|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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)
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)
The list of providers contains spam. Brz7
I propose to list international micropayment examples. I was in Taiwan in May 2012 and saw micropayment in the form of "yo-yo" RFID cards. They can be topped up using machines or many stores. Instead of getting a bunch of coin for change from stores, you can have them added to the yo-yo card. Yo-yo cards are used for public transit and some taxis as well. Yo-yo cards are used a prizes, gift cards, cost-reduction rebates and promotions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.ma.canada (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
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. <email@example.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?
The initial Paypal citation now redirects to the main Paypal developer site with no reference to the definition of a micropayment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Had to remove the two reference links from the lead and add a Fact template. The links were as follows:
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 (). An example implementation for bitcoin as micropayment system can be found here: . -- 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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Bitcoin should not have been deleted (again), it is one of the few payment systems here that is not just advertising some soon-to-fail startup - it is currently being used to transfer millions of US dollars in value a day: http://bitcoinwatch.com/. It can transfer minute amounts of money without the impediment of fees from an unscrupulous wiki-editing profit-seeking company. It can be used to send people very small amounts just for the sake of giving: (https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/), (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22126.0). Here's an example of small payments being sent by hundreds to enter a raffle for a $700 item: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67937.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to add Bitcoin back. With ChangeTip and Micropayment Channels there is valid open and closed source development ongoing in this area. I'd like to add that 2 1/2 years after all of this editing war nonsense, ZnakIt! is no longer operating and its founder is an avid Bitcoin supporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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 126.96.36.199 (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 188.8.131.52 (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 184.108.40.206 (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 220.127.116.11 (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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The 213. IP address of this noisy complainer is from ccTLD .pt (Portugal). This znak it "content monetization" thing is from Portugal. I looked through 10 pages of Google results and couldn't find anybody using this, just a bunch of press releases and blogs from the company touting itself, the company being one guy. The domain is hosted on Amazon with a redirect, hardly a real web company. Wikipedia is not for free advertising of irrelevant companies. plonk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
This 76.27 IP is from Portland Oregon known to trade Bitcoins and edit Bitcoin blurb on Wiki -- he cannot be trasted as an "objective" reviewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Fleetham has engaged in editing war by deleting valid entry multiple times. Please stop it.
I am happy to engage with those who would like to have znak it! included on this page. My reasoning for repeatably deleting its addition is simply a lack of reliable, third-party sources. A Google news search shows that there are no news articles about the company. The only source cited in the disputed material is a single online website ("paypers.com") that appears to have some link to the "content monetization " industry, as I believe it holds a conference on the subject. The disputed material states that znak it! won a "Florin award," but it appears that this is something given out by paypers.com. I have trouble determining if this source passes Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have no way of knowing if it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and as the source hosts a conference that employees of znak it! may pay to attend, there may be "an apparent conflict of interest," which could make paypers.com a "questionable source." In my view this source is questionable, and the fact that no other source considers the company newsworthy makes me think that Wikipedia shouldn't include a mention of znak it!; it is not notable. Wikipedia:Notability says "multiple sources are generally expected." If arguments can't be made defending the znak it! material or further sources can't be found, I see no reason to allow its inclusion. Fleetham (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support this - maybe we need semi-protection on this page? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree completely. I use Znak it! for micropayments, so do over 100,000 people. Znak it! site, which is just to describe the system (but not the system itself, as it is being used as a "white label") has an Alexa global rank in the range of 140K. The service I use Znak it! to purchase goods has a rank of 465 most popular sites in Portugal, 6,756 in Poland and 92K globally -- so it is much better than payclick (3,303,072 Alexa rank) you keep in there. Znak it! is four years old and has many more Google search results (over 13K including references by Times, MediaBrief, .Net magazine and others) you are willing to acknowledge. You also misrepresent paypares.com as a blog -- it is the payment industry magazine of solid reputation and following among those who do know the space. The Florin Award is given by the European Payment Consultants' Association, an well-know and reputable professional organization. Members of EPCA are specialists in banking and payment processing. How dare you question their expertise. Are you an expert in the field? Besides, Fleetham deleted arbitrarily many other sound contributions to this poorly written outdated piece. Micropayment is one of the fastest growing sectors of e-commerce. Fleeetham article does not reflect at all the current developments in micropayments and it needs a total overhaul, not protection. Shame on you for keeping WIKI readers in the dark and misinformed due to some personal agendas or egos. Please stop making your uncalled for actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I am a user of the system and a fun of micropayments. It is not my role to provide links here. But you should not delete something you do not understand or -- like in this case -- are completely ignorant about. Better delete payclick reference, as this system does not function any longer; delete flattr, as it is not a micropayment but a voluntary social donation mechanism (similar to kachingle.com or spare change now owned by PlaySpan, a different idea defined under Social Payments), etc. I am restoring Znak it! reference and please do not remove it, unless you have educated yourself on the subject and can provide real arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
If you wish I can help you re-write the article, so that it includes accurate history, notable examples of both early and current examples of micropayment systems as well as some relevant discussion on the subject in scholarly and popular tech literature. But stop deleting contributions that make sense.
My pleasure, but stop deleting the Znak it! reference -- it is a valid and popular micropayment solution known for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I see that you do not respect my repeated requests to honor my last contribution about Znak it! despite of my explanation and your declared willingness to "listen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This slow-moving edit war needs to be resolved. I've blocked editing privileges to this article for all users except administrators for several weeks. I assume that's a sufficient amount of time to determine whether or not ZnakIt! merits inclusion in this article. Please note that a product need not have widespread adoption for inclusion in the article, but it must have non-trivial, reliable, third-party coverage. Mindmatrix 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I would be glad to hear that a resolution is needed and/or on its way, but those advocating for Znak it! inclusion (including me) provided enough background info to prove that the system is not only relevant but popular with its users in several countries. Despite that, Fleetham deleted the reference over and over, each time providing different and bogus justification. Please read the discussion, including what was written on Fleetham talk page and restore the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You do not see, b/c you do not want to see any "decent" sources. If you'd google Znak it! as you claim you did, you would see over 15K references and coverage of Znak it! by bloggers, sure, but also important industry papers, like Paypers,.Net, The Times, the MediaBrief and many others. There are interviews with the founder, reports from industry conferences where Znak it! was a sponsor or a speaker invited by organizers, dating back to 2008; there are important awards and top rankings by reputable organizations -- none of this made any impression on you, which means you have no idea about micropayments and the role of Znak it! as the leading innovator in this space, and yet you have audacity to question a simple factual reference and opinions by experts in the field.
On the other hand, the article has references to Flattr, which is NOT a micropayment system per se, but a social donation scheme that belongs to a different subject already covered under Microdonations. You keep PayClick that is no longer in operation (and was regional) etc.
As someone already suggested the article is way outdated and misleading. It lacks the proper historical perspective that would credit the early champions of micropayments, including, Jakob Nielsen and Ted Nelson, who coined the term (you did not know that, did you?); the role of such companies as Digicash, Spare Change, or Tipjoy, which contributed, each in a different way, to the development of today's micropayment systems; the role of Clay Shirky and the mistaken ideology of "free" in mischaracterizing micropayments as a valid and potentially huge source of digital revenue; the entire "virtual dime" discussion; the paywall vs micropayment dilemma in online publishing, etc, etc.
Instead, you and fleetham (if one is not the same with the other) insist on keeping trivial often mistaken references and delete the ones that make sens, given the larger picture, you obviously do not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Payclick appears to be alive and well although the press release this page cites has been taken down. [payclick|https://www.payclick.com.au/]. As the dispute centers around a lack of reliable sources, and you state that there are many, why not provide some? Fleetham (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I restored the Znak it! reference and propose another better source if you will. http://www.themediabriefing.com/article/2012-02-22/Technology-solutions-for-publishers-from-paywalls-to-micropayments. Please note that The Media Briefing is NOT a blog but a media company, owner of several publication and organizer trade conferences on the subject of online payment solutions. The last Paywall Strategies conference organized by The Media Briefing was attended by the Economist, The Times and many other well-known publications. Znak it! was one of the sponsors and key presenters at the conference. Will a link to materials produced by the Media Briefing be enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- The cited article contains the following disclaimer: "Abacus eMedia and Znak-It are both sponsors of Paywall Strategies." That does not qualify as an independent source. Mindmatrix 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
In other words, anyone who sponsors an event is a fraud or does not exist? How about this reference http://sparechange.s3.amazonaws.com/homepage/NET190.f_nano.pdf.? I hope that the British .Net magazine is objective enough for you. Or this, from the European Entrepreneurship Foundation http://www.europreneurs.org/2012/01/free-is-not-fair-micropayments-changing-the-game-introducing-znak-it/ Something against this organization and its objectivity? I wished PayClick had so many independent references, or be actually recognized by the industry as micropayments... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for finding more suitable sources. But please refrain from re-adding material that references suspect sources. Why not use the newly found material to write something different to add to the page? Fleetham (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The sources are not new and only a few out of many you claimed do not exist at all. A reference to the PayPers is suitable as it reports about the award given by a well-known professional association. There is no reason to call the source "suspect." Please refrain from deleting the pieces on Znak it! and the references; there is no basis for that other than your own personal preference. I will however add the references to support the original contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm sure any contribution would be appreciated. But please don't just switch out old sources for new. The content on the page should reflect the information in the sources that support it. Fleetham (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
OK Let's start from the beginning. Is Znak it! a micropayment system? Yes it is. It has been around for about 4 years; it has users, high Alexa Global and several national rankings, peer awards and recognition among the payment experts as one of the most innovative payment solutions out there. These are facts. You might not like them, but there are facts. It is also a fact that Znak it! has been awarded the Florin Award -- and this is all the Znak it! post says: that there is a micropayment system called Znak it, and that it was awarded a prestigious award that is relevant to the topic. You and one other person keep deleting the Znak it! entry without any valid justification or claiming that the references are "crap." But it is clear that your actions have nothing to do with the quality of the reference or the facts. They are personal and vicious. Please stop acting god here. You have no knowlege about the micropayment space. It was mentioned before that the whole article needs a major revision, but until then stop deleting the only contribution that makes any sens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because I am for principles and against double standards. From the beginning you called every contribution by other editor than yourself spam or you claimed that the references were self-serving, bogus, (you friend Cameron called them "crap"), etc. And yet, your own text is full of commercial references and links to companies' own websites, starting with so called "definitions" of micropayment by Visa or PayPal. If you bothered to check your own references, you'd see that most of them do not work, or lead to articles based on press releases or sponsored by the interested party. You cannot sens that, of course, becasue you have no knowledge of the space and who's who in it. The Znak it! current entry has 3 references: one is to its own website (becasue there are other similar references, you either remove them all or keep Znak it! link as valid); a link to an industry leading newsletter and a professional organization in charge of the Florin Award (among the winners of the Flori award are such comanies as TNT, Paribas, Six, Qiwi, etc.); and, a link to a third party independent publication. There is no reason whatsoever to call these links other than valid. Your calling them "not good" is subjective and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have been informed about an editing war between editors of the Micropayment entry here on Wikipedia, and as much as I appreciate the passion and persistence of some of the contributors regarding Znak it!, I must ask all those involved in the war to stop it. Znak it! is an innovative and successful content monetization system that uses microtransactions as an option for both online publishers and Web users to process pay-for access to premium content. The system has been present on this niche market for over four years now. It has attracted many individual and institutional users and partners who trust us as an effective and highly professional service. This editing war does not serve any useful purpose. My partners and I do not wish to be part of it, even if by name only, and we strongly condemn some of the language used in this war. Perhaps in the future, when the unhealthy emotions have subsided and the article has been re-written to include more objective and relevant information, we might reconsider and contribute to it. Now, however, please stop listing or unlisting any references to Znak it!
- I don't know if this debate is still raging, but I wrote the article above on theMediaBriefing.com - I'm the founding editor - and it wasn't written with cooperation with Znak-it, although yes they did sponsor our event. Sponsors don't get to dictate editorial content however. I don't know whether they should be included here, but they are a significant micropayment technology provider, especially in Eastern and Central Europe.
How come this Article does not mention anything about, or not even referencing Bitcoin? Most modern "micropayments" are done in Bitcoins, because the bitcoin currency allows for tiny payments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rain.tanthera (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)