Talk:Micropayment

message: "While micropayments were originally envisioned to involve very small sums of money, practical systems to allow transactions of less than 1 USD have seen little success.[1] One problem that has prevented the emergence of micropayment systems is a need to keep costs for individual transactions low,[2] which is impractical when transacting such small sums[3] even if the transaction fee is just a few cents."
This is not clear at all. In fact, as a lay reader, I'd say it makes no sense whatsoever. Get on it free labour of the glorious open-knowledge revolution!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.204.51 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good work 

message: 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)
thread_title: International

message: 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. 86.132.141.139 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The youth market 

message: 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. <morley@boxbe.com>  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morels (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsatisfactory article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments in Article Text 

message: 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 68.81.189.236 (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead citation links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Support this - maybe we need semi-protection on this page? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's so popular, it should be easy to find another article about it perhaps one in Portuguese. Please provide a link. Fleetham (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm sure any well-supported additions would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to reading your future contributions. Fleetham (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Also, I'm sure any well supported contributions would be highly appreciated. Once the block expires I encourage you to edit the page and add new information. Please refrain from replacing the Znak it! material unless better sources can be found, however. Fleetham (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: You have good sources, why not add to the page yourself? Fleetham (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 213.22.166.76 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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!  
Sincerely, 
Greg Golebiewski 
Founder and CEO
Znak Inc
www.znakit.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.115.6 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

text: 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.
Patrick Smith, Editor, TheMediaBriefing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksmithjournalist (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitcoin 

message: 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 morley@boxbe.com 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 213.22.166.76 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Support this - maybe we need semi-protection on this page? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's so popular, it should be easy to find another article about it perhaps one in Portuguese. Please provide a link. Fleetham (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm sure any well-supported additions would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to reading your future contributions. Fleetham (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Znak it

message: 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)
replies: text: Support this - maybe we need semi-protection on this page? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's so popular, it should be easy to find another article about it perhaps one in Portuguese. Please provide a link. Fleetham (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm sure any well-supported additions would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to reading your future contributions. Fleetham (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also, I'm sure any well supported contributions would be highly appreciated. Once the block expires I encourage you to edit the page and add new information. Please refrain from replacing the Znak it! material unless better sources can be found, however. Fleetham (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: You have good sources, why not add to the page yourself? Fleetham (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 213.22.166.76 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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!  
Sincerely, 
Greg Golebiewski 
Founder and CEO
Znak Inc
www.znakit.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.115.6 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

text: 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.
Patrick Smith, Editor, TheMediaBriefing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksmithjournalist (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing block

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Bitcoins? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Micropayment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.netbill.com/netbill/press_release.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Micropayment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrl.il.ibm.com/mpay
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Micropayment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724175433/http://mobilemarketingmagazine.com/content/timwe-launches-m-coin-brand-0 to http://mobilemarketingmagazine.com/content/timwe-launches-m-coin-brand-0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)