Ben Yates wrote: If I recall correctly, when proposals like this come up, the canned reply from foundation-type people (if a reply comes at all) is that at

the moment the benefits of adding another option outweight the negatives of having to manage yet another account---between Paypal, moneybookers,

direct bank transfers in both Germany and the US, and mailed checks, most people are able to donate with reasonable ease, a large number of

currencies are covered, and the fees aren't *too* unreasonable. At least, that was the reply to previous suggestions that we add support for e-gold and for Google's payment system.

Perhaps at some point in the future they'll do a reevaluation and choose a new set of two online payment systems (maybe moneybookers is no longer the best 2nd choice?), but I don't think it's likely that Wikimedia will ever want the hassle of simultaneously supporting a large number of them, Of course, I speak as someone with no particular knowledge of the foundation's inner workings; these are just my observations of past practice. -Mark _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 05/08/2007, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: Curious, isn't it odd that we voted in a board that ignores our proposals?

Do the board members really not have enough time to do this, if they don't then they shouldn't be board members. It would take a few minutes every week or month - not much time to ask.

It really isn't about ease, the Amazon thing AFAICS has lower fees and therefore would be preferred by users who don't have much money to donate (every little helps). Perhaps our Foundation is in a secret deal with eBay and co. ;) - really we should be providing as much incentive as possible for users to donate and remember one of Google's corporate philosophies is: "Don't be evil" (source: Wikipedia). > Perhaps at some point in the future they'll do a reevaluation and choose > a new set of two online payment systems (maybe moneybookers is no longer > the best 2nd choice?), but I don't think it's likely that Wikimedia will > ever want the hassle of simultaneously supporting a large number of them, > > Of course, I speak as someone with no particular knowledge of the > foundation's inner workings; these are just my observations of past > practice. > > -Mark

-UH.

Florence Devouard wrote: Huh? I don't see what prompted this personal attack. I was replying to a suggestion that we add Yet Another Payment System with a guess that the Foundation won't do so because it's a huge hassle to simultaneously support a lot of payment systems, and there's little benefit from doing so, and that's why similar suggestions in the past haven't been accepted. How is that "trolling"? -Mark

I've heard a lot of horror stories about Paypal. And considering that by using PayPal, we're basically paying eBay a percentage of donations we receive, I reckon it'd be a good idea to look at alternatives every now and then. Now that Wikimedia has hit the big time, our support for any particular payment method may actually become important.

Merchant accounts are often cheaper, but they also are often harder to manage than paypal, especially when dealing with people in so many countries, using so many different currencies, etc.

Support for micropayments is a cool feature, and something which isn't really offered by paypal. Then again, the impact such a feature would have on foundation revenue would probably be small percentagewise. If I were King of Wikipedia I'd probably try out amazon's payment system for the cool factor, to have a readily available backup, and just to learn more about micropayments, but not for financial reasons. I'm a big fan of trying out new stuff.

etc., different It's more complicated. In any transaction in e-commerce we have three levels: 1.the PSP (who manage the e-commerce platform) 2.the acquirer (generally connected directly to one bank) 3.the credit card American Express and some other credit card are also acquirer and for this reason they seems to be more expensive. In these levels we have some charges fee: 1.the PSP generally applies a fee for a transaction (if you make a transaction of 1,00,000 euros of a transaction of 1 euro the fee is the same) this fee is normally 0.3-0.4 cts (some PSPs are very expensive and apply also a percentage fee normally 0,5% on amount) 2.the acquirer applies a a percentage that depends on credit card, normally 2% This numbers can change because the PSP can have a direct access to the transaction databases or the acquirer make available you money quickly. Paypal or moneybookers seems to be PSPs. Onestly I don't know the fee that they apply, in any case if the total of fee is more than 2,5% is a very bad solution. available of If cards, The credit card has a limit, in any case for X.000 euros the best way is the credit card. Ilario _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I've heard a lot of horror stories about Paypal. And considering that by using PayPal, we're basically paying eBay a percentage of donations we receive, I reckon it'd be a good idea to look at alternatives every now and then.

On 8/13/07, Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote: I believe that there are way too many things to be taken into account to actually solve this issue (if issue it is) on a mailing list. Let me try and state what the Foundation would need to answer before finding the "perfect" fundraising tool. First, keep in mind that, unless I am mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation is about the only organisation in the world achieving the success it achieves with online fundraising (ie. not sending emails or paper, but by just displaying a site notic on its websites), which in itself, whether or not paypal is the best way of doing it, is quite an achievement. Now, the things to be taken into consideration to find the best fundraising tool are: 1) who gives and how do they give? ie. are donors in the biggest donor pool comfortable giving with this or that way of giving? In that case, seeing that the Foundation is primarily addressing US donors since it is a registered charity in the US, is Paypal the best recognized system, or would another bring us more donors? 2) Financial efficiency of the fundraising tool Considering tool X is the right tool for our donors, do we get our money's worth thanks to this tool (ie. the fact that more people give is not offset by the fact taht we pay xxx fees on using that fundraising tool). 3) International efficiency of that fundraising tool Considering the Wikimedia Foundation is a US based organisation, but has a vocation to fundraise across the world, is tool X the right tool to make sure that donors across the world will give? ie. Canadians/Japanese probably being the next potential source of donations, do Canadians/Japanese trust/use tool X easily to donate? These are three questions that would help us choose the "better" fundraising tool. This said, the most important question to answer, in my opinion, would be: "Why do people give? (or not give, actually)" - Because it's easy to give (as in practical) - Because it's in their language - Because it's in their currency - Because it's tax-deductible (in their country) - Because they love us - Because they trust the organisation(s) - Because they wanted to give to something somewhere and that's the first thing that came to mind - Because their donation does make a difference - etc. - Some of those reasons combined - All of those reasons Answering all of those questions, would probably prevent debating whether Paypal or Amazon or Moneybookers is the "best" API, because it would become evident what is the best solution. Keeping in mind that "the best" does not mean "the best for each and everyone of us" but the best in an average kind of way. Nobody's ever going to be 100% happy about what tool we use anyway ;-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGw8A95txwQhyxnbIRAuSoAJ0a8VtH87C9+Y10C9yK1yHzbB6Y3gCeP/EH Hw7VMbsXqOca/j2ftGceB7I= =9W58 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM Sent: 16 August 2007 06:29 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will not cost us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are happy to help the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money given to the WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place. Thanks, Gerard On 8/16/07, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote: financial of what WMF better? Sure. dent in costs. but the need a mailing list. answer before achieving the sending emails doing it, Foundation registered charity Considering tool X worth thanks Considering the a vocation to make sure source of to donate? that's the API, because Keeping in mind everyone of us" _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM Sent: 16 August 2007 06:29 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period The money collected in this way in 2007 through Google will not cost us money. Google has indicated in the past that they are happy to help the Wikimedia Foundation, this gives us the opportunity to ask for 2008 if they can do something about the cost of the money given to the WMF through Google Checkout. It isa really good marketing tool for Google to get the attention of the general public for their payment system; the trick is to get people to use it in the first place. Thanks, Gerard On 8/16/07, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote: financial of what WMF better? Sure. dent in costs. but the need a mailing list. answer before achieving the sending emails doing it, Foundation registered charity Considering tool X worth thanks Considering the a vocation to make sure source of to donate? that's the API, because Keeping in mind everyone of us" > > but the best in an average kind of way. Nobody's ever going to be > > 100% happy about what tool we use anyway ;-) > > > > > > Delphine > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 8/16/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: What I really appreciate in your mailing list particiaptions, Gerard, is the way you do take other people's posts into consideration. they Google attention people Right. Go back to my previous post and let me interpret Brad's remark a little more broadly. Costs are not *always* financial. Tell you what, I just checked out Google checkout. I am French, I live in Germany. ie. I want my interface in French, with German banking possibilities and please Terms of Service in a language I understand for a country I live in. Tough luck, none of that available. So much for Google checkout for me. And you know what? It doesn't seem to work with Amazon, which is the only online store I actually visit. So Why should I bother initiating my Google checkout account when I won't ever use it and I already have a paypal one? I find it to be a very narrow approach to focus on the fact that Google checkout costs "us" (ie. Wikimedia) nothing. Again, re-read my post. Collecting money might have financial costs, but we need to be well aware of the cultural and practical costs. What if Google checkout costs us nothing but donations go down by 50% because nobody wants to use it? I am not saying that we shouldn't try, I am saying that we should be very aware of the *real* costs behind one or the other solution. It's not you and I giving the money, or if it is, we represent a very very small percentage of the donations. *We* can adapt to the "best" solution for Wikimedia. Can/will everyone? What you call a "trick" I call lack of concern for the people who allow our projects to exist further. We should adapt to them, not them to us, even if it's good to mention where their donation will have the strongest impact. Delphine -- ~notafish La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur* NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 8/16/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: the a whole And it is your interpretation to think that I was trying to propose a financial strategy of any kind for the Wikimedia Foundation. On the contrary to you, I do not try to impose my one and only solution as "the best", i try to lay out the traps of adopting one solution too rashly, without wieghing the pros and the cons. And in case you have the feeling that I am against Google, please rest assured that I am a believer in Google is Good and not Evil (tm), and it just happens to fall on them, but my arguments would have been exactly the same if your proposed solution had been offered by the UN, the Red Cross or the Deutsche Bank. Delphine -- ~notafish La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur* NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----Original Message-----lyl From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delphine Ménard Sent: 16 August 2007 11:36 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal On 8/16/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: What I really appreciate in your mailing list particiaptions, Gerard, is the way you do take other people's posts into consideration. not cost happy to help given to the Right. Go back to my previous post and let me interpret Brad's remark a little more broadly. Costs are not *always* financial. Tell you what, I just checked out Google checkout. I am French, I live in Germany. ie. I want my interface in French, with German banking possibilities and please Terms of Service in a language I understand for a country I live in. Tough luck, none of that available. So much for Google checkout for me. And you know what? It doesn't seem to work with Amazon, which is the only online store I actually visit. So Why should I bother initiating my Google checkout account when I won't ever use it and I already have a paypal one? I find it to be a very narrow approach to focus on the fact that Google checkout costs "us" (ie. Wikimedia) nothing. Again, re-read my post. Collecting money might have financial costs, but we need to be well aware of the cultural and practical costs. What if Google checkout costs us nothing but donations go down by 50% because nobody wants to use it? I am not saying that we shouldn't try, I am saying that we should be very aware of the *real* costs behind one or the other solution. It's not you and I giving the money, or if it is, we represent a very very small percentage of the donations. *We* can adapt to the "best" solution for Wikimedia. Can/will everyone? What you call a "trick" I call lack of concern for the people who allow our projects to exist further. We should adapt to them, not them to us, even if it's good to mention where their donation will have the strongest impact. Delphine -- ~notafish La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur* NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----Original Message-----lyl From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org

[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delphine Ménard Sent: 16 August 2007 11:36 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal On 8/16/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: What I really appreciate in your mailing list particiaptions, Gerard, is the way you do take other people's posts into consideration. not cost happy to help given to the Right. Go back to my previous post and let me interpret Brad's remark a little more broadly. Costs are not *always* financial. Tell you what, I just checked out Google checkout. I am French, I live in Germany. ie. I want my interface in French, with German banking possibilities and please Terms of Service in a language I understand for a country I live in. Tough luck, none of that available. So much for Google checkout for me. And you know what? It doesn't seem to work with Amazon, which is the only online store I actually visit. So Why should I bother initiating my Google checkout account when I won't ever use it and I already have a paypal one? I find it to be a very narrow approach to focus on the fact that Google checkout costs "us" (ie. Wikimedia) nothing. Again, re-read my post. Collecting money might have financial costs, but we need to be well aware of the cultural and practical costs. What if Google checkout costs us nothing but donations go down by 50% because nobody wants to use it? I am not saying that we shouldn't try, I am saying that we should be very aware of the *real* costs behind one or the other solution. It's not you and I giving the money, or if it is, we represent a very very small percentage of the donations. *We* can adapt to the "best" solution for Wikimedia. Can/will everyone? What you call a "trick" I call lack of concern for the people who allow our projects to exist further. We should adapt to them, not them to us, even if it's good to mention where their donation will have the strongest impact. Delphine -- ~notafish La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in *Chroniques du menteur* NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 16/08/07, Debbie Garside <debbie(a)ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote: donate. We currently offer Paypal, Moneybookers, and a variety of "real ways" to give us money. The problem is, you start getting a negative return; bombard people with too many different donation boxes and they get confused and give up. So we need to keep it relatively tight; swapping one in or out is sensible, but adding three more might be counterproductive. No easy solutions :-) The other critical point here is that the "wonderfullness" of any given financial system is not just a matter of the conditions it offers or a slightly better margin on overhead - if it only has a tiny userbase, it's really not much use until that userbase gets bigger. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi, In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. Period

How much will it cost to set up the new system and integrate it into the current processes? Might be cheap, percentage-wise. Then again, it might not, if pretty much no-one uses the new system.

How much will it cost to set up the new system and integrate it into the current processes? Might be cheap, percentage-wise. Then again, it might not, if pretty much no-one uses the new system.

-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter Vermeir Sent: 16 August 2007 23:18 To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal Brad Patrick schreef: financial [cut] It is not universally free to all but i comes close; Money transfers from one European Union bank account to an other EU bank account is the same price inside the EU for all country's as a national transfer inside a member state is. In practice that means the transfer is free of charge or very cheap deepening of your bank or the way that you give the order (often a transfers by paper order needs to be paid, by internet is free). A donation made by EU bank transfer of 1 euro is 1 euro that the WMF actually get. A donation made by paypal of 1 euro is 0,62 euro that the WMF actual gets. The WMF has now for years an EU bank account. It gets donations but not a lot. I think that is for a large part because paypal is more easy, at least if you have a credit card and are willing to use it online. For paypal people can click on a few buttons and the have made the donation. For a bank transfer the need to go to there bank website and make a transfer like the would pay there electricity bill. The Paypal system makes an impulsive donation possible, bank transfer is a like a bill you pay, it is not a decision you make in a moment. Every donation made by a cheap system is extra money for the WMF that can used. But every donation lost because people do not trust/know/understand the payment system or gives them time to think about what the are doing will cost the WMF even more money. -- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community English - Español - Deutsch - Indonesia _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi, Ben alerted us to the Amazon payment API. There is another new kid on the block; it is the Google checkout system. They provide there system for free for the whole of 2007. When we would support Google, the money spend on implementing their system would be earned in less fees.