On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 07:15:34 -0500, Douglas Jackson djackson@e-gold.com wrote:
The link to the e-gold site isn't essential or required. Its just a way to capitalize on the likelihood that many members of the Wiki community never heard of e-gold before. That would be good for you because if they visit the e-gold site by following a link structured like http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=%7Byour account number} and end up eventually creating an e-gold account and using it, a portion of all e-gold payment processing fees generated by their subsequent usage would automatically be distributed to the account you designate. It is a permanent entitlement. Whatever these new e-gold users do over the years, whether buying stuff online (as more prominent merchants eventually undertake to accept e-gold), paying bills, or using it for international remittances, their activity would still be generating revenue for the Foundation.
If it's only a link in the donations page, while making sure that the arrangement is fully explained and that there are no legal problems with the non-profit status, then it's a matter for the board to decide I would think. Personally, I seriously doubt there would be that many people who would make use of it to generate any significant funds.
-- [[en:User:Dori]]
I looked at e-gold at some length when I needed a way to accept donations for my DICT distribution (www.ropersonline.com/dict).
I had heard quite a number of Very Bad Things about PayPal, plus I don't like eBay and only cope with them where it's unavoidable -- in short, my motivation was high to look at alternative e-payment solutions.
The end result: I didn't sign up with e-gold, I grudgingly signed up with PayPal. e-gold may be a good idea in theory, but their "cost of entry" (not necessarily in a monetary sense) is just too high.
It's just too bleedin complicated to get money into the e-gold system. If e-gold already WAS a pervasive world currency, accepted as frequently as, say, VISA cards, THEN it probably would make sense to make it difficult to move money into or out of the e-gold system. This would make sure most parties keep their funds in their e-gold accounts and pay each other, circulating the money that way, yadda, yadda, yadda. It would NOT be nice to thus make things difficult, but it would make sense. Seeing however that e-gold is an "also-ran" in the e-payment market, this just doesn't make effin sense. As a user, I expect a single page where I can punch in a few numbers and be done. e-gold will only grow if they CATER FOR END USERS, with the possibility of e-gold internal money circulation arriving almost as an afterthought.
With PayPal I find it *annoying* that the payer has to create an account, mandatorily. Why, oh why can't that be an OPTION? Let the USER decide if they want to go through the hoops, submit an email address, etc. etc. instead of just punching in their credit card details and be done.
With e-gold however, things are INFINITELY worse: Not only does the user also have to create an account, they actually have to create TWO accounts, one for e-gold and one for the service the use to get money into the e-gold system (that's 2 new important and non-trivial passwords to remember). Plus, the (not very appealing or well-structured) e-gold website DOES NOT TELL YOU THIS upfront. You have to do a fair bit of reading to figure out how their feckin system works.
I want a payment service that can be used by commercial and hobbyist webmasters alike, without the need for a minimum transaction volume AND without mandatory account creation. Let the user punch in their numbers and be done if desired. Make it an OPTION to create an (i.e ONE(!)) account if they so choose. Where the payment service has its own "currency", that currency should be easy-peasy to exchange into any other currency and easy to move into regular current accounts in all or most countries.
I'm not the Wikimedia Foundation, but if I was the Wikimedia Foundation, then I would stay well clear of e-gold unless and until they get their act together. It's not in our interest to make it difficult and frustrating for people to donate money to us. (Plus it's not in our interest to have that money in a "currency" we can't use to pay for, say, new Apache boxen -- ie. we ultimately need to put the dough into WMF bank accounts anyway.)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
Well i would say that the more different forms of payment, the better. Surely there are some wikimedians who are e-golders aswell, so if they wanted to use e-gold, i cant see why they shouldnt be able to.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:10:48 +0100, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
I looked at e-gold at some length when I needed a way to accept donations for my DICT distribution (www.ropersonline.com/dict).
I had heard quite a number of Very Bad Things about PayPal, plus I don't like eBay and only cope with them where it's unavoidable -- in short, my motivation was high to look at alternative e-payment solutions.
The end result: I didn't sign up with e-gold, I grudgingly signed up with PayPal. e-gold may be a good idea in theory, but their "cost of entry" (not necessarily in a monetary sense) is just too high.
It's just too bleedin complicated to get money into the e-gold system. If e-gold already WAS a pervasive world currency, accepted as frequently as, say, VISA cards, THEN it probably would make sense to make it difficult to move money into or out of the e-gold system. This would make sure most parties keep their funds in their e-gold accounts and pay each other, circulating the money that way, yadda, yadda, yadda. It would NOT be nice to thus make things difficult, but it would make sense. Seeing however that e-gold is an "also-ran" in the e-payment market, this just doesn't make effin sense. As a user, I expect a single page where I can punch in a few numbers and be done. e-gold will only grow if they CATER FOR END USERS, with the possibility of e-gold internal money circulation arriving almost as an afterthought.
With PayPal I find it *annoying* that the payer has to create an account, mandatorily. Why, oh why can't that be an OPTION? Let the USER decide if they want to go through the hoops, submit an email address, etc. etc. instead of just punching in their credit card details and be done.
With e-gold however, things are INFINITELY worse: Not only does the user also have to create an account, they actually have to create TWO accounts, one for e-gold and one for the service the use to get money into the e-gold system (that's 2 new important and non-trivial passwords to remember). Plus, the (not very appealing or well-structured) e-gold website DOES NOT TELL YOU THIS upfront. You have to do a fair bit of reading to figure out how their feckin system works.
I want a payment service that can be used by commercial and hobbyist webmasters alike, without the need for a minimum transaction volume AND without mandatory account creation. Let the user punch in their numbers and be done if desired. Make it an OPTION to create an (i.e ONE(!)) account if they so choose. Where the payment service has its own "currency", that currency should be easy-peasy to exchange into any other currency and easy to move into regular current accounts in all or most countries.
I'm not the Wikimedia Foundation, but if I was the Wikimedia Foundation, then I would stay well clear of e-gold unless and until they get their act together. It's not in our interest to make it difficult and frustrating for people to donate money to us. (Plus it's not in our interest to have that money in a "currency" we can't use to pay for, say, new Apache boxen -- ie. we ultimately need to put the dough into WMF bank accounts anyway.)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
With that I can actually agree. That is, PROVIDED that we don't promote them. IMHO an e-gold link can be listed somewhere down, towards the bottom of the screen/list, so it's there for the *nought point n* percent of people who actually use and prefer e-gold. But I would not grant this "also-ran" payment service more attention than that. If they want to be featured specially, then let them buy advertising. Elsewhere.
I'm actually somewhat sorry for my harsh tone here... but at the same time I really did find e-gold infuriatingly impractical when I looked at their service... so maybe I'm just venting some overblown past frustration here. Thanks for humoring me.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 12 Dec 2004, at 23:14, Robin Shannon wrote:
Well i would say that the more different forms of payment, the better. Surely there are some wikimedians who are e-golders aswell, so if they wanted to use e-gold, i cant see why they shouldnt be able to.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:10:48 +0100, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
I looked at e-gold at some length when I needed a way to accept donations for my DICT distribution (www.ropersonline.com/dict).
I had heard quite a number of Very Bad Things about PayPal, plus I don't like eBay and only cope with them where it's unavoidable -- in short, my motivation was high to look at alternative e-payment solutions.
The end result: I didn't sign up with e-gold, I grudgingly signed up with PayPal. e-gold may be a good idea in theory, but their "cost of entry" (not necessarily in a monetary sense) is just too high.
It's just too bleedin complicated to get money into the e-gold system. If e-gold already WAS a pervasive world currency, accepted as frequently as, say, VISA cards, THEN it probably would make sense to make it difficult to move money into or out of the e-gold system. This would make sure most parties keep their funds in their e-gold accounts and pay each other, circulating the money that way, yadda, yadda, yadda. It would NOT be nice to thus make things difficult, but it would make sense. Seeing however that e-gold is an "also-ran" in the e-payment market, this just doesn't make effin sense. As a user, I expect a single page where I can punch in a few numbers and be done. e-gold will only grow if they CATER FOR END USERS, with the possibility of e-gold internal money circulation arriving almost as an afterthought.
With PayPal I find it *annoying* that the payer has to create an account, mandatorily. Why, oh why can't that be an OPTION? Let the USER decide if they want to go through the hoops, submit an email address, etc. etc. instead of just punching in their credit card details and be done.
With e-gold however, things are INFINITELY worse: Not only does the user also have to create an account, they actually have to create TWO accounts, one for e-gold and one for the service the use to get money into the e-gold system (that's 2 new important and non-trivial passwords to remember). Plus, the (not very appealing or well-structured) e-gold website DOES NOT TELL YOU THIS upfront. You have to do a fair bit of reading to figure out how their feckin system works.
I want a payment service that can be used by commercial and hobbyist webmasters alike, without the need for a minimum transaction volume AND without mandatory account creation. Let the user punch in their numbers and be done if desired. Make it an OPTION to create an (i.e ONE(!)) account if they so choose. Where the payment service has its own "currency", that currency should be easy-peasy to exchange into any other currency and easy to move into regular current accounts in all or most countries.
I'm not the Wikimedia Foundation, but if I was the Wikimedia Foundation, then I would stay well clear of e-gold unless and until they get their act together. It's not in our interest to make it difficult and frustrating for people to donate money to us. (Plus it's not in our interest to have that money in a "currency" we can't use to pay for, say, new Apache boxen -- ie. we ultimately need to put the dough into WMF bank accounts anyway.)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- hit me: robin.shannon.id.au jab me: saudade@jabber.zim.net.au
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jens Ropers wrote:
With that I can actually agree. That is, PROVIDED that we don't promote them. IMHO an e-gold link can be listed somewhere down, towards the bottom of the screen/list, so it's there for the *nought point n* percent of people who actually use and prefer e-gold. But I would not grant this "also-ran" payment service more attention than that. If they want to be featured specially, then let them buy advertising. Elsewhere.
I'm actually somewhat sorry for my harsh tone here... but at the same time I really did find e-gold infuriatingly impractical when I looked at their service... so maybe I'm just venting some overblown past frustration here. Thanks for humoring me.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 12 Dec 2004, at 23:14, Robin Shannon wrote:
Well i would say that the more different forms of payment, the better. Surely there are some wikimedians who are e-golders aswell, so if they wanted to use e-gold, i cant see why they shouldnt be able to.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
The one positive aspect of e-gold that I really like is that it is currency neutral... it works the same if it is Rupee, Dollars, Yuan, or Euros. Wikipedia is quite international in scope, and the ability to do donations from places outside of the USA is an attractive feature.
I will say that I agree that PayPal is horrible, and it would be nice to have an effective micropayment system, but all that I've seen so far are thinly disguised scams.
E-gold has been around for several years, so this isn't just a fly-by-night scam in itself, and should be evaluated on its merits. Unfortunately, I haven't done nearly the amount of research into it as I perhaps should have myself, so my opinion of e-gold as a service provider for cash transactions is not particularly good. Still, if we accept on-line cash donations we shouldn't restrict. ourselves to a single provider like PayPal or Western Union, particularly if there isn't any regular cost for maintaining the account
It would be nice, for instance, to have some means to "buy" Wikipedia on CD-ROM (or DVD) as a "donation" to the Wikimedia Foundation. This is certainly under the realm of something to worry about in terms of fundraising techniques.
--- Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
... I will say that I agree that PayPal is horrible, and it would be nice to have an effective micropayment system, but all that I've seen so far are thinly disguised scams.
PayPal helps us pay the bills. Yes it is not perfect, but it is very popular and widely trusted, thus is used by a great many people. They are trying to internationalize, but it has been a painfully slow process.
E-gold has been around for several years, so this isn't just a fly-by-night scam in itself, and should be evaluated on its merits.
Nod - although IMO we should not be concerning ourselves with evaluating every different alternative since we just need a way to accept payments. So far we have PayPal handling the the great bulk of our donations and MoneyBookers acting as the multi-national/lingual catch-all that hardly anybody ever uses.
Unfortunately, I haven't done nearly the amount of research into it as I perhaps should have myself, so my opinion of e-gold as a service provider for cash transactions is not particularly good. Still, if we accept on-line cash donations we shouldn't restrict. ourselves to a single provider like PayPal or Western Union, particularly if there isn't any regular cost for maintaining the account
We don't. See above.
It would be nice, for instance, to have some means to "buy" Wikipedia on CD-ROM (or DVD) as a "donation" to the Wikimedia Foundation. This is certainly under the realm of something to worry about in terms of fundraising techniques.
That would be wampum given to people who donate certain amounts. However, the logistics of making that actually work is beyond what our current volunteer staff can handle at the moment.
Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
With PayPal I find it *annoying* that the payer has to create an account, mandatorily. Why, oh why can't that be an OPTION? Let the USER decide if they want to go through the hoops, submit an email address, etc. etc. instead of just punching in their credit card details and be done.
You do *not* have to create a PayPal account to give a one-time donation. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising/USD/onetime
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
On 13 Dec 2004, at 17:55, Daniel Mayer wrote:
You do *not* have to create a PayPal account to give a one-time donation. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising/USD/onetime
-- mav
And right you are -- at least as regards the Wikimedia Foundation! That's intriguing!
A person trying to likewise donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation with paypal indeed IS NOT forced to create an account. (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising/USD/onetime ) However, a person trying to donate money through paypal via the button on my own website IS forced to create an account. (see www.ropersonline.com/dict)
Does anybody know why that would be?
Presumably I did something different/wrong when setting up my donation button? 'Wonder what needs to be done to get things to work the way they work for the foundation?
Sorry for moving to something off-topic as regards this list, but I'm genuinely quite curious and would like to invite replies. (If you think there's less of a public interest in your reply, then please email me direct instead the list.)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
A person trying to likewise donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation with paypal indeed IS NOT forced to create an account. (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising/USD/onetime ) However, a person trying to donate money through paypal via the button on my own website IS forced to create an account. (see www.ropersonline.com/dict)
Does anybody know why that would be?
You need to have a Business/Premier Account to use that feature.
See: http://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_help-ext&eloc=1531&loc=...
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On 14 Dec 2004, at 03:37, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
A person trying to likewise donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation with paypal indeed IS NOT forced to create an account. (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising/USD/onetime ) However, a person trying to donate money through paypal via the button on my own website IS forced to create an account. (see www.ropersonline.com/dict)
Does anybody know why that would be?
You need to have a Business/Premier Account to use that feature.
Ah. Thank you! :) -- ropers
Jens Ropers wrote:
It's just too bleedin complicated to get money into the e-gold system. If e-gold already WAS a pervasive world currency, accepted as frequently as, say, VISA cards, THEN it probably would make sense to make it difficult to move money into or out of the e-gold system. This would make sure most parties keep their funds in their e-gold accounts and pay each other, circulating the money that way, yadda, yadda, yadda. It would NOT be nice to thus make things difficult, but it would make sense. Seeing however that e-gold is an "also-ran" in the e-payment market, this just doesn't make effin sense. As a user, I expect a single page where I can punch in a few numbers and be done. e-gold will only grow if they CATER FOR END USERS, with the possibility of e-gold internal money circulation arriving almost as an afterthought. ...
I apologize for my tardy response, if response is desired... I've been traveling.
It is difficult to compare e-gold in an apples-to-apples way to other payment systems. All other online payment systems (whether prominent or "also-ran") function as credit card intermediaries, enabling the recipient to accept payment from someone who wants to pay using their credit card. The majority of adults on earth though not only have never had a credit card but are unbanked altogether. Is there any prospect that these invisible masses suffer from an up-til-now frustrated desire to make donations to the Wiki Foundation? Who can say? It is certain though they won't be using PayPal, iBill, CCBill, MoneyBookers, Neteller or any other such system anytime soon because they absolutely can't. But nothing prevents them from accepting e-gold payments and making e-gold payments.
The purported inconvenience of exchanging conventional currencies for e-gold is entirely a function of the deficiencies of existing payment systems. An e-gold payment features cash-like finality. The exchange intermediary who accepts a credit card payment and clicks an e-gold payment in fulfillment will lose money because of the fraud risk of accepting plastic. This is the same reason you can't use your credit card at the currency exchange kiosk at the airport.
But to reiterate - the Foundation's only interest should be to attract some of the e-gold that's already zipping around out there [how the donor acquired the e-gold is immaterial]. Last year, e-gold users collectively received (and made, of course) $700 million worth of e-gold payments.
I'm not the Wikimedia Foundation, but if I was the Wikimedia Foundation, then I would stay well clear of e-gold unless and until they get their act together. It's not in our interest to make it difficult and frustrating for people to donate money to us. (Plus it's not in our interest to have that money in a "currency" we can't use to pay for, say, new Apache boxen -- ie. we ultimately need to put the dough into WMF bank accounts anyway.)
My net salary is paid in e-gold. I therefore don't really need a bank. I hold value in the form of e-gold and use OmniPay as an intermediary for using that value to pay mortgage, credit card bills or anything else where otherwise I might send a check.
Hi,
Le Wednesday 15 December 2004 03:05, Douglas Jackson a écrit :
It is difficult to compare e-gold in an apples-to-apples way to other payment systems. All other online payment systems (whether prominent or "also-ran") function as credit card intermediaries, enabling the recipient to accept payment from someone who wants to pay using their credit card. The majority of adults on earth though not only have never had a credit card but are unbanked altogether. Is there any prospect that these invisible masses suffer from an up-til-now frustrated desire to make donations to the Wiki Foundation? Who can say? It is certain though they won't be using PayPal, iBill, CCBill, MoneyBookers, Neteller or any other such system anytime soon because they absolutely can't. But nothing prevents them from accepting e-gold payments and making e-gold payments.
[...]
Excusez-moi, mais je trouve cet argument bizarre. Ces masses invisibles qui n'ont pas de carte de crédit ni de compte en banque ont d'autres préoccupations que de faire un don à la fondation Wikimedia. Elles n'ont certainement pas accès à Internet ni les moyens de faire des dons à qui que ce soit.
Short English translation for the non-French speakers. === Excuse-me, but I find this argument a bit weird. These invisible masses who don't have a credit card nor a bank account have more pressing needs than looking for a way to make a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. They certainly don't have any Internet access, and can't afford to make a donation to anybody.
Yann
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org