This takes the cake for most passive aggressive op-ed piece I've heard in a while. People that use crowd sourcing sites like Kickstarter have all the information they need to decide whether or not they will BACK a project. MOST people understand that they are not buying a product, that there are risks, and that they might be in for huge delays, underwhelming performance, or occasionally nothing at all. I do think we have seen decent evidence of how important marketing is for a crowd source campaign, and that some of these projects seem to tend to over commit.
On the other hand, I see the rising success of these campaigns as nothing but a good thing. The lesson to be learnt is that Kickstarter and Indiegogo are not stores, they are crowd sourcing sites that accept donations, with some chance that they deliver on their project. Their chance of delivery depends a lot on their background, credentials, proof-of-concept work, openness/responsiveness, and degree of difficulty of their task. Most of these things can be researched in the 1-2 month frame that these projects collect money for. I have personally not backed a 3D printer project because most are massively overly backed and target too many stretch goals, usually meaning delays in fulfillment. If one turns out successfully, I will purchase it from them through retail and be afforded the protections that we as consumers have.