Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts

By Ethan Mollick, Ramana Nanda. Management Sciences, 2016

526 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management Information Systems, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/efdfaf331cd0367dddab65baf80797d141e63d4f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Management Information Systems

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

The power of positivity? The influence of positive psychological capital language on crowdfunding performance (2018, background): “0 Introduction Crowdfunding has ushered in an era of democratized fundraising for entrepreneurs and inventors alike (Mollick and Nanda, 2016; Short et al., 2017a).”
The wisdom of the crowd in funding: information heterogeneity and social networks of crowdfunders (2018, background): “…is often associated with non-financial motivations and non-profit organisations, whereas reward-based and financial crowdfunding are more commonly associated with for-profit or social entrepreneurs and financial motivation (Ahlers et al. 2015; Cholakova and Clarysse 2015; Mollick and Nanda 2015).”
Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science (2016, background): “The challenge of evaluating ideas has only grown with increasing use of “ideation,” platform-based contests, crowdsourcing, and crowdfunding as a means of generating a large number of proposals (Agrawal et al. 2014, Piezunka and Dahlander 2014, Mollick and Nanda 2016).”
Law, Trust, and the Development of Crowdfunding (2019, unknown): “…and Iyer, Khwaja, Luttmer, and Shue (2016), all use data from Prosper.com, a large peer-to-peer (P2P) lending website in the United States (US), while Li and Martin (2016), Mollick and Nanda (2016), and Thürridl and Kamleitner (2016) use data from Kickstarter, a reward-based platform in the US.”
Dynamics of Lending-Based Prosocial Crowdfunding: Using a Social Responsibility Lens (2018, background): “crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter (e.g. Calic and Mosakowski 2016; Colombo et al. 2015; Kuppuswamy and Bayus 2017; Mollick and Nanda 2015; Parhankangas and Renko 2017), few studies have examined other platforms servicing very different entrepreneurs and lenders.”