@Emperor I actually tweeted that jokingly the other day, when I was really pissed off about us no longer having a space program in the USA. I think we could do it.
[whoa, spending lots of time at home makes me prone to increasing postiness. XD]
was just thinking that a project like this could/should be linked with projects like figshare. perhaps there's already a n infrastructure to build upon?
Thanks for the link with figshare, that not something i was familiar with.
I'm currently musing over the reasons why potential donors might visit a sight like kickstater. They're all platforms that depend on the project proposer to attract people to their page,
- either frends and family and the like which seems particualrly prevelant on the projects i looked at on funding4learning. - online networks, the people who know the people you know on facebook - or tapping into some larger pre-existing community, such as a a charity, or tapping into some popualr need, like Diaspora.
if i put my totally-ignore-the-practical-issue-blue-sky-thinking-engine-hat on, i wonder if a different model, that generates content that people want to see (never mind what that is...) that then points people in the direction of the donating page, or at least the projects section of the website. like a new scientist magazine, with the articles about the projects? or a resource or a community that draws in the traffic...so, only need to come up with a first class content or service idea, simples...
of course, if you want to move research-funding from big pockets to "average people" - or at least to some degree make it more accessible and visible to them - you will want to have some content that actually explains what's this or that research is aiming for and give regular reports. having the scientists themselves do this is, usually, not such a good idea.
therefore, considering your proposal to "generate(s) content that people want to see" one possibility is to have a "science for the masses" style show on your frontend. y'know something that's not all experts talking expertly about expert matters, but a baseline approach to the subject matter without (!) selling it short.
that's not very original, but feasible. and potentially promising.
been toooo long since i last looked in on this - started a masters course and suddenly have less time. stilll collecting ideas and thoughts about this though.....recent thought was inspired by something i had to read for uni - 'the WEIRDest people in the world' (BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2010) 33, 61–135) (google scholar this and you should be able to find a free pdf...) - where WEIRD stands for Western Educated Industrial Rich Democtratic - basically lamenting the fact that all but a couple of percent of psychology studies are done with university undergraduates, usually psych students themselves, because a) testing within such a limited sample limits generalisatibilty, especially were putative 'human universals' are concenred and b) this specific sample may be totally unrepresentative as its an outlier were some cross-cultural data does exist. It occurs to me that some of the problem stems from practical difficulties that mihgt be more within the range of kickstarter-style amounts - eg: funds from which participants can be paid for their time, a local translator can be payed for, plane tickets etc...and maybe another/alternative string in the bow might be the maintian networks that might be interested in things like this...
A kickstarter-like site for science. They state their goal as "To fund research in new ways and to connect everyone to the excitement of doing science".