Talk:Micropayment

it seems like an article on this has been due for some time...

topics to add maybe, why micropayment implementations seem to have failed so far, links to articles in micropayment history (case for/against micropayments)

and lordy, if somebody could clean up the clumsiness of my writing

---

kowey: okay, I added some more text, but it sure ain't a swan yet... another thing is deciding how far we want to go into the debate. Seems the mpayment debate isn't *really* the point of the article but we still want reader to somewhat informed?

---

I am looking at adding some more information.

I don't see the debate issue as any big deal. It's not that people are against micropayments, it's that they don't expect micropayments to be very successful.

Morris 03:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Good work

I like how the external links are layed out in this article, I'm not sure why they aren't that great in other articles, perhaps because they are numbered? --ShaunMacPherson 00:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

micropayment system: pre internet

I added some introductory paragraphs to clarify that micropayment systems existed before the internet, and don't necessarily have to be related to the internet. Morris 03:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Providers

The list of providers contains spam. Brz7

Recent?

I wouldn't call micropayments a recent innovation, even on the web. They've been around since at least 1994. Though the earlier systems didn't catch on at the time, the modern systems don't really innovate over what was available in the mid to late 90's. Honus

Weeding out spam

I have visited the sites that are listed at the bottom and verified that they are indeed working micropayment companies.

I have removed the ones that are not.

The youth market

Just an observation: on several occasions, the text seems to take it as read that the youth market might feel shut out of paying online because of its inability to use credit cards. There are now prepaid credit cards, and where I live (Britain) it's very common indeed for under-18s to own debit cards, and for debit cards to be accepted for online transactions. 86.132.141.139 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory article

Much of this page feels dated, referencing failed micro-payments systems which either never took off or quickly failed, some of them many years ago. Somehow I can't help but feel there's more recent studies of micro-payments systems that just aren't included. The page feels like it could be considerably tightened and made more relevant. Because I came here to learn about micro-payments, that shouldn't be me. I don't have the expertise.

Why are micro-payments important? Because advertising alone isn't the most efficient, effective method of monetizing web content, as daily newspapers and other print media are currently discovering. However, if there were an effective, efficient system for paying a few pennies to access a newspaper article on line, there's little doubt great volumes of web users wouldn't think twice about clicking to gain access. Pennies per click times tens or hundreds of thousands of clicks becomes a substantial new revenue stream, independent of sponsoring advertising — a healthy outcome.

As the current text in this article makes clear (in a somewhat unorganized way) the concept of micro-payments have been around for at least a decade, but have always failed due mostly to failure to attend to the details of such a system. None of the problems cited in this article appear to be insurmountable. Exactly why then has the necessary innovation not taken place? That's the question this article doesn't address.

For the future of good investigative journalism and thoughtful long-reads, an effective system of micro-payments is necessary. An innovation waiting to happen.

Because I sign in to Wikipedia infrequently I'll publish my eMail address for those who might want to extend this discussion. <morley@boxbe.com> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morels (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments in Article Text

This following article discussion seemed to be taking place in a hidden comment in the article text. This talk page seems to be a better place to explore the questions.Cander0000 (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete: ==Criticism== Hard to implement? The "mental transaction cost" argument ==Counterarguments== There are counterargs to the critics, but is there a fair, concise way to present this? I suppose the primary interest of this article is for the reader to inform self about what micropayments are; don't really want to dig too deep into the debate, eh? Yes, we do. We want to provide readers with as much useful information possible. This would include problems with the system as well as likely solutions. The problem is that some systems actually work with few problems (or vice versa), so some idiots would cry foul on the account of being "biased", when in fact we're being realistic. ==Implementations== Bitpass? European variants with mobile phones? iTunes - $1 a song: micropayments? Some implementations?

Lead citation links

Had to remove the two reference links from the lead and add a Fact template. The links were as follows:

1. http://www.marketconscious.com/dict3.htm
2. http://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/

The first is dead, and the second does not appear to verify the claim.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bitcoin

I have added bitcoin to the section "current micropayment systems". Bitcoin is a decentralized electronic cash system which can be used for micropayments as transaction costs are very low (<1 USD cent) and transactions can be processed within seconds if needed ([1]). An example implementation for bitcoin as micropayment system can be found here: [2]. -- mkrohn (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Marco, you have added Bitcoin, but it seems you (or someone else) deleted all my contributions, including info about Znak it! Was this by accident? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.38.167 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Znak it

I just re-posted a reference to Znak it! deleted by another contributor. Please do not delete it again. I agree with an earlier comment by morley@boxbe.com that this article is not even close to cover the subject; however, if we keep on deleting arbitrarily valid (but disliked) references, it will become even worst, disjointed and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.166.76 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed these two, as neither seem like legitimate "micropayment" systems. Until real micropayments are made with them on a daily basis, who is to say these are truly tested, workable systems? These are "nascent micropayment systems" that, like those which came before them, will most likely not become widely used. Fleetham (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "legitimate." I think you are confused about your role here and the function of a Wiki article pages. You are not to assess any of the contributed example, their "daily basis" or future. My information about Znak it! is relevant, factual and confirmed/verifiable by other sources. Please do not abuse your option to edit. I am re-posting the reference to Znak it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.166.76 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that a cited source is a blog. WP:BLOGS says, "no blog sources, please". The other citation is not third-party, as it is from the company itself. This contravenes WP:SOURCES. By using reliable, third-party sources that haven't been self-published, Wikipedia maintains excellence in dictionarying. Fleetham (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. But then you would have to remove Payclick by Visa b/c the reference is to its own web page. Same with the Exception Magazine, M-Coin, etc. I think you mistake hyperlinks to the title product's or service's webpage, as a source of information on what is we are taking about, for third party citations to validate certain claims. Website hyperlinks are fully legitimate and commonplace on Wiki. By its own nature, they cannot be third party's.

The other reference you question now was to replace an earlier one, you also objected to as "not direct enough." Both are links to The Paypers, a leading sources of information on the current payment services. There are blogs (trade magazines in the format of the internet blog) and blogs (one-person's private weblogs). The Paypers is the former, so is ThechCrunch or Slate or Drudge Report. My citation from the Paypers blog was to validate the fact that Znak it! is a recipient of the 2011 Florin Award, which is given annually by the European Payments Consultants' Association, an expert organization in the field. If you read the reference article, the 2011 Florin finalists included such well-known multinational corporations like TNT, TB Paribas, etc. In this light your earlier statement that "who is to say these are truly tested, workable systems?" seems highly inappropriate and, frankly, arrogant -- you are not a payment expert, are you? Having said that please restore my contribution about Znak it!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.166.76 (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Veracity of the company may ameliorate a lack of third-party references. No one doubts that Visa runs a micropayment system or that some small magazine in the US has a paywall. But bold claims made by small companies with no history should not be posted unless that claim has been verified by someone without an interest in making it appear as if that claim is correct. Fleetham (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Veracity may ameliorate...? Now you try to play god, not only an expert in micropayments which you are certainly not. The rules of Wiki apply to small and large companies all the same. You disregard the Paypers as an independent third party; you disregard The European Payment Consultants' Association -- clearly you abuse your editing options. I;ll undo your changes. If you decided to delete the Znak it! references again, I will report it as an act of vandalism. You have a history of arbitrary actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.166.76 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wrote to Wiki, asking for their intervention. Fleetham deletion are arbitrary and unjust; their justification is bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.166.76 (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)