I'm not sure you've understood correctly. In my proposed system, people
propose projects and these projects are advertised on the centralnotice
banners. When clicked on, readers are taken to the individual project pages
and donate to them directly, rather than donating into a central pot.


> (a) people put forth their own money, and therefore assume the element of
> risk themselves.
>

Not sure what you mean here? Readers will donate their own money to
individual projects.


> (b) people who participate in crowdfunding do so with highly variable
> amounts - from a few dollars to several thousands - according to how much
> interest they have, and that's an important dynamic of the funding process.
>

Nothing stopping donors donating different amounts directly to projects.

(c) many (most?) of the people who contribute to campaigns of this nature
> do so for the perks, or contribute /more/ to the funding because of the
> perks.
>

Well, Wikipedia is successfully crowdfunded at the moment without perks.
This just breaks it down into individual projects instead of crowdfunding
the entire entity in one go. Intuition would suggest that we'd raise more
money this way rather than less, because of the variety of campaigns, and
the effectiveness of a community at evolving campaign designs over time.

Of course, there's nothing stopping projects from offering perks either.
Wikipedia swag perhaps? All the fulfilment logistics are already there via
the official shop.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to