Talk:Kickstarter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This is a nice ad for Kickstarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.143.41 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This article seems fine to me, even the Sept 18th revision (when preceding comment was left) --Jamiew (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Added clarification that projects must be approved with citation to criticisms of the approval process.--Nowa (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The citation is from a blog, which isn't a very verifiable source. Can you find a more reliable source to use for criticism? tedder (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It does seem addish. Can Anyone submit any idea? No it's submitted to be reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.170.143 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pay it back

Do the projects have to pay the money back? Why would ppl give money to anyone?

like kiva, there you get you money back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.162.30.162 (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Added info on accountability and fraud incidents.--Nowa (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not about investment or lending. Project creators keep 100% ownership and control over their work. Instead, they offer products and experiences that are unique to each project. Marlzbrooke (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Updates

As with most new websites I think the usage and projects data should be updated on a fairly regular basis as there are already large projects that have been funded that are not on the list. Minecraft: The Story of Mojang receiving $210,297 in March is a good example. - Meaning of Lif (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong reference

Following wrong reference moved from Kickstarter/Archive 1#Top projects, list entry "TikTok+LunaTik watch kits":

<ref>{{cite news |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/an-ipod-watch-project-explodes-online/ |title=An iPod Watch Project Explodes Online |last=Bilton |first=Nick |authorlink=Nick Bilton |work=Bits Blog, nytimes.com |date=December 3, 2010}}</ref>

Nothing from the article has support in this reference. Further check of the article is necessary. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Address

The Kickstarter office is not a public place. It's a private place. There is no reason to have its exact location in a Wikipedia article, since readers can't see it anyway. Steven Walling 03:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside the USA?

Is it possible for, say, Europeans to do a kickstarter project as long as one has a US Bank account? Or is Kickstarter for US citizens only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.222.193.170 (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Patents

Removed reference to patents. Are they important to have here? Looks like they were removed by the person who started this article. We should really defer to them. --Jamesrand (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The material is verifiable. BBC News and PCWorld are reliable sources, right? --Edcolins (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Date sorting and "ongoing drives"

Making sure a column showing dates is sorting correctly is a tricky business. In particular, adding anything in the same column will mess up the sorting. So though it would be nice to have some kind of "ongoing drive" marker next to the date (rather then next to the project name), it is not possible to do so because of the sorting problem. The usual solution is to create an extra column next to the date which can hold the marker. E.g. a dagger, like this:†, with a line below the table explaining the meaning of the dagger. --Hops Splurt (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing ongoing drives

The recent addition of ongoing drives in the Top Projects table has resulted in nearly minute-to-minute updates to adjust the Total USD number of those projects. This is discouraged in Wikipedia policy (WP:DATED). To stop these edits, I'm taking the ongoing drives out of the table. They will be put in a separate table without the USD and % funded columns. People who are curious can look up the current amount via the reference link. After an ongoing project has closed, it can be moved to its correct place in the Top Projects table. --Hops Splurt (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As one of said updaters; could the 'ongoing projects' at least have an indication of where they would place on the top ten list; this won't change very often considering the top 10 are often $100k apart, meaning the number of edits will be much minimised, while more accurately depicting the size of the projects without the need to click a link. (Not sure how I put my IP here), 2 February 2012.
IP editor you do four tildes (these ~) in a row to produce a signature which date stamps your contribution and links a talk page too. My concern is that it's a small step from introducing the place in the rankings to including the quantity too. And then we get back to the updating with every new amount on the OOTS drive while ignoring the elevation dock.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete I don't think a table of ongoing drives is appropriate for Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think things will be more stable if we leave that there. OOTS has a sufficiently enthusiastic fandom that if you remove the section, someone else will notice that OOTS isn't included and add it into the top 10 and we'll then go round the circle again. Leave it be for two more weeks and everything will fix itself.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hm. With the Double Fine adventure game and with Chris Avellone expressing interest in Kickstarter, this section may last longer than I originally thought. The DF project was heavily reported yesterday and so was the Elevator dock breaking $1m. I still think that the section is a good way to cope with ongoing large projects with active fan groups.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
And here's a link I (or someone else) can use as a ref tomorrow.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Even with ongoing pledges as an option, someone has inserted Double Fine into completed pledges, and I can't make the revert button work.... 81.132.161.231 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nowa; surely the ongoing drives fit the same notability as the top 10 drives if they fall within that pledge range; at present (and finishes in a couple of days), the Elevation Dock will place in the top 5, and the comic is in 6th. Ergo, Keep 129.67.62.177 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The OotS drive has now ended. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We now briefly do not have any drive to list in this section. However, the Wasteland 2 project might well reach its funding goal in the next 24 hours. There is a slight element of WP:CRYSTALBALL about the list in that backers could suddenly withdraw their pledges or projects with earlier end dates could intervene, but I still think it is likely to be better to use this section than to fight off fans of on-going projects that would appear on the table if they ended today.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Three months after its introduction the 'Ongoing projects' table has finally run down. I put it in as a stopgap measure and it has served its purpose (i.e. stopping OotS fans from editing the page every minute). It was already commented out, and I have now removed it completely in the hope that it will never return. In my opinion chances are low that people will start putting current projects into the Top Projects table again. If they do, these entries should be quickly removed and the user should be pointed to this talk page, with a reference to the WP:DATED, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and any other aplicable policies. --Hops Splurt (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI: This guy re-added the ongoing drives section in July and it managed to stay on the article until now. If I see it pop-up again I will remove it per this discussion. 76.181.68.59 (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we're going to end up with the top 10 table being destabilised, in which case I will revert you and we can then have further discussion. Homestuck has a fanatical following and Chris Avellone's company has the drive running that I said above might appear. I am sceptical about how long the top ten table can avoid frequent updaters.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
We don't run Wikipedia by giving in to people who edit poorly. That list most certainly doesn't belong here - it could not be maintained off into the infinite future once whatever enthusiastic editors are updating it now lose interest - and besides, this falls foul of: WP:NOTNEWS. ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events."...with the emphasis on "enduring". At the rate that these top ten records are broken, this is most certainly not "enduring" information.) If Kickstarter were fail as a company - or to decline in popularity to the point where that list would not be likely to ever need updating again - then the information as to the top ten projects could be described as "enduring" - and then maybe we could make a case for keeping it. But with these records being broken so frequently, each new one is simply not sufficiently notable to warrant us reporting on it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I have started and RfC on this, please see: this section. SteveBaker (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Online Website

The article starts: "Kickstarter is an online crowdfunding website for creative projects." Isn't a website always online? I think an "online website" is a pleonasm. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. If you spot similar errors in future, feel free to change it yourself without asking permission. This site does claim to be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit".--Peter cohen (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable Projects

Given that the top 10 now range from 300k to 3.3 million, should top 10 be kept, or restricted to projects over half a million? Alternatively, would it be useful to display the highest funding project from each category - obviously the food projects are unlikely to generate tons of funding, but the level that the highest reach could still be notable. Perhaps as a separate table? Kickstarter is more than just the tech projects listed (and OOTS). 86.154.183.51 (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi If we just wait until the end of April, there is a good chance of the target beign above 500K anyway. Wasteland is already goign to be number two on the list when it ends and Geode, Galileo and Banner Saga all have good chances of hitting half a million.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I have started and RfC on this, please see: this section. SteveBaker (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Patent Dispute Section

The following paragraph was added as it is relevant to the section. The main reference is from the Hollywood reporter that has been deemed a credible source. It also references a document from DocStoc that was uploaded by the author of the Hollywood reporter article. Admin EdColins removed it on the basis that it referenced a blog and was "original research". I respectfully disagree as there are many references to blogs in this article and besides that the main facts stated below are from a credible source.

In 2006, founder Perry Chen filed two patent applications that focused on Kickstarter's own method for fundraising.<ref>U.S. patent application {{Cite patent|US|2006271481}}</ref><ref name="TechCrunch">[http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/04/kickstarter-hit-with-patent-claim-over-crowd-funding/ Devin Coldewey, “Kickstarter Hit with Patent Claim over Crowd-Funding”, TechCrunch, October 3, 2011] Consulted on October 8, 2011</ref><ref>U.S. patent application {{Cite patent|US|2007100729}}</ref> But both of these patent applications were later abandoned after being rejected.<ref name="TechCrunch"/> During the prosecution of these patent applications, Kickstarter cited the [[ArtistShare]] patent as known prior art.<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/81828584/Kick-Starter], Consulted on March 23, 2012.</ref> Jamesrand (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See my reply here: Talk:Brian Camelio#Patent Dispute sections. --Edcolins (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed, so would it be OK to start removing all of the instances of blog citations in this article. There are quite a few. I am assuming you will back this up. Jamesrand (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
James, it would not be okay to start removing all of the instances of blog citations. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" from WP:BLPSPS (as I already told you six months ago [1]). --Edcolins (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed, who determines that though? This is where I am confused. "these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". How are you researching this? Jamesrand (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
My reply (regarding the "blog" issue) is here. --Edcolins (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the material about the abandoned Kickstarter patent applications since that is irrelevant and factually incorrect. I replaced it with Kickstarter's response, which reaffirms that they believe that the case should go forward.--Nowa (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Nowa, it is not the job of the editors to express their opinions of factual correctness. You cannot delete information from a valid source simply because you believe it not to be accurate. The inforamation is a just as relevant as the information you added. Jamesrand (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
"The inforamation is a just as relevant as the information you added." I agree. I think they are both irrelevant and inherently POV since they are papers filed by opposing parties in a legal dispute. I would be happy to delete both.--Nowa (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I also need to point out that the source for the new language introduced today is attributed to a document that was uploaded by nowa today and is not referenced by an secondary source. To me this is a questionable source that should be looked into. The other court documents are specifically referenced by valid sources in their news articles. Ed, your view on this? Jamesrand (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
James, do you think the document is a fake? Nowa, do you know whether the document is also available from somewhere else, maybe from a public register? --Edcolins (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed, all of the documents from this case are directly available from PACER. You need to register and there are some per page costs for downloads. Here is a direct link to the document if you already have a PACER account--Nowa (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
And I agree with the current version that has all information based solely on court documents removed.--Nowa (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Nowa, thanks for the information. I don't think we should go into too much detail about the arguments being exchanged. I would rather like to keep the section as concise as possible. Everybody can read the full arguments if wished. By the way, I have added a sentence indicating that the dispute is ongoing. Do we need a source for that? Is it possible that the parties may have settled? --Edcolins (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Good that you agree... That was just what I was asking. --Edcolins (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that they've settled. I would expect to see papers filed in court and/or a press release when and if they do settle.--Nowa (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus-building

I have started here a discussion on the content of the "Patent dispute" section. --Edcolins (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Kicking It Forward

Is "Kicking It Forward" noteworthy enough to be mention in either this article or the inXile Entertainment or Wasteland 2 article(s)? --82.171.13.139 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Have any news organizations covered it?--Nowa (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. This 1UP.com article is about it. It's also mentioned at the end of this Ars Technica article. This Rock, Paper, Shotgun article is about it. This VG247 article is about it. However, no major news organization (yet). --82.171.13.139 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see "Kicking it forward" mentioned in This 1UP.com. Is it called something else?--Nowa (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The Ars Technica article does mention it and provide a link, but it doesn't really say much about it.--Nowa (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Rock Paper Shotgun looks more promising. It gives a nice description and appears to be a reliable source.--Nowa (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Same thing for VG24/7
So I'd say go for it. Why not write an article on Kicking it forward? I'd be happy to look over a draft. You also might want to drop "kicking it forward" into a Google News search to find more sources to support notability.--Nowa (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Really, it should just have a bit of text here. That way notability doesn't have to be defended to an article-level. tedder (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
So, where to add the information? "Kicking It Forward" is not an initiative from the Kickstarter people, but is all about Kickstarter. It's an initiative from inXile Entertainment and they introduced it during their Wasteland 2 Kickstarter project. And how do we make sure the information isn't being duplicated in the other articles, maybe a 'For information about ... see ...' or something? --82.171.13.139 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I threw in a section before having seen this thread. I'm not going to watchlist this page, and I have no opposition to any changes anyone wants to make to my edits. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This entire section kind of reads as an advertisement for inExile Entertainment rather than a relevant part of the Kickstarter experience. There have been more than 50,000 projects on Kickstarter [2] New York Times and just 55 that have participated in this [3]. So, it doesn't really warrant an entire headline above the History section for the company. Moreover, the Kicking it Forward initiative isn't even an activity that people do on Kickstarter itself, it happens offsite. If it belongs anywhere, I'd suggest placing it on the inXile Entertainment page. --DuctTAPEcapital (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Brian Camelio#RfC: Sections .22Patent dispute.22

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brian Camelio#RfC: Sections .22Patent dispute.22. Edcolins (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing drives sort order.

I have twice undone edits to the Ongoing drives table that moved Pebble Watch up above drives that were smaller than it but left Shadowrun below drives smaller than it. I think that the date order is the most useful order as it makes it easy to check whether a drive meets the criteria somply be comparing it with those drives listeed above it. It also reduces the risk of repeatedly changing the oreder of list if two drives are yoyoing past each other. Anyone disagree?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Date order is absolutely the best way to do the ongoing drives. I agree. tedder (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but it isn't going to stop the excited from getting excited. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the ongoing drives entirely. This isn't a news service and the nature of these drives means that material added here will be instantly out of date. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

An IP has apparently restored it. Ironically, the edit summary coupled with that restoration suggests I come here to discuss it. I'll be removing the section again in the likely event that there's no rebuttal to the above problems (which is unlikely to materialise given the impossibility of keeping such a news section up to date). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it really impossible to keep the ongoing drives up to date? I think not. The list of ongoing drives larger than the tenth-largest completed drive should change no more frequently than the list of the ten largest kickstarter drives. The fact that the list of ongoing drives has been kept up-to-date over the past three months is persuasive evidence that it can be kept up-to-date. Is there reason to think that maintaining the on-going drives table will become impossible in the future even though it was well-maintained in the past?
Futhermore, Chris characterizes the the on-going drives table as "news," however, I don't think any of the four bullets of Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER apply here. The second bullet is the closest, but table is not really a "news report." Presently, both of the entries in the on-going drives table are notable enough to merit an article. Projects in the on-going drives table need to be even more successful and thus likely more notable to merit inclusion in the future.
For clarity sake, let me point out that the on-going drives list is not an exhaustive list of all on-going drives, but rather only those on-going drives that are larger than the tenth largest completed drive. Updating the on-going drives table to reflect all large on-going drives clearly be impossible. 128.112.139.195 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Further, it stops people constantly editing the top 10 list as projects climb the ranks. It's a good solution to over-updating, and won't always need to exist; once Pebble finishes, at the moment there are no major projects funding at a high enough level. As the IP above me says; anything that does reach 0.75 million (or more as the top 10 increase) is probably noteworthy. 86.155.102.249 (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Having a section which demands updating on a daily basis (as there is likely to be a change in the top current drive very frequently except on freak occasions like just now) is fundamentally incompatible with having a stable article. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER states quite plainly that routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. How on Earth does that not apply to routine reporting of the Kickstarter projects presently running? As for "stopping people editing the top 10 list", it is a poor decision to compromise this article's integrity just to try to head off the sort of people who treat this as a news service anyway. All that is needed is a comment stating that current drives are simply news content until the money has actually changed hands. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
If the section required updates on a daily basis I would agree that it would be too "newsy" for Wikipedia. However, historically the list has required much less frequent updates. Despite the recent spate of near weakly updates, on average a top kickstarter project comes along about once a month. Futhermore, the rate of change will necessarily decrease in the future as the size of the tenth largest kickstarter project increases.
I don't follow your point about WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The table is not announcemount, and does not concern celebrites or sports. The list of on-going drives is does not contain all ongoing drives; only those drives larger than the tenth largest completed drive. The drives are not routine because they are the largest of their kind. Presently all of them are notable enough to merit article in their own right.
Why is the ongoing drives "newsier" than the list of the ten largest projects? The list of the ten largest projects changes exactly as frequently as the list of ongoing projects, since every ongoing project larger than the tenth largest historical project will eventually be promoted to the top ten list. Furthermore, since the ongoing projects have raised more capital than some of the top ten projects, they seem objectively more notable. How does the inclusion of a list ongoing projects larger than the tenth largest historical project harm the article's integrity? How does it harm the article's stability?
The underlying policy objective of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is to prevent rapid editting so that articles can develop a coherent narrative and to prevent rapid oscillations when the facts of a matter are in doubt. Neither justification applies here. The tables are necessarily seperate with the article's prose so their is no need to develop a coherent narrative. Furthermore, the criteria for inclusion are objective and easily verifiable so their is no risk of rapid oscillations. 128.112.139.195 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The list of historical top tens at least has the benefit of not being guaranteed to change at least every thirty days. There is no reason at all to consider the table in question to be a permanent part of this page, and I'd strongly recommend that after the current episode passes that the table not return. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris; are you mistaking the 'current drives' for whatever current drives are high? It's only going to appear in the 'current' list if higher than the overall top 10 ever; that's far from a daily occurence, and far from routine... 86.157.137.17 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't address the problem whereby the material in question is inherently ephemeral in nature, lasting no more than 30 days in total under any circumstances. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually 60 days, just to clarify. The alternative is to have fans of any successful project putting it into the top 10, and changing the pledge total as it rises as often as they can be bothered (which is a lot). Ongoing pledges stops that issue, unless you want to lock the whole article?? This became an issue when OOTS and Elevation Dock were funding, and various people were just updating it almost every thousand dollars. Which is even more of a headache. 81.132.162.45 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
As I said previously, we're under no obligation to cater for that with a whole extra table in the article. The watch drive is exceptional as it's already obliterated the old #1. Keeping track of whether a given drive is at #6 in the all-time funding totals or whatever would be trivia and we needn't cater for that. So let's leave the table until the watch drive finishes and than remove it with a comment to the effect that current drives should only be remarked upon under exceptional circumstances. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That was tried before; it doesn't work, the page gets tons of edits, and existing drives get put in to the ended drives list; some will argue that anythin reaching #6 is 'exceptional'; that's the reason we look at the top 10, after all. Apart from you, editors agreed that this was the best way to resolve the situation. If Peter Cohen is reading this, I'd appreciate his input. 86.155.120.40 (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with the IP (whose identity is known to me.) The criterion for the ongoing list is eligibility for the top 10 so it will change exactly twice as often as the top 10 list (addition and removal of a project). Before we had the ongoing drives table we had fans of individual projects updating the all time table with new data every few minutes. This set up without running totals is much better.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Peter and the IPs above. Having an ongoing drives table is not incompatible as long as there are clear rules for it - i.e. that the only entries to that table are drives that will have to be added to the Top 10 entries once they are completed. As said above, such drives are actually quite rare and thus daily updates won't be likely. Regards SoWhy 19:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I have started and RfC on this, please see: this section. SteveBaker (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

There is a concern that there is POV in the criticism section. Can you clarify where the problem is? Any suggestions on how to mitigate it?--Nowa (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a grab-bag of opinion pieces and weak sources. No article should need a standalone criticism section. Criticisms should be discussed in the process of explaining whatever it is is being criticised. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea.--Nowa (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How does 'projects cost more than the people ask for' constitute a criticism of Kickstarter? Moreover, how does one instance of a mishandled project with an artist constitute some kind of general principle of criticism against the site? I'd move to have those points removed from the soon-to-be-integrated criticisms. 86.157.137.17 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

How does 'projects cost more than the people ask for' constitute a criticism of Kickstarter? Good point. The reference actually says:
Kickstarter was definitely a positive force for their development. But it isn’t always the the swimming pool of money that it seems to be for even the successful projects.
So it isn't a criticism of Kickstarter per se, but I think it is an important point about what project sponsors experience that should be integrated into the article.--Nowa (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
how does one instance of a mishandled project with an artist constitute some kind of general principle of criticism against the site? I reviewed the article again and I would agree, it's not a general statement about Kickstarter except to the extent that they don't tolerate abuse. Perhaps something about that can be worked into the article.--Nowa (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Here I do agree with Chris. Criticism sections are in general a bad idea and its match better to merge into the flow of the article or have an integrated assessment section based on sources that have assessed the model thoroughly rather than ones that report individual complaints.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to merge in criticism to the paragraph pointing out the risks users face. Feel free to tweak, I've never done a major edit this size before. I cut the one on the artist, as I can't see a way to merge it, and I can't see how a single complaint about one (minor) project is noteworthy enough for inclusion. 86.155.103.240 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done.--Nowa (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Third anniversary coverage.

There is a fair amount of material that has been published in the last few days to mark KS's thid anniversary. I particularly like this series of charts from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/30/technology/three-years-of-kickstarter-projects.html?ref=technology but there is also a blog post on KS itself which tells some of the prehistory. There may be other good stuff I haven't looked at yet.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Tentacle Bento Suspension & Backlash

This needs mentioning. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1189988320/tentacle-bento-by-soda-pop-miniatures/comments?page=1 - 88.104.81.38 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. In order to cover it in this article, we need reliable news coverage. Can you provide a link?--Nowa (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Found one. See article.--Nowa (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Big drive tables

I'm wanting to raise a couple of related points.

First, I've commented out the ongoing drives table as it is empty and there are no current drives that I can see that are certain to get into it. When it was created, the main functional purpose was to prevent people from updating the top 10 table with the latest figures for popular media projects that would finish in the top 10. That is not necessary at present.

Second, there was a suggestion above that we also have a record of the top project from each category of project. I am somewhat reluctant to do so as I don't know how up-to-date it will be in the long term. I am aware of big monetary projects and track them to some extent. For example, I expect the Brydge iPad laptop attachment to end up as the largest project never to feature on our top 10 table. However, I am not aware of what is going on in some of the less popular (and less interesting to me) categories such as dance or fashion.

My other reason for not wanting to maintain such a list is that I don't think the boundaries between the projects are very clear. Recently the technology projects have dropped out of the top 10. However, I look at the design projects that are still there and can't tell the difference between them and the technology ones. And looking at the biggest food project http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/windowfarms/learn-to-grow-and-share-with-new-windowfarms?ref=card it looks like product design to me. I therefore feel that the contents of the table would be based on arbitrary classifications by the project owners and would not be very informative.

Does anyone disagree and want to put the case for inclusion of a table of top projects by category? And, if so, do you want to include the subcategories too?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

To put your mind at rest: a list of top projects per category is not necessary here, as they are provided on the Kickstarter website. See http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/most-funded. The Kickstarter organization will automatically have more up-to-date and extended information than anything we can provide on Wikipedia. If people feel that there is information that Kickstarter is not providing (such as a top 10 of the most successful projects, ever) , they should write to Kickstarter and ask them to put that info on their website.
In that vein, rather than mucking about with variations of a Top Projects list, I propose a more radical move: Remove the Top Projects list altogether. It was introduced (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kickstarter&diff=389649839&oldid=389330350) when the wikipedia article was young and had hardly any information. Meanwhile it has degraded into a slugging match. In fact the whole 'History' section smells of one-upmanship, with a "neener, neener, I'm better than you" flavor to it. I believe the whole section should be reduced to a mention of the founding, changes in top level staff, and some milestones (such as $100 or $200 million total funding, first projects to reach $1 million, $10 million, etc). External references should point mostly to news articles etc, rather than pages on the Kickstarter website, to reduce dependence on one source of information (I bet there is a Wikipedia Policy that applies here, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Third-party sources).
Try to imagine what this page will look like ten years from now. Will it contain a blow-by-blow account of which project defeated which previous project? I doubt it very much. Compare it to a car manufacturer page that has a history section. It would look silly and over-focused on details if it said things like: "In 1956 Fargoer model sold 87654 times for a total of $97,642, being the most successful model to that date. In 1957 the Overtow surpassed that record with 91234 sold, and with a total of $102.304 was the first to pass the hundred thousand dollar mark". (Disclaimer: Model names and sales figures are totally imaginary. No resemblance to actual car models or manufacturers should be inferred. ;-)
So, to prevent fans of projects from fighting things out on this article and reduce the need for frequent updates, I suggest this cut in the History section. Additionally, mentions of specific projects should be reduced to a minimum, and preferably be done only through the External References.
--Hops Splurt (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
But surely the top 10 at least are notable, though those might change. The list of milestones can probably be trimmed; for the first over one million, first over 10 million etc, but I do think the top 10 table is still notable. 81.153.188.118 (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I've trimmed the History section to take out some of the less relevant milestones. I also think the 'cancelled projects' can be re-merged into the introduction in the same way 'criticism' was; I'll take a look at that later. 81.153.188.118 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have started an RfC on this, please see: this section. SteveBaker (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

KS Stats page

Today my attention has been drawn to http://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats . I've added some info derived from there. Do we want to go for anything more concrete, maybe attached to the categories list? The next update to that page is likely to show that they have hit 25K succesful projects. So do we want to update our info based on there?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Community Guidelines update

Kickstarter did a significant revision of its community guidelines in May of 12. Design and technology projects, for example, now require a prototype and a manufacturing plan. Detail here. Where can we put this in the article?--Nowa (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that is worth mentioning. Are there any press sources? My immediate reaction is that this is intended to stop another debacle alla ZionEyez.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting analysis

There's soem nice clear info here that could be extracted. I might do so at the weekend unless someone else wants to do it.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article contain a top-ten list, should that list include ongoing projects?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I endorse the closure statement by Peter Cohen - there is no consensus on whether or not to include a top 10 list, but there is a consensus against include ongoing projects in the list. I don't think the UK kickstarter is a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. Should this article contain a list of the top ten most well-funded projects at kickstarter?
  2. If it should, then should "ongoing" kickstarter projects (whose funding levels change minute-by-minute) be included in that table?

SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that even if you exclude ongoing projects (which may well have already supplanted those in our list in dollar amounts), these records are still being broken (and this table needing to be updated) at least a couple of times per month. Right now, there is little chance of that rate reducing any time soon.
Since August 1st, there have been 51 edits to that table - more than half of the total edits to this page - close to a third of which have been reverts and edit wars. Almost all of the remaining 48 edits over this period were to the "Notable projects" section - which is essentially just another list of "top" projects.
Since ongoing projects are fighting for publicity on kickstarter, the opportunity to be included in our list on this page could be considered to be advertising.
Previous discussion:
IMHO: WP:NOTNEWS applies here - especially the part that says: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events."...with the emphasis on "enduring". Projects that enter and leave this list that rapidly do not have enduring notability. SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd argue that while ongoing projects should obviously be excluded on grounds of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL, at least some sort of data on the most successful projects is useful - though this should probably come in the form of an expansion of the Kickstarter#History section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.54.98 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree entirely. But the contrary argument is to bear in mind that a kickstarter project could run for months - and often, they get the largest amount of their funding in the first and last week of that period. If a project makes enough money in (say) the first week to ensure that it already makes the top ten list - then excluding it from the list could mean that the list is going to be incorrect for months to come! (I would argue that we can fix this simply by naming the table "Top 10 highest funded completed projects".) But I'm greatly concerned about any mention of ongoing projects at all because we'd effectively be promoting them on Wikipedia and making a self-fulfilling prophesy. Making this "list" be merely a part of the "History" section rather than an explicit list allows us to use more flexible language such as "On such-and-such date, project so-and-so became the highest grossing project to date"...or whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought the table's current name already meant that only the "top 10 highest funded completed projects" were listed. For a project to be considered "funded" at all by Kickstarter's standards, the pledge period has to have concluded in addition to the project reaching the funding goal. Until that moment, the project is ongoing. If that isn't clear to other users, it should definitely be rectified. I don't think that any ongoing projects should ever be listed in the article under any circumstances.76.181.68.59 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The top ten table has been in this article for a long time and currently is well-maintained. I think last year it was not updated so regularly. At the start of this year the table had been reasonably stable for a while with a No 1 project of something over $900K that had been there since December 2010. Then in February something changed and there were three millionaire projects running at the same time. Now, not only has the long-term No 1 been bounced out of the top ten table, but two of those first three millionaire projects will follow it off the table in the next four weeks.

Kickstarter have blogged on this at http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/the-year-of-the-game pointing out that most of the millionaire projects are games-related. The millionaire music project went from the top ten earlier this month and the millionaire comics project is about to follow. Earlier this year there was a long-standing film project in the top ten and the majority were design and tech. From early next month the table will contain eight games, one tech and one design project and will be to my mind a lot less interesting. Having an idea of what the top projects in different categories earn strikes me as a lot more interesting than a list of games.

On the other hand, a number of people on Kickstarter seem to find the top ten table interesting. and I would suspect it is one of the most read but of the table. A lot of the people who edit it are IP or new editors. Do we gain much by making the article less friendly to people like that?

The ongoing drives table was introduced to try to manage the constant updates to the top ten table by OOTS fans. I'm actually surprised that Homestuck fans aren't doing similar as someone appears to have put in a bogus pledge for 10K on Sunday in order to get the drive high enough to make the ongoing drives list. Perhaps they have been stunned into silence by Project Eternity passing them but then I don't know how long it will be before the PE people want to put their project into the top 10.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the top ten completed projects table because they're over and done with, but having a table that lists only the highest pledged ongoing project makes no sense. As SteveBaker points out here and in the "Removing ongoing drives" discussion, there is absolutely no reason to cave to the mob just because they want to list their favorite project in the article. That kind of behavior should be fought against at every turn, not encouraged because of a fear that doing otherwise would lead to some "destabilization" of the main table. If that happens, you draw a line and petition for semi-protection. Wikipedia should not be treated as some popularity contest or advertisement machine, and allowing ongoing projects to be displayed here does just that. (FYI, this is still unregistered user 76.181.68.59, don't know why my IP changed) 76.181.82.108 (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the comment above. The list of the highest grossing 'completed projects' is worth including ('completed' here meaning that the funding period is over, not necessarily that the project itself has actually been completed), but the 'highest grossing ongoing project' is unencylopaedic and not worth mentioning. It could also be seen as promotional. We don't lose anything by requiring a project to have completed its funding period and entered the all-time top 10 list before mentioning it here. Robofish (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that Kickstarter maintains its own list of most funded projects, which we can check against to ensure our list is up to date, although its list is broken down by categories: [4] Robofish (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I know for a fact that at one time earlier this year, there was an item on our list that was not on its category's Most Funded page. That's not because our list was wrong. It eventually did show up, but I suspect that had to do with the one-year anniversary of when it finished; I know of at least one other project (albeit one nowhere near the overall top ten) that's still not on its category's most-funded list. Not only do I doubt that Kickstarter's most-funded list would add any more timeliness to the list than what Wikipedians are already achieving, it's not even as reliable. Which is a problem, since that would make this akin to original research, especially if ongoing projects are included; I'm also inclined to suggest it's trivial information that's more useful for bragging rights than actual encyclopedic information about Kickstarter itself. Morgan Wick (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the problem here is that mirroring a volatile top-10 list is going to lead to frequent updates, possibly fuelled by some parties who might see wikipedia as a way to promote their fundraising. I suggest expanding the Top funded projects by funds raised from 10 to 20 and adding a reference to Category:Kickstarter_projects to the section. A Category:Kickstarter_funded_people could also be used to replace the huge long list in Notable projects and creators Stuartyeates (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Good idea re the cats. I'll certainly support them whatever else happens.
Top 20 might make the list less monotonous. There are currently 13 completed millionaire projects of which 7 are games. Three more are in process of which one is a game. Of those 8 big game projects, 7 are multi-millionaire. We'll therefore get more variety. The question is how many of the next four millionaire projects will be games and whether other types will be multi-millionaire and therefore have the potential to remain in the list a while. For example, if other performers with the reach of Amanda Palmer get involved, that might spice up the list.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that recentism is only an issue whilst there is a period of quick growth. For almost half of the first three years of Kickstarter, there was one project as top fund raiser. There's been a recent shake up with the arrival of the game developers but there's a potential for things to settle down once those who are interested in crowdfunding have had their go. Alternatively, KS might still be in a period of exponential growth and eight figure projects might displace the multi-million dollar projects that dominate. We don't know one way or the other.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose insertion of a top ten list. Include projects which are notable by standards in WP:NOTABLE, which means third party coverage in reliable sources, regardless of whether they are top ten. If there are too many projects listed then create a subpage for notable Kickstarter projects then put well-referenced summaries there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I like the top 10 list.--Nowa (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • 1. Support I think the top ten list is a good thing and it helps show what sort of things Kickstarter funds (even if it is overwhelmingly video game related). 2. Oppose Things should only be put into the list once their campaign is over, not during. SilverserenC 02:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. IMHO this information is useful (shows which projects got top funds). Of course we should only include projects for which funding was closed and provide proper sources (according to WP:VER). Sir Lothar (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Top 10 list. The information could theoretically be useful to a reader some day, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. In the event a Top 10 list is included, it probably makes more sense to wait for projects to close before including them. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Complication

Lat week Kickstarter announced that they will soon be supporting UK projects on the same site with the details listed in Sterling. This will complicate listing the largest projects as we'll either have to maintain separate lists for separte currencies (okay when just two, over the top if we have a wide range) or convert the currency at an arbitrary point. It will probably take a little time for the Sterling projects to wind up, but it's worth considering this issue. --Peter cohen (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple math such as converting currency is something we're allowed to do. So, if any of the projects there get onto this list, we can convert it into dollars. Or we can just show both, it's not really that big of a deal. SilverserenC 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What to do now and do we need an external closer for the RFC?

My assessment of it is that there was no consensus on whether to have the top 10 (which defaults to keep) and that there was a consensus against any inclusion of current projects either in the top 10 or a separate table. Does anyone dispute this as the outcome? If so we need to bring in an external closer.

Moving on there were a couple of suggestions by Stuart that did not get responded to by many people. These were:

  • Whether to change from top 10 to another number. Looking at [5] there are five categories represented among the 15 million dollar project as opposed to the three in our table. Therefore, it might broaden the information displayed somewhat to go up to the suggested 20, though we might want to monitor things for a few months before making a decision to see whether the three main categories of games, tech and design push those three out

Another thought that has crossed my mind is having a top Kickstarter project by year. KS have provided the info online. The one for 2009 is an Arts project which will provide some variety.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Top ten table and currencies other than USD.

We are about to get the first completed project reaching the top ten whose value is recorded in another currency. Elite:Dangerous is on £1,535,922 which Expedia converts to $2,474,101.16 at a rate of 1.610825. Do we want to use a converted dollar value as at the end of the run or to remove the currency from the top of the column? and enter funding in the project's home currency.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It has now finished at £1,578,316 which Expedia converts to $2,542,390.46 still at 1.610825. With only a 24p loss on converting back, this seems to be a symmetric conversion. I am therefore replacing that given by th anon editor. --Peter cohen (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Kickstarter as the primary source in this article

The article already has Kickstarter.com as the source for much of its information. And I've tagged the article as overly primarily sourced. I submit that including kickstarter.com as the reference for its's various projects is an over-use of the official link. E.g., each project, because it may lack secondary sources, gets a spamlink. Interested editors are invited to comment. – S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I have seen a lot of new articles on Wikipedia use Kickstarter as a primary source. As the Kickstarter pages are edited solely by the company, group, or individual who plans to make the product that is on Kickstarter, that also means that that "entity" has the ability to manipulate the information on that page at a whim. Essentially, in my opinion, to cite Kickstarter as a reference on any article serves about the same purpose as citing the article's own product as a source of information (citing an web site for the article about the web site, citing a newspaper for the article about the newspaper, etc.) Essentially, citing Kickstarter as a source for an article falls under the guidelines of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Steel1943 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'm concerned about the use of kickstarter.com in this article. Not other articles which use kickstarter.com as a source. (Hence, I misunderstood the purpose of your proposal below.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, what I just did clarifies this discussion a bit. I created a new section on the talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Kickstarter as a source in articles

There are some new articles on Wikipedia use Kickstarter as a primary source. As the Kickstarter pages are edited solely by the company, group, or individual who plans to make the product that is on Kickstarter, that also means that that "entity" has the ability to manipulate the information on that page at a whim. Essentially, in my opinion, to cite Kickstarter as a reference on any article serves about the same purpose as citing the article's own product as a source of information (citing an web site for the article about the web site, citing a newspaper for the article about the newspaper, etc.) Essentially, citing Kickstarter as a source for an article falls under the guidelines of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Steel1943 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There are two different kind of Kickstarter pages, live projects and ended projects. Creators have the ability to manipulate live projects, and there is obviously motivation to spam them. Ended projects cannot be edited[6] or collect money, and serve as a permanent record for the project's backers and the public. I feel your campaign to eliminate all links to kickstarter pages is ignoring the value of these ended project pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.86.38 (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's a quote I recently stated on my talk page:

"...the submissions are still primarily created by the parties which are trying to raise the funds, so there's still a bit of bias to what is written on the specific entries that cannot truly be considered "clean to cite" until the funding period has ended..."

In essence, I believe that the source pages are credible after the funding period has ended, but during that time, they are completely biased and subject to change. Steel1943 (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
...So no, not eliminate links to Kickstarter, but rather question if citations from Kickstarter projects that have not completed their funding phase are credible due to the fact that this information can be edited by the entry's creator freely until the funding period ends. Steel1943 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that there be a template that can be added to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup to articles that cite Kickstarted as a reference due to the possibility that several, if not most, references to an article's subject on its corresponding Kickstarter page could fall under the guidelines WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:CRYSTALBALL. The template could look something like this:

— Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. – S. Rich (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done. All that happened was this template I created was put onto Kickstarter. That is not the purpose of this discussion. I have reverted the incorrect action that was "Done." Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Anyways, In regards to the article Kickstarter, I'm now going to drop the stick I didn't even know I had in my hands. How did that stick get there? Steel1943 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (This issue has since been clarified to all involved parties.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
If it is being properly used a primary source for primary source information with no interpretation, then its usage as a reference is fine. If not, then not. But that's true for all primary sources. SilverserenC 05:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See also section

I don't think we need links to CrowdHut and Daily Grommet in this section. They're very minor, barely notable websites, and only tangentially related to Kickstarter to begin with. Steven Walling • talk 23:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this in talk. New service companies are emerging which address the needs of crowdfunding campaigns after they successfully raise money. CrowdHut and Daily Grommet are two examples that have been directly linked to Kickstarter by multiple reliable sources. See for example [7] (re CrowdHut) and [8] (Daily Grommet). Hence I believe they merit inclusion in “See Also”. Any other views?--Nowa (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

Year Launched Projects Successful Projects Dollars Pledged Backers Project Success Rate Notes
2010 11,130 3,910 $27,638,318 - 43%
2011 27,086 11,836 $99,344,382 - 46%
2012 - 18,109 $319,786,629 2,241,475 -
2013 - 19,911 $480,000,000+ 3,000,000+ - [9]

Statistics addicts enjoy! —  Ark25  (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to enjoy :-) But what does % funded mean in the Top Ten Projects table? The numbers vary from 155 to over 11k. I'd be happy to add an explanation - if I had one! jxm (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's the percent of the original funding goal achieved. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hacked.

It appears Kickstarter was recently hacked. Is the information notable enough to include?[10]--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks notable enough for a mention. Go for it.--Nowa (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Update 10 largest table

In a couple hours when Exploding Kittens is over, this table needs updating. Also, there seem to be some discrepancies between it and the daughter article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_funded_crowdfunding_projects , other than simply the closed/open projects issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.127.253 (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Patent Disputes section

Ronz. This is a PATENT DISPUTES section. this quote is from a verfiable, valid, third party source. There is no reason to delete it as it is a quote directly from a person involved in the suit as reported by the New York Observer. I am unsure as to the motive behind repeatedly deleting it please stop your destructive editing and talk it out here.74.71.160.119 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to Kickstarter, the topic of this article. Further, it is cherry picked from the reference to further the opinion of one person rather properly summarizing the perspective of the source. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It is extremely relevant to Kickstarter as they sued the company ArtistShare and Brian Camelio is the founder. In fact it could not be more relevant especially in this section. It seems like you just don't like it which is fine but that does not change the fact that it adds balance and is from a credible resource. Please stop valdalizing this article 64.131.184.113 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Howso? Please provide references and quotes from those references demonstrating that the quote from Camelio is of such extreme importance above all other facts that we might cover, like Kickstarter's pov that ArtistShare is a patent troll which is verified from the very first sentence of the reference. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
"Please provide references and quotes from those references demonstrating that the quote from Camelio is of such extreme importance above all other facts that we might cover" What? I am not aware that this is a wiki requirement plus I am not 100% sure what you are even asking. "such extreme importance above all other facts that we might cover" - the sentence directly following the quote in this section is from the same article and balances it. "Kickstarter's pov that ArtistShare is a patent troll which is verified from the very first sentence of the reference" - That is not a quote from anyone at Kickstarter from what I can tell but if you feel that it needs to be added then have at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.160.119 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but we follow NPOV and NOT here, rather than "balance" content to individual's personal preferences. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this dispute is over given that the same exact content has been removed from ArtistShare, Crowdfunding, and Brian Camelio. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See Also

Can anyone tell why why the statement that the site supports violence against women has been removed?--106.68.23.249 (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism/Copy-pasting

I have noticed frequent copy-pasting from cited sources. 45.23.26.153 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Kickstarter Controversy Pictures for Sad Children repeated removal

You have repeatedly removed factually accurate information from this page (specifically the Pictures for Sad Children Edit) due to "lack of citations". According to Wikipedia's own entries on citation: "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed" - it does not say, "your input will be deleted until you cite properly" - which is what you are doing. I have provided the link showing the information is true - if you are concerned with the citation and format, then please do as instructed by Wikipedia and improve the formatting as needed. I am (obviously) new to editing things in Wikipedia - your assistance would be much more appreciated than repeated deletions of factual data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40E:8002:1100:7C99:3EA4:DB79:BCA7 (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I examined the source you provided, but it doesn't seem to support your claims. It's basically a long rant from the person at the centre of the controversy. It's not easy to read or understand.
A few problem areas:
  • "In July 2014, Max Temkin attempted to take over the project." I can find no mention of Max Temkin in the provided source. Is it buried in another page somewhere?
  • "Some individuals still claim to have not gotten what they paid for (as they did not expect to have to fill out a survey, and missed it)." Where did you find this information? If you observed it yourself by reading comments, this constitutes original research (see Wikipedia:No original research). Additionally, user comments sections are unreliable sources; see WP:USERGENERATED.
  • "Going even further" - this is your own judgement and is not in the source, seemingly. Wikipedia articles must stick to a neutral point of view (see WP:POV).
As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the burden is on you, the editor who adds the information, to provide good sources. The one you provided doesn't seem up to the task, sorry. You should try to find a reliable source, such as an article in a notable publication, that summarises the controversy. Popcornduff (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Controversies

Not clear with Wiki guidelines, but I'm a little concerned about the edit made by user:81.7.9.180 on 09:17, 31 October 2016‎.

Notably:

1. Inconsistency with the rest of the section: is it acceptable for the section to begin with three paragraphs, followed by a series of bullet points?

2. The article cited from the Huffington Post is itself questionable; can't seem to verify the claims made in it, with regards to the decline of usage of Kickstarter. Also, he seems like a disgruntled Kickstarter, since he makes references to a campaign that was undermined by "the highest profile crowdfunding marketing agency", failing to mention that the campaign was started by...well, himself.

3. Reference 114 links to Nathan Resnick's own page, which has nothing to do with strengthening the points made in the edit

All in all, this edit does not seem to mention any particular controversy; even if it were, there's definitely room for improvement in terms of citations and writing style. Blackangel105 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kickstarter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Logo image

Can I use the logo image in another article discussing Kickstarter, or are there fair use issues that prevent this? SharkD  Talk  17:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kickstarter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kickstarter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Replace the OUYA image?

When the image was added, the OUYA was the second most successful campaign; it's now the ninth. It won't be long before it's no longer in the top 10 list. Should it be replaced with a more successful campaign? Say, the Pebble Time? There's already an image on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pebble_Time_front.jpg JorWat (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Pebble Time works. We just can't really use a non-free image here. --Masem (t) 16:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Affiliation

Updating the logo and wanted to leave a little COI declaration: I work at Kickstarter but receive no compensation for my edits. My editorial choices are my own, written out of voluntary interest. I've written dozens of Wikipedian-vetted articles and am familiar with the guidelines, expectations of neutrality, and limits of conflict of interest. If you have an issue with any of my edits, feel free to revert and let me know here (with a {{ping}}) so we can discuss/rephrase. czar 00:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kickstarter/Archive_1&oldid=1146660804"