Georgina's post for this Thing has led me to re-familiarise myself with Kickstarter and Patreon, on both of which I have responded to appeals in recent years. So far as I can tell, the main difference between the two sites is reflected in their names: Kickstarter enables contributions to get projects started, Patreon enables long-term support. Composer Kathryn Rose has released some good music, and music in progress, via Patreon, and interesting accounts on her blog and Twitter stream about how the site impinges on the creative process and her business model.
I can see I'd do well to follow more on both sites.
"Do you have an idea for a project that could be crowdfunded?" asks the post. Sorry, no. I am intrigued to read the caveats from A Waterfall of Consciousness and Library Spiel about the risk that crowdfunded projects may repel friends and regular funders, especially noting that in Library Spiel's case this caveat is evidently based on experience. Here's an idea that I did have at one time; it has now run out of steam, and crowdfunding is not sought. I had better admit that my own kin never thought much of the project.
It's probably a good idea. Here's an article my science-journalist wife wrote about developments in this area some four years ago. Note that the article doesn't present citizen science as an irreversible triumph: in 2013, chemistry was less keen on the idea. Despite the successful application of citizen-science practice in some chemical research, the question was "Should chemistry join the gang?" and reservations were quoted from some chemists. I don't know if it's significant that Zooniverse's current project list includes no reference to chemistry.
Related to both chemistry and citizen science is another movement drawn to my attention by Clare: that of the expert patient. A flagship for this movement is Patientslikeme. New research mentioned on this site on the day I write, 1 January 2017, includes developments in clinical trials, new ways of indicating levels of pain, and improvements in patients' self-management and self-efficacy.
The question uses the word 'democratisation'. Democratisation is the benefit that citizen science confers. Research abc writes that "Hopefully more people appreciating this process will increase public confidence in scientific statements."
That's better than an unquestioning acceptance of what experts say. And better than a generic distrust of experts.
I suppose citizen science stands up better against sociopaths and demagogues than those other states. But I bet a determined troublemaker could spoil even citizen science.