Once Bitten, Twice Buy: I funded his band & his company via crowdsourcing

Earlier this week Groundcrew announced their funding on TechCrunch and provided some details on their community mobilization platform. I'm proud to be one of their investors after having connected with co-founders Joe and Chad on AngelList. Groundcrew was already getting traction when they started raising money but AngelList ended up connecting them with several folks who otherwise weren't aware of the project. In fact, the round was pretty oversubscribed. How did i managed to get included? 

Well, i like to think it was my value-add knowledge, deep network and fact i work really hard to help these companies succeed but let's tell the truth. It was probably because i'd funded Chad's band on kickstarter a few week's earlier. Amusingly it turned out that one of my coworkers is in a band with Chad and they were crowdsourcing funding for their next album. And i'd already donated to that cause. 

So turns out that within the same month, two different crowdsourcing efforts led me to fund projects i otherwise wouldn't have heard about, both involving the same guy.

Brave. New. World.

Why Wikipedia should care about $: because they can be Quora or "Community Powered Demand Media"

Over at TechCrunch i wrote how Wikipedia should use affiliate links in the US to earn $16m+ annually and remove the specter of insolvency. There have been lots of good comments i wanted to address

1) Why Wikipedia should care about money
Some folks questioned why wikipedia should care about money at all - they're a non-profit and the annual fundraisers seem to cover their costs. Why? Because by many measures (including shrinking contributor base), Wikipedia is possibly getting weaker, not stronger (see article in Time Magazine). And while money is only part of the equation, it would help them take on even bolder goals.

With a solid financial foundation, Wikipedia could hire more developers and try new models for information creation. Why didn't Wikipedia create Quora - authoritative information is certainly their mission? Why isn't Wikipedia experimenting with compensating curators & creators - ie "Community Powered Demand Media." The community could vote stipends for contributors and other mechanisms which are consistent with Wikipedia's values. Wikipedia is an AMAZING phenomenon but in technology if you aren't growing and evolving you're becoming less relevant. And that's the situation Wikipedia should avoid.

2) But won't this make Wikipedia "commercial" and piss off (a) contributors and/or (b) readers
Some people misunderstood affiliate links -- they're not ads which run alongside content, they're merely links from relevant content. eg Linking to the Twilight book on Amazon from the Twilight wikipedia page. Sure some contributors might get concerned but here's how you handle that:

i) give any page moderator the ability to disable affiliate links on their page but publish this among the community so full transparency.
ii) help get the contributor community excited about the bigger mission, the opportunities for new projects to help the world, etc

For readers, well most seem to be fine with the idea and others say they're already tired of seeing Jimmy Wales annual appeal. Creating an annual state of panic among your community for annual fundraising may galvanize people in the moment but is NOT an energy-maximizing strategy in the longterm.

Thanks! keep the feedback coming and i'll respond more later.