<sarcasm>
Wow, we've made an entire 1.6k out of bitcoin? This totally seems like the highest-value way to spend our time! Thanks, Bitcoin! I'm sure that the value of these items won't wildly vary in short spaces of time based on things like, oh, your propensity to have banking neophytes host your exchanges and end up shut down.
</sarcasm>
On 10 March 2014 07:39, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy's already noted this is WRONG, but the erroneous Telegraph story reads:
"Wikipedia charity begins accepting Bitcoin donations after co-founder Jimmy Wales set up a personal account "to play around" with digital currency and was swamped with cash"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/10687380/Wales-inundated-wit...
*Jimmy Wales* @jimmy_wales https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales 7mhttps://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/443031310207311872
Yo, @Telegraph https://twitter.com/Telegraph, this story is wrong: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wik
ipedia/10687380/Wales-inundated-with-Wikipedia-donations-after-publishing-personal-Bitcoin-address.html ... http://t.co/fM3CTBzRsE No decision has been made for Wikipedia to accept BTC!
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Charles Gregory <wmau.lists@chuq.net
wrote:
Hi everyone,
I thought it may be worth pointing out that this conversation has be re-opened by Jimmy on reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/201fa6/hello_from_jimmy_wales_of_wi...
<
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/201fa6/hello_from_jimmy_wales_of_wi...
On it he states "I'm planning to re-open the conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors at our next meeting (and before,
by
email) about whether Wikimedia should accept bitcoin." More info at the thread itself.
Regards,
Charles / User:Chuq
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Katie Horn khorn@wikimedia.org
wrote:
That very rough number that Matt threw out there has far less to do
with
the cost of applying human brainpower than it does with the cost of
taking
the available brainpower away from things we know are going to significantly increase our efficacy. We have several of those things looming on the horizon, and we choose to concentrate new development on what we know will be the biggest earners out of those.
My understanding (I am no analyst) is that we continue to have a
difficult
time finding hard evidence that bitcoin is currently anywhere near the other top candidates, so it remains off the roadmap in favor of concentrating on solid numbers. If anybody would like to supply us with hard figures, we'd certainly be interested in seeing them.
The main reason the expected earnings > one dude's salary calculation
of
worthiness doesn't work here, is that there are four people in
fundraising
engineering. The four of us support and maintain all existing payments functionality, ensure integrity of the donation pipeline, and do all
new
code development and review. For the sake of the foundation and the movement, each one of us has to do significantly better than
individually
break even.
As the fundraising tech lead, I definitely appreciate any outside
interest
in potentially helping us out by modifying fundraising code in order to support more payment methods, and I would be happy to outline the
general
process of integrating with a new gateway in a way that is consistent
with
our current code.
Before I get in to the nitty-gritty, though, I want to be completely
clear
on this one point: Even if I had the authority to do so (I do not),
there
is no universe in which I am willing to enable new functionality simply because the switch exists. Matt has already done a pretty good job outlining the scope of the collective distraction that bitcoin
represents,
and that scope extends well beyond tech. In fact, it seems to me that producing the actual integration code is the most trivial issue
regarding
bitcoin integration that has been brought up thus far, and I would not
be
pleased to see well-intentioned volunteer time go to waste over hastily dismissed blocking issues which exist well outside the purview of the fundraising tech team.
That said, here is a very general 30,000 foot view of a typical new
gateway
integration from a purely technical standpoint:
- Donation Interface[1]: This is the mediawiki extension that initiates
payments. A new gateway adapter child class will need to be created,
which
will run in parallel to the existing enabled gateway adapters, and not short-circuit any of the class constraints that have been deliberately built in to the gateway adapter parent class. Then, an appropriate form
(or
redirect) should be created to handle the user experience, which uses
the
RapidHTML templating system. At the end of it all, after a successful donation has been made, an internal donation message should be queued. Happily, examples of all the things I just mentioned already exist in
other
gateway adapter objects; New gateways are rarely so unusual that we
haven't
nearly done it before.
- Payments Listener[2]: Most payment gateways worth even brief
consideration, have an optional near-realtime notification system. This system tells us when we receive new payments, and existing payments
change
status (cancels, refunds, chargebacks). We would need to create a
listener
to receive realtime payment updates, process them securely, and queue donation messages when appropriate. Though a realtime message listener
is
usually not strictly required in order to get paid through a new
gateway
integration, I have recently decided to require them wherever possible.
- Nightly reconciliation / auditing[3]: Every payment gateway we
integrate
with provides a daily downloadable list of all the transactions we
should
have on record. So, a job needs to be created that will download the
daily
file and chew through our records to make sure we have all the relevant data, and rebuild anything we may have missed. This job needs to be set
up
to run daily.
- Queue consumer module for civicrm integration[4]: The donations queue
consumer will need to be modified, to accept and correctly process
donation
messages from the new gateway, in a way that is consistent with our existing data.
Of course, all of this work will require pretty consistent code review, which will bottleneck on the same four fundraising engineers. As it happens, the number of non-fundraising engineers who are willing to
code
review for fundraising without special encouragement, has historically
been
so close to zero it's almost not worth mentioning.
In the event that any volunteers are willing to take this on, I have
three
things to say: #1 - There are no guarantees that your code will ever be enabled by the WMF. Ever. Yes, I already said it. It seems important enough to mention twice.
Even
if
the tech team decides your code is beautiful and flawless and we love
you,
it is still likely to end up an overblown expression of futility that
spans
four codebases. If this isn't a problem for you, by all means: Go for it. #2 - To greatly increase the likelihood that your code will be
reviewed,
looked on favorably, and eventually merged (not enabled, though. Not my call. See #1), you should probably get in contact with the fundraising
tech
team and keep us informed about what you're up to. The best way to do
that
is to get in contact with us on IRC. There are usually a few of us tech types in #wikimedia-fundraising, so that's probably the best place to
start
looking for specific guidance. #3 - Just kidding; It's #1 again.
-Katie Horn Fundraising Tech Lead Wikimedia Foundation
[1] - Donation Interface:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/projects/mediawiki/extensions/Donatio...
[2] - Listener:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/projects/wikimedia/fundraising/SmashP...
[3] - Reconciliation and Auditing: At the moment, our auditing code is
not
centralized. Some of it is in the CRM repo (below), and some of it
lives
in
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/projects/wikimedia/fundraising/tools,...
[4] - Donations Queue Consumer:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/projects/wikimedia/fundraising/crm,br...
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:31 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014 11:38 AM, "Matthew Walker" mwalker@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I will probably regret saying this[1] -- but the figure we like to
throw
around here in fundraising tech is that a new payments gateway [2]
is
not
even worth considering unless it is likely to make us at least 500K
USD a
year[3].
Thanks for putting a number on the table.
It is a tad higher than I expected, being more than several very
highly
paid person years, but it is a starting point.
In case an enthuiast who can code is reading this thread, which
repository
needs bitcoin support?
-- John _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe