[Foundation-l] Alternative to paypal

Debbie Garside debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Thu Aug 16 11:10:01 UTC 2007


I am coming into this discussion rather late and am, as usual, reading
emails backwards :-) Apologies if my comments have already been covered.

Perhaps it would be an option to allow a number of different ways to donate.
For instance IF Google truly is free (financially - I take on board your
other comments on "free" and agree completely) there could be a note on the
donor page saying " Please use the payment option that best suits you as a
donor.  If Google payments are used there is no financial cost to WMF" and
"If Paypal is used there is a financial cost to WMF of £?/% per

Personally, I have a Paypal account and would find it too onerous a task to
setup a Google account - especially if I could not use it with Amazon.



> -----Original Message-----lyl
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org 
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In 2007 using the financial collection system of Google is free. 
> > Period
> What I really appreciate in your mailing list particiaptions, 
> Gerard, is the way you do take other people's posts into 
> consideration.
> > 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.
> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list