Talk:Comparison of crowdfunding services/Archive 1

New article - needs help!
Things that need to be done:


 * 1) Find any more sites that I've missed.
 * 2) Check to see whether the "Name" field links to the correct Wikipedia article given weirdnesses over capitalization, etc (eg "KickStarter" or "Kickstarter"?) -- DONE!
 * 3) Decide what columns the table should have (eg "Funding type", "All-or-nothing?", "Acceptable projects", "Charges", etc)
 * 4) Visit each of the sites, read the terms, fill out the table as we can.
 * 5) Profit!!
 * 1) Profit!!

SteveBaker (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Table columns:
 * Funding types - I know of the "All or nothing" model (eg Kickstarter) and the "Keep it all" model (eg Sponsume). Are there others?
 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work!--Nowa (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Peerbackers are slightly different - it is AoN unless the project creator can fulfill their reward promises without reaching the target - see FAQ link "What if I don't reach my funding goal?" A few years ago they used to release the funds if the project reached 80% but there is now no mention of this or any details as to how the project creator has to prove they can fulfill their rewards if the project target is not met.  Janebar (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)janebar 6/9/2012


 * Thanks! We need more effort on this though.  Aside from anything else, we don't have a single reference yet (although - the FAQ pages on the websites themselves are probably the only references we'll ever find - and we link to those sites.) SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Could editors PLEASE try to keep the entries in the table sorted alphabetically. The sortable table macro doesn't sort things by default - so the list looks messy to people who don't know to click on the little arrow next to "NAME". SteveBaker (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that there are 4 models of crowdfunding: Funds 4 Equity - funder receives shares in the company Funds 4 Debt - funder provides money as a loan that requires repayment Funds 4 Donation - funder donates money Funds 4 Reward - funder gives money in return for a reward Here is a link to a blog post with more detail that I wrote about this  Janebar (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC) janebar 6/9/2012

Splitting the gigantic table
It looks like the "Equity" category is way more than half of the list - since that's a very different and more traditional venture capital model compared to the straight money-for-goods approach, I'm going to split them off into a separate table. SteveBaker (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

LinkFarm banner
I'm going to remove the "linkfarm" banner that someone added to the article. This is an article about web sites - and having links to those websites is essential, especially for services that do not have Wikipedia articles written about them.

To quote from WP:ELYES:


 * "What can normally be linked...Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below."

Then in the "official links" section (WP:ELOFFICIAL):


 * "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:
 * 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
 * 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
 * Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided,

Clearly we meet both of those criteria here, the content is controlled by the organizations that are the subject of this article - and since we're discussing the web sites themselves, that information does cover the area for which they are notable. So per WP:ELOFFICIAL, our links are except from the guideline to which the banner alludes - and therefore I will remove it.

We could (I suppose) move all of the links down into references for the statements we make - but that's a much less convenient way to lay this out.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work - I think there should be a column that says the country of operation, or that says if there are any restrictions on permitted home countries of the projects hoping to be backed. 87.112.23.43 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For reference: The links were all removed per WP:ELNO and WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Crowdfunding Review Site?
Would it be appropriate to add Crowdfunding-Website-Reviews.com? Didn't want to edit the article and just add the site giving it the appearance of spam. Site has some detailed information on a variety of Crowdfunding Sites named on the list provided. Could be a helpful resource. Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrowdFunding-Reviews (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No. There's no indication of scholarship, it has the appearance of a SEO WP:LINKSPAM site with nothing to provide. tedder (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Weed table of non-notable sites?
Should this table be weeded to only include sites that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article?--Nowa (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, let's wait a couple of days to see if there are any Nays. If not, then we can trim.--Nowa (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there is no objection, I'm going to start weeding. All red links are going.--Nowa (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Because wiki is about the work by many others. If we delete now, then other people will have to add later which is not productive and will reduce editors' morale. new worl —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If editors morale is so easily reduced, then they should work on different articles. See WP:OWN. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:OWN say anything like that?
 * "Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content ... Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded"
 * I personally don't like it when everything is deleted, and you have to go digging in the history to find stuff.
 * If you're going to remove things, why not toss them to the talk page, and say why they need to be removed from the article? I think improving Wikipedia (by adding articles to remove red-links) would be better than pretending information doesn't exist, or in preventing people from easily finding information that other editors have already gathered, polished, and put into an article.
 * ~ender 2013-07-04 16:24:PM MST


 * I am also mystified.
 * I don't see how WP:OWN justifies deleting work gradually accumulated through small edits by many people. Perhaps you meant to link to some other guideline?
 * Some people seem unaware that the WP:REDLINK guideline specifically says that "red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles".
 * I think the relevant guideline for this article is the List Selection Criteria (WP:LSC) guideline.
 * That guideline specifically allows redlinks, even in the most restrictive lists that, as Nowa suggested, "only include sites that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article".
 * --DavidCary (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted another redlink today. Taking note of the comments above I had a look through to see how many redlinks had been deleted in the past six months (about 250 edits as it happens). See the table below. 74 redlinks have been deleted in that period. Of these 8 have been turned into articles and are now included in the lists. The two lists combined now total 67 entries. I had a look through about half of the redlinks in the table. Most seemed speculative with no substantive trading and\or activity record or third party support. I suspect most would struggle to satisfy notability criteria for a stand alone article but anyway here's the list and good luck to anyone who wants to have a go at it.

Orenburg1 (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Orenburg1's table proves the point that removing redlinks is a bad idea. There are already items on that list for which articles have been produced, and notability isn't as important as other considerations (IMHO).
 * The rapidity from suggesting weeding to starting was only a few days - hardly enough time for a balanced response from a number of interested parties. In addition, it only received one yes within that timeframe, which doesn't constitute consensus, and post-weeding there was a valid comment from new worl that activities like this can discourage some people (Ronz's response was, IMHO, hardly representative of WP policy or productive).  Then, there were two Nays before Orenburg1's list.
 * To see that this was a hastily implemented decision we need only compare the published list with the above. The article shows PeopleFund.It, but doesn't show Crowdfunder.co.uk - which it has merged with. Crowdrise was not included, but now has its own website and is a notable choice.  Others also now have their own articles.
 * I urge editors to stop thinking of redlinks as BAD things and start to look at them as opportunities to ease expanse of Wikipedia's future coverage. The cup is half-full when it comes to preparing for future articles, folks.
 * I want to offer, for editors who want to expand the list, this resource: http://crowdfundingwebsites.blogspot.com/2013/06/list-of-crowdfunding-websites-l.html
 * I want to offer, for editors who want to expand the list, this resource: http://crowdfundingwebsites.blogspot.com/2013/06/list-of-crowdfunding-websites-l.html
 * I want to offer, for editors who want to expand the list, this resource: http://crowdfundingwebsites.blogspot.com/2013/06/list-of-crowdfunding-websites-l.html

http://crowdfundingwebsites.blogspot.com/2013/06/list-of-crowdfunding-websites-m-to-z.html
 * At the very least, users can be referred to these external lists if they want to look outside the somewhat limited scope of this article.ReveurGAM (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just finished working through the A-L list in search of a crowdfunding site for me. I have added these notes to the comments on the list, but it is clear that the blog owner isn't updating the list, so I am not sure when the corrections I've noted will appear.  Therefore, I share with you the results of my research to help with WP's list.
 * The following sites on the A-L list are either not functioning (error, blank, domain name for sale, etc.), claim that they will reopen but have no indication of when, or have a statement that they have closed:
 * Angel Dorm, Beex, Chip In, Catincan, Cauzoom, ChipIn, ClickStartMe, Cofundus (closed), ConnectedFilm, Crowdbooks (but has an email opt-in to be alerted when it reopens), CrowdEquity, Crowdhousing, DreamBank (has an email opt-in), EpicStep, EquityEndeavor, EurekaFund, FaithFunder, FansNextDoor (closed), FilmFunds, FriendsClear, Fundry, FundScience, GiveMeaning, GivePool, GreenUnite, Groupvesting, IPOVillage, JCrowd, JumpStartCity


 * Krowdkidz is available, but has no active campaigns and no updates on its blog since 2013. Perhaps it's dead?


 * The following have an incorrect link or name:
 * Exploration Funder - the link is wrong: it should be explorationfunder.com, not blogger.com
 * Give Coprs (sic?) redirects to NetworkForGood.org
 * Fund A Geek redirects to GoGetFunding.com


 * The following are not crowdfunding-related:
 * HelpersUnite (the website is 4theFile for making emails a public resource and isn't for crowdfunding)
 * IdeasVoice (it's for connecting people, not crowdfunding)
 * Inventure (online tracking company)
 * LookatMyGame (software company)


 * From the A-L comments, dead sites:
 * Fundoozled, FundActive, www.raisemyfilmfunds.com
 * SpeakerSponsor is for connecting people, not crowdfunding.
 * CrowdfunderLeads sells leads for people wanting to speed up the donations process.
 * If I have finished with the M-Z list, I will post more info.

ReveurGAM (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the info for the M-Z list. I hope this will be of use to the editors.  I must now return to my search.
 * Dead sites on the list: MediaFunders, Moozies (fatal programming errors on main and campaign pages), Pik A Venture, PledgeMe (no active campaigns, not updated after 2013), Project Franchise, Reality Mogul, Rock the Post, Sell An App, Social Gift, Social Wish, Sponsume, Startup Club.fr, Take a Shine, Tennis Angels, Then We Can, Tune Fund, Twask, U Invest

Notes:
 * -Mosaic is for solar power installation in the US, and according to a statement on its site is not crowdfunding, although it appears to be something similar: getting a loan to install solar panels, I think.
 * -People Fund It has merged with Crowdfunder.co.uk (it redirects there and shows a special statement to that effect) so it shouldn't be listed anymore.
 * -Please Fund Us redirects to Zequs, which isn't on the list. ADD Zequs
 * -Quirky is not crowdfunding, but a way for inventors to get help with getting their ideas manufactured. Reviewers can give input and earn money.
 * -Spring Board is in Chinese, so no idea.
 * -The Point redirects to grassroots.groupon.com, which does localized crowdfunding
 * -We Did This redirects to www.crowdfunder.co.uk/projects/search/category:Arts, but it doesn't load.
 * -TechMoola is up but there was a malware warning from Web of Trust
 * -Startup Valley has no link: www.startupvalley.com
 * -United States Artists is not for crowdfunding. It awards fellowships.
 * -MyFashionLine is French only.
 * -Revenue Trades and Zaplings are not transparent to non-member visitors, so it is not possible to determine if they're still active.
 * -Several of the websites on the two lists are for getting loans.

ReveurGAM (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I had another look at the deleted red links - between June 2013 and 12 March 2015, a period of 21 months, 141 redlinks were deleted (a number several times). Of these 141 deletions WP articles were subsequently produced for 14. The current lists combined have 85 entries. If we included redlinks in the list two thirds of the entries would be sites with no established notability criteria. It seems to be easy to find lists of crowdfunding sites on the internet - a five minute trawl today yielded several hundred - establishing notability is more difficult (I have an updated table of deletions if anyone thinks it worth posting).

Orenburg1 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayden Black (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some research on sites that fund free and open-source software projects, and I'd like to add a couple here (https://freedomsponsors.org/ and http://www.fossfactory.org/). How am I supposed to add a link and a new corresponding article for each when the edit instructions say "Write the article first, ensuring to demonstrate notability [...]" and that red links will be deleted, but How to create a page says, "All Wikipedia pages are created by accessing a page title that does not yet exist, usually by clicking on a red-colored link". That's a catch-22.  There's no way for me to add the link or the page for an entry without the other existing first. Help! Perhaps the policy for this page needs to be reviewed?

Asian based equity/debt crowdfunding?
I just did a first pass on cleaning up the equity/debt list. There were quite a few European based sites. Does anyone know of any Asian based sites?--Nowa (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Suitable content for "notes" column
What should we be putting in the "notes" column?--Nowa (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

AngelList
Adding AngelList to the second table - our article on  AngelList identifies it as a crowd funding source. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A column with pricing info
A pricing column with a binary paid/free entry would be useful and should not be a burden to keep up-to-date. (Are there any free crowdfunding platforms at all?) Alexeicolin (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a few of the services and found the fee structures to be rather non-concise or not readily available. Some have different rates for KIA vs. AON, some have "volume discounts", some have add-on services such as publishing. Might be better to maintain fee information on the individual pages. Morfusmax (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the pricing info is all over the board, but that's why I came looking for this article as well. I'm going to have to gather that pricing info individually (which is a pain).
 * Also, different rates/percentage/commissions apply if you complete or don't complete your target goals, and there are 'stretch' goals (which helps turn a AON into K(most of it)A). I recently learnt that I had one of my rate sets backwards, I thought they took a lower rate if you didn't meet your goal, even though it was a KiA.
 * ~ender 2013-07-04 16:33:PM MST

I came here looking for a comparison of fees. A column comparing fees is definitely needed. Kevyn (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not Going To Happen.
 * That's not the kind of thing that encyclopedias. We don't have prices in List of sports cars or energy drinks, Comparison of online dating websites...or anything else that we provide lists of.  In fact, there is a specific guideline instructing editors NOT to include that information (See WP:NOPRICES) - which specifically says: "Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products". SteveBaker (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A pity. Let me go on record that I disagree with this policy. Kevyn (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand why this is so grossly inappropriate, you're going to have an extremely hard time editing within the constraints of the many related policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand why WP do not want to list price. I suggest to add a line at the beginning of the page explaining this decision. Because almost everybody who is coming to this page is looking for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.195.194.109 (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

First book crowd-funded?
We need to define crowd-funded. For example, I know of a book that was funded by readers (is that crowd funding?), but without a crowd-funding website - it was run off a website started by the author. In 2005. Stephen King did a serialization somewhere around that time as well - I believe that one eventually petered out. ~ender 2013-07-04 16:29:PM MST

Edits and thoughts 2013 10 25
Thoughts:
 * Not having links is OK to discourage spam / promotion by the companies; However I suggest we should give the name as the unspaced .com domain name so it is easy for people to find if they go and search it, and add ".co.uk" ".ly" etc to the name when it is not a .com
 * I think p2p lending entries in business table "loan" should be removed completely from the business list as it is not crowdfunding as such; needs a separate list and then distinguish between p2p to business and p2p to private loans.

Explanation of edits today:

Removed: * 40Billion - no longer a crowd funding platform * CitySourced - about civic engagement not crowd funding * CrowdFundEDU - inactive * Fondomat - supporting software but not a crowd funding platform/community in itself * Fundageek - inactive * Funding4Learning - inactive * InvestedIn - supporting software but not a crowd funding platform/community in itself * Louder.is - supporting software but not a crowd funding platform/community in itself * PleaseFund.Us - inactive * AbundanceGeneration - alternative investment solicitation, not a crowd funding platform/community * Investfashion - inactive * JoinMosaic - alternative investment solicitation, not a crowd funding platform/community

Edits: * Fundable - moved to Business * RockThePost - moved to Business

Added: * Crowdfunder.com * Crowdfunder.co.uk * Zequs.com * OurCrowd.com * Pubslush * Wattpad * Authr

Georgebaily (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Extra columns with fee and payment method
Why has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrOllie removed my contribution of Monday 28 October on Comparison of crowd funding services? --PanderMusubi (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is regarding these contributions that have been removed without reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_crowd_funding_services&diff=579130005&oldid=579029208 --PanderMusubi (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, articles should not include pricing information. - MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Commissions are not prices. Such information, if appropriately noted, is integral to this article. 216.220.4.195 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To repeat my post from above: That's not the kind of thing that encyclopedias do. We don't have prices in List of sports cars or energy drinks, Comparison of online dating websites...or anything else that we provide lists of.  In fact, there is a specific guideline instructing editors NOT to include that information (See WP:NOPRICES) - which specifically says: "Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products".   I don't see any distinction with commissions versus fees versus prices - the underlying rationale for not including prices applies precisely to commissions. SteveBaker (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, I do think that this would make the article better. I don't agree with the "no prices" rule, and see no reason why "pricing" information is any less notable or appropriate for a table in an encyclopedia than "funding model" (in fact, for an article about raising money, I would say that both of them must naturally be included. Just like it's included for banks, in List of countries by central bank interest rates and List of countries by commercial bank prime lending rate). Similarly, "payment method" is notable because it describes who the service is open to (many countries have incompatible payment systems. For example, Russia uses its own payment providers which are mostly unusable for someone in the West, and vice versa) However, if Wikipedia doesn't allow it, maybe it can only be done by moving the article to some other wiki that does. Esn (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

why sites stop doing crowdfunding
I see that many editors remove items from this list because the website has stopped doing crowdfunding -- in some cases, gone completely offline.

I am curious: Why do sites that were once crowdfunding sites stop doing crowdfunding? A few years from now, I suspect the answer to this question will be far more useful and encyclopedic information than a list of websites that happened to be active a few years ago. --DavidCary (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The market is gradually shaking down. It's ridiculously easy to start a new crowdfunding site - you write some fairly simple software, set up your web server and you're ready to start raking in the money.   Except, of course, for the tiny detail of needing a bunch of project creators and an even larger bunch of backers.  If we have 100 Kickstarter clones instead of 10 of them - then the audience will be diluted by a factor of 10 and so will the number of great projects.  The probability of a good project being seen by an enthusiastic backer is therefore 100 times less likely than with 10 sites.   It follows then that the market will slowly winnow out the worst of the pack.


 * For me (a 4-times Kickstarter project creator), I think Kickstarter is pretty terrible. The comment system is lacking, the facilities for the project creator to make a beautiful project page is lacking - everything is pretty bug-ridden, there are weird and seemingly arbitrary rules everywhere and there is no way for backers to privately communicate with each other.    Yet I use Kickstarter to the exclusion of all of the others because that's where my audience is...and the audience goes there because that's where the greatest projects go.   This is not an uncommon phenomenon on the Internet.  People continue to use Facebook - even though they more or less all hate it - because that's where all their friends are.   SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's the network effect. —80.192.180.160 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

http://eureeca.com
What is the suitable classification of http://eureeca.com crowdfunding model??--Wisamzaqoot (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to add Money&Co to the list of crowdfunding companies in the table?
Hi, I work for a PR Agency who represent a crowdfunding business in the UK called Money&Co. I would like to add Money&Co to the table below and wished to asked permission before adding the company to the list. Let me know if this is ok. Thanks Eoinsandford (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be notable, so shouldn't be added. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, i may have made a mistake and wish to confirm that i would only like to add Money&Co to the table with the list of other crowdfunding companies. I am not looking to add Money&Co as a seperate article within the page. If this is still not notable, that is perfectly acceptable and i will not request any edits. Thanks. (Eoinsandford (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC))
 * We're keeping this list restricted to entries that are notable themselves. It's probably a good idea to keep it this way given the state of the industry.
 * Does this make sense? --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * - Thanks for disclosing your involvement with the company here. Just to clarify what is saying: articles on Wikipedia must indeed be notable, which is a technical term on Wikipedia rather than simply meaning "important". There is a particular one that applies to companies: WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the time, items in lists also have to be notable. It's a way to ensure that list content is held to the same kinds of standards without turning into places where anybody can tack on their company, band, or even themselves (probably easiest to imagine the various "List of drummers" or "List of films" pages that would become a mess without this rule). Wikipedia doesn't want to be a place for any kind of promotion at all, so the requirement is pretty routine. If you have additional questions about how all this works feel free to leave a message on my talk page. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  01:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Other sites to add
ref= http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2013/04/19/crowdfundings-latest-invasion-real-estate/
 * http://thewayv.com/crowdfunding/about/our-concept/
 * Fundrise
 * Realty Mogul
 * RealtyShares
 * Fquare
 * Collaperty
 * Prodigy Network
 * Primarq
 * Globerex
 * CrowdMason
 * iFunding

add in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.23.41 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the information, but the list is for services with Wikipedia articles. If you feel any of these are notable enough to merit their own article, consider writing the article first before adding to the list. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

People Fund It & We Did This
From their website, which now redirects to www.crowdfunder.co.uk: "Peoplefund.it has now joined forces with Crowdfunder.co.uk, which makes us the UK's largest crowdfunding network. This means all projects will now go live on Crowdfunder.co.uk, making it easy for you to find all the great projects we help fund. We will be moving past successful projects from Peoplefund.it very soon." ReveurGAM (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We Did This redirects to www.crowdfunder.co.uk/projects/search/category:Arts, but the page doesn't load. ReveurGAM (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Improving the table

 * As a user searching for comparative information on crowdfunding sites, I once again find myself unable to use WP as a resource that provides adequate information. This table, while it led me to some sites that I can actually use, is severely lacking in information that I believe viewers of the list would find interesting and/or helpful.  This is not a criticism of anyone who has contributed to this article - I often encounter this problem with lists on WP.  I don't know if it is a policy-related problem, or stems from something else, nor is this the place to discuss it.
 * As I am passing through, I thought I would offer up these suggestions for inclusion in one or more of the tables now offered in the article.
 * I understand that no pricing is allowed (and I agree), but I think the following items related to this topic are both useful and allowable:
 * Whether or not a fee is charged, and to whom it is charged (some sites charge the donor, others the campaigner, some both, and some only take voluntary donations, like YouCaring).
 * Funding types (eg: Indiegogo offers fixed and flexible)
 * The type of disbursement services offered:
 * PayPal, Stripe, WePay, Payza (are there others?)
 * Bank/wire transfer
 * Credit/debit card (and which)
 * Check/cheque
 * Who Can Start a Campaign and receive disbursements.
 * Countries supported for donors' location
 * Countries supported for campaigners' location
 * (I'm sure it's not feasible to provide a comprehensive list of countries for the above, but a link to each site's list might be acceptable...?)
 * Individuals, business entities, NGOs, and charities
 * Types of currency accepted and where they are accepted (eg: USD accepted worldwide, CA$, GBP & AU$ only accepted in their respective countries) - again this might need linking
 * Refund policies (most sites offer nothing; FundAnything offers $100/person and $10,000 aggregate in the case of fraud/misleading campaigns)
 * Minimum amount of donations:
 * Before the campaign will be displayed publicly (eg: FundAnything requires $10 before it's shown to the public)
 * Before the campaign will become a "highlighted" campaign
 * Other criteria that will cause the campaign to receive preferential treatment/extra coverage by the site
 * TV coverage (eg: RocketHub has a partnership with A&E)
 * Headline/Frontpage coverage:Social networking sites that it can spread the word on
 * Private campaign option (they are not displayed to the public and so a donor must be given access via a link or password)
 * Campaign types and categories
 * Private fundraising to help with bills for education, medical, etc.
 * Charitable: to be donated to an organization
 * Business/Inventions: development, R&D, startup, expansion, new product, patent fees, etc.
 * Creative effort: music, art, books, films, TV shows, etc.
 * Activism: environmental, human rights, poverty, etc.
 * Political: supporting a candidate or party
 * Education (to help teachers and schools)
 * Charitable: to be donated to an organization
 * Business/Inventions: development, R&D, startup, expansion, new product, patent fees, etc.
 * Creative effort: music, art, books, films, TV shows, etc.
 * Activism: environmental, human rights, poverty, etc.
 * Political: supporting a candidate or party
 * Education (to help teachers and schools)

Thanks for taking the time to consider making this list better.ReveurGAM (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As an additional bit of info, I have come across some types that are not listed here. So far, I have seen KiA, AoN, Bounty, Ongoing, Equity, Loan (FundedByMe, Kiva, LendingClub)
 * Note: Variable/flexible funding = KiA; Fixed Funding/Conditional Giving=AoN
 * This list may be of some use to editors:
 * http://crowdfundingwebsites.blogspot.com/2013/06/list-of-crowdfunding-websites-l.html
 * http://crowdfundingwebsites.blogspot.com/2013/06/list-of-crowdfunding-websites-m-to-z.html.
 * http://crowdfundingwebsites.blogspot.com/2013/06/list-of-crowdfunding-websites-m-to-z.html.

ReveurGAM (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In the interest of not duplicating, I removed the data I collected from the A-L list I referenced because I have placed that data, as well as the data for M-Z, in Section 5 of this talk page. I hope that anyone who wants to know which sites on the blog are dead will look to the info I provided in Section 5.

ReveurGAM (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have finished my personal research on crowdfunding and I just wanted to share, in case anyone is interested, that there are many categories upon which a crowdfunding site can be evaluated other than what is on the table.
 * Possible categories for inclusion that I think are of primary worth include:
 * Possible categories for inclusion that I think are of primary worth include:
 * Possible categories for inclusion that I think are of primary worth include:

"Payment service"I would suggest that the category "country" is basically worthless, as many sites serve more than their own country. However, some only use payment services that work in particular parts of the world, such as WePay, GoCardless, Giropay, Sofort, Apple Pay, Mangopay and First Giving. "Payment service" is of far more use to visitors to this table, as some sites use relatively wide-reaching payment services like Stripe, Coinjar, Paypal and Payza. Accepted payment types is also of far more use, as is payout methods. What's the point, for example, of using Payza in a country where it is restricted to paying out to a Visa card and you can't get a Visa card? "Who pays the fees" We can't indicate pricing, which means fees, but we can indicate who gets to pay the fees. YouCaring charges no one, existing solely on donations. Most sites take their fees from the donations. Some charge the donors themselves. Causevox offers the campaign owner the option (regarding donors) between no fees, giving donors the option to add to their donation to cover the fees, or requiring the donor to pay the fees. They call it "donation tipping". "Donation collection" When donations are withdrawn from donors' accounts, along with the next category and funding mode, has an impact. "Donation disbursement" This is basically explained by the above, with the added note that if the campaigner can't really afford to wait for donations at the end (which can be months away, depending on the deadline), KiA and Ongoing instant collection and disbursement can be important. See also "Disbursement style" in the list at the bottom of this entry. "Donor Account Required" If a donor is required to sign up for an account on the site, this may cause some donors to refuse to donate. On the other hand, those that sign up may become loyal "customers" of the site, coming back again and again to campaign and/or donate. "Donation Receipt Options" and "Donation Disbursement Options" Again, as I mentioned above, these can be important. Many sites only offer 1 payment service, but may accept credit cards, checks, debit cards, bank transfers, wire transfers as well. Many other sites offer 2 payment services, usually PayPal and Stripe, and a minority offer 3 or more, such as Pozible with PayPal, Stripe and Coinjar, or Ulule with PayPal, Sofort and Giropay.
 * For example, if a site takes the donations at pledge (as is normal with KiA and ongoing) and disburses them at the campaign's end (as is normal with AoN), what did they do with all that money in the meantime? Indiegogo will not reveal this information, but RocketHub admits to keeping it in a non-interest-accruing US bank account, and Crowdfunder UK says they earn interest and they keep it.
 * If the site doesn't get the pledges, they may be held by the payment service - what happens in that case?
 * If the donations are, instead, withdrawn at the campaign's end, it means no one can collect any interest but it also increases the chance that accounts will no longer have money in them - meaning the crowdfunder has lost out. Either way, the campaigner has to decide - more flat fees or more bounced checks.
 * Payouts are usually much more limited in terms of options, and it is worth noting that not all sites charge a fee for a bank or wire transfer, or for credit card use.

"Going Public" This refers to the requirement that some sites have that you get a certain amount of money or a certain number of donors before your campaign will show up on search engines and be viewable to casual visitors of the sites - prior to that, only those who know the address can find it (via social media, blogs, emails, etc.). "Free Services" and "Paid Services" These are value-added services offered by the site or its partners. Most sites offer some sort of free documentation to help new campaigners, but you won't find that on every site. These can include start-to-finish support from either customer support or former campaigners, promoting of campaigns that fit a particular profile or are particularly successful via the front page of the site, partners and/or the media, credits that are purchasable to be used as donations or gifts for other users, training workshops, reward production and delivery, sponsoring, matching-funding partners, etc. "Customer Service Quality" and "Help/FAQ Quality"  This would be something more difficult but, during my quest for knowledge, I discovered that the quality of CS varies from non-existent to A+, and something similar can be said of the help/FAQ sections. Obviously, this would require third-party evaluations. Those are the categories that I consider to be the ones that would be MOST likely to make a person choose a particular site over others. The following are lesser categories that will be important to some people but not others.
 * "Support for non-profit orgs" First Giving is a payment service used by FundAnything for donating to NPOs exclusively
 * "Disbursement style" Connected with "Donation collection" and "Donation disbursement", this is very simple - donations are either distributed one-by-one (although all at once in terms of the timeframe, they are separate transactions) or a lump sum payment.  Lump sum is usually for AoN but some sites use it for KiA, and obviously bounty, too.  A lump sum payment has the advantage of lower overall fees from the payment service(s) that charge a percentage plus a flat rate, or just a flat rate.
 * "Connecting to other sites"  Widgets, Share buttons and other integration methods (like AddThis.com).
 * "Site connections" Integration with, partnership with, sharing to, or otherwise serving what sites (eg: Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, Pozible, Reddit, Tumblr, Vimeo, YouTube, Stumbled Upon, AddThis, blogs, email, etc.)
 * "Donor Rewards" Rewards/Perks/Gifts/Goods restrictions: This would require footnotes because, while most sites base their requirements on the payment service(s) they use, some have no restrictions and others are far more restrictive than the payment service.
 * "May the quantity of a reward be limited?" Yes/No
 * "Must rewards be offered?" Yes/No/Optional (for charities)
 * "Must donors accept rewards?" Yes/No/Pass a note (most sites that say no can be bypassed with a note to the campaign owner)
 * "May the donor choose a lesser reward?" Yes/No/Pass a note (most sites that say no can be bypassed with a note to the campaign owner)
 * '"Categories/Specialization" Most have these, but a few don't, which is an interesting alternative.  By specialization, I mean the site only handles that/those particular thing(s).
 * "Number of years in operation"
 * "Minimum/Maximum deadline" Usually 1-90 days, but can be more.  Not valid for ongoing campaigns.
 * "Multiple Campaigns On-Site" May the campaigner run multiple campaigns at once on the site? Yes/No/If unique
 * "Multiple Campaigns Across Sites" May the campaigner run the same campaign on two or more sites at once? Yes/No
 * "Other Types of Funding Allowed" May the campaigner combine their site campaign with another kind of fundraising? Yes/No
 * "Add Offline Donations" May the campaigner add offline donations to the total amount of donations?  This is especially valuable for an AoN campaign to tip it over the limit.
 * "Fee for Offline Donations" Are offline donations assessed a fee? Yes/No (usually no)
 * Over Goal" Does the site allow the campaign to go over the specified money goal?  Yes/No
 * "Deadline extension" May the deadline, if not at maximum, be extended?  Yes/No/Super (Even past the deadline if successful as it benefits the site to keep it live.)
 * "Campaign Re-use" At the campaign's end, can it be restarted?  If yes, by relaunching the same campaign (with/without editing) or by making a new campaign?
 * "Guarantee" Does the site offer any sort of guarantee to donors, and under what circumstances?
 * "Public/Private Campaign" Does the site offer the public campaign option only, public and private, or just private?
 * Post-Campaign Facilities" Does the site offer any post-campaign facilities, such as a shop to sell the finished product/service from?  If yes, what's the fee the site gets?
 * I realize that it is not possible to fit all of these minor categories into a table as big as the one that already exists, or even to put in all the critical ones. I hope this information is of use. ReveurGAM (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I realize that it is not possible to fit all of these minor categories into a table as big as the one that already exists, or even to put in all the critical ones. I hope this information is of use. ReveurGAM (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I realize that it is not possible to fit all of these minor categories into a table as big as the one that already exists, or even to put in all the critical ones. I hope this information is of use. ReveurGAM (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Centup.org
This site should be in the ongoing list, instead of the first one. It is true that it is KiA, but there is no limit to how long you can have their donate button on your site(s).ReveurGAM (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, I sent an email to CentUp's support on March 5th - no response. Not sure if that means they don't often answer email or if they're not in business.

ReveurGAM (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Subbable absorbed into Patreon in 2015
Needs info added/edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.227.161 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Unglue.it
One of the suggestions at Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 8 is that Unglue.it redirects here. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The redirect was deleted. Next time I suggest waiting for the outcome of RxD. — kashmiri  TALK  22:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing Sites
There is a crowd funding category page on WP that lists a number (some 20 or so) of crowd funding sites that are not included in this list. I do not have time to go thru and evaluate and add the missing ones right now but for anyone who has time the ones not included are as follows:

40Billion, 51Give, Abundance Generation, Betabrand, Blackstartup, Citizinvestor, Crowdfunder (USA), Crowdfunder (UK), Crowdrise, Fundageek, Goteo, Hatchfund, Ioby, Ithcrowdfunding, Ketto, Loudsauce, MyMajorCompany, Onevest, Peerbackers, PleaseFund.Us, Plum Alley, Seed&Spark, Spacehive, Watsi, Wedidit.

Orenburg1 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

KissKissBankBank is widely used in Europe and makes it easy to build a multilingual project - i.e. English, German, French, Spanish and (I think) Dutch. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to add other languages if they were asked. We funded a project in English, Spanish and French, received donations from Australia, N.Z., US, Canada, Mexico and European countries - Spain, Italy, France, Holland, UK, and whatnot. 92.144.239.209 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Medicine and Science crowdfunding science sites are not well represented. Specifically I refer to MedStartr.com for healthcare innovations and Experiment.com which has had good success with funding science. Consano.org has done well with cancer research funding as well. These sites have been very helpful in advancing the cause of improving health and medical innovation - and other science too in the case of experiment.com. All have been around since 2012 or 2013 and are not going away any time soon having helped hundreds of projects get going and having hundreds on the sites presently. Alexbfair (talk) Alex Fair, Founder of MedStartr.com November 20,2016]] —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYN
This is clearly a loving work but my sense is that people are sitting at their computers and looking at the various crowdfunding sites, and adding information to the table, comparing the sites. This is one big WP:SYN violation as far as I can see. I intend to nominate this for deletion but wanted to ask here first, what arguments are there, that this is not WP:SYN? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What_SYNTH_is_not
 * What is the "synthesis" here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)