunding article itself Any takers? Thanks!Braddamp (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Absolutely! For people seeking crowdfunding, it's a totally confusing maze. I have created: Comparison of crowd funding services (I used "services" because technically, it's not just websites...although it probably will be, and I went with "crowd funding" rather than "crowdfunding" because it fits with this article).

That article needs a *LOT* of help! Please come along and start in on the work I've listed on the talk: page.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is a reference to this data about Alexa rankings, I feel it should be put in the main article to give a frame of reference for the readers. Also, links to the various websites in the references would be helpful. Zaheershaik (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Zaheershaik

Written like an adveritisement?

Why is this header box on the article? It's marked 5/2012. I see no complaints about that anywhere on Talk. I will remove if no objections. Fashoom (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense

"The Howey Test says that a transaction constitutes an investment contract (therefore a security) if there is (1) an exchange of money (2) with an expectation of profits arising (3) from a common enterprise (4) which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party" - I don't get it, what is meant in article 2, and what's it's relation the article 3? SHIMONSHA (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the whole section reads like original research. I'm going to try and find a reference to cite that discusses security issues of crowdfunding. The the section can be rewritten to conform to the reference.--Nowa (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Found a reference Proceed at Your Peril: Crowdfunding and the Securities Act of 1933. Anyone up for summarizing this paper for the article?--Nowa (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is more fully described in Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v._W._J._Howey_Co.#Majority_Opinion. This definition of an "investment" basically says that it's an investment if you exchange money with an expectation of making some profits from the efforts of a third party. So if you're a crowdfunding site like Kickstarter (where money is exchanged for goods or services) - then you don't fall foul of this ruling. But if you're a site like SecondMarket - then you're selling rights to a share of future profits from a common enterprise - so you're selling investments - and all of these complicated, ikky SEC requirements and restrictions fall upon you. SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Barney Frank

What role did Barney Frank play as crowdfunding moved through the legislative process? --Blumrosen (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You can contact his office and ask--Nowa (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Hyper-funding" and other terms.

Per the "words to watch" section of the manual of style:

"Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources."

So in the list of synonyms for "Crowd funding", in the first sentence of the lede, we really ought to add references for all of these neologisms. SteveBaker (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I just did a quick Google search and pulled this from the US Trademark Office site: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85680263&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch. Click on "Goods and Services" after you follow the aforementioned link and you will see: "FINANCIAL AND MARKETING SERVICES, NAMELY WEB BASED CROWDFUNDING, HYPER FUNDING, AND FUNDRAISING". Apparently, the only two terms that are recognized by the US Trademark Office are "Crowdfunding" and "Hyper Funding". Additionally, if one Googles "Hyper Funding", one will see that it is being used in certain circles as a shortened name for "Equity Based Crowdfunding", whereas plain vanilla "Crowdfunding" is more aligned with traditional donation for gift type sites (i.e. Kickstarter). Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.178.42.40 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional "hyper funding" reference from reputable source: http://cimmusorg.startlogic.com/dictionary/hyper-funding/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.65.141 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess that just about wraps it up. Many thanks for digging that out. SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See also - tax choice

I added tax choice to the see also section back in February...but it was removed some time later. Anybody have any thoughts on whether or not tax choice is at least peripherally relevant to the concept of crowd funding? --Xerographica (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2012

Hi i want to make a correction in the definition of crowdfunding. Please change "describes the collective effort of individuals who network and pool their resources, usually via the Internet, to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations."(1 line) to this correct form "describes the collective effort of individuals who network and pool their money together, usually via the Internet, in order to invest in and support efforts initiated by other people or organizations.".

I have used this source "http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1944376&show=abstract". You can also look the Scribd document at page 2 http://www.scribd.com/doc/59656556/Crowdfunding-Transforming-Customers-into-Investors-through-Innovative-Service-Platforms

Thanks! Alessandro.mazzola1992 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. "Resources" implies that it is possible for crowdfunding to include pooling services or material goods, but the article only discusses the pooling of financial resources, i.e., money. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Companies

Should we try to mention notable companies in the article in principle, or perhaps make a list of crowdfunding companies? i would like to add Mosaic Inc., but not sure if that would seem promotional. It has a DOE connection, so its not small potatos.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Industry associations

The industry associations looks more like an advertisement section rather than giving some concrete information. Will remove it if there is no objection from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaheershaik (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)