4 ms·

The way it works is, your visitor has a Flattr account that he/she fills with some money each month. Unfortunately that is where it falls apart. The fund-rais

by ErrantX 16y ago

The way it works is, your visitor has a Flattr account that he/she fills with some money each month. Unfortunately that is where it falls apart. The fund-raising model that "works" for Wikipedia is very different from the Flattr model. And I am not convinced that the Flattr model can scale up to the Wikipedia level. (not to mention the fact that donations would be a lot more random, difficult to track and will come in fits & spurts; which is basically useless when you reach the levels of money the WMF is after) If wikipedia adopts Flattr as their micropayment solution, overnight tons of people will open a Flattr account. I do not think this would happen as easily as suggested.

thedoctor 16y ago
Agreed. That's what we found at Bitpass, a micropayment system for digital content in which people were asked to buy a prepaid "phone card" for digital content. The minimum prepay was $3 and people were still complaining. So, based on our experience at Bitpass, we recently launched a cashless micropayment system, ThankThis.com. Instead of a Flattr button, there's a ThankThis button. Clicking it shows you a small sponsored message (i.e. an opt-in ad), which pays the publisher and gives you points for your favorite charity or nonprofit, which could also be wikipedia.
joeyh 16y ago
In my experience the rate of flattr donations is not very bursty month over month. Even before they allowed to subscribe to continue re-flattring a Thing each month. And of course I have lower volumes than wikipedia would, so I'd expect it would average out even more for them. :) One thing is for sure: If Wikipedia managed to handle their funding through Flattr, Flattr itself would be making a killing with their 10% cut.
- gwern 16y ago
  > One thing is for sure: If Wikipedia managed to handle their funding through Flattr, Flattr itself would be making a killing with their 10% cut. A serious issue and a major downside from the perspective of Wikipedia, since people still worry about community effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_en_Espa%C3%B1ol#Reasons_for_the_split http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_en... Of course, there have been large-scale collaborations that have worked out before, so it's not impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia#Off-line_publication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia#Off-line_publi...
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Well. I was mostly basing the fits and spurts thought on how we tend to get traffic on Wikipedia. Activity and visitor counts do vary wildly; and, of course, one would assume that suddenly high profile news stories would bring in a spike of traffic and possibly donations. I'm not convinced that uptake would be widespread enough, though, to get enough people to contribute. The big ad-banner prompt is a "once a year" prompt, something that exists all the time I reckon would have less impact.

by ErrantX 16y ago

thedoctor 16y ago

Agreed. That's what we found at Bitpass, a micropayment system for digital content in which people were asked to buy a prepaid "phone card" for digital content. The minimum prepay was $3 and people were still complaining. So, based on our experience at Bitpass, we recently launched a cashless micropayment system, ThankThis.com. Instead of a Flattr button, there's a ThankThis button. Clicking it shows you a small sponsored message (i.e. an opt-in ad), which pays the publisher and gives you points for your favorite charity or nonprofit, which could also be wikipedia.

joeyh 16y ago

In my experience the rate of flattr donations is not very bursty month over month. Even before they allowed to subscribe to continue re-flattring a Thing each month. And of course I have lower volumes than wikipedia would, so I'd expect it would average out even more for them. :) One thing is for sure: If Wikipedia managed to handle their funding through Flattr, Flattr itself would be making a killing with their 10% cut.

gwern 16y ago
> One thing is for sure: If Wikipedia managed to handle their funding through Flattr, Flattr itself would be making a killing with their 10% cut. A serious issue and a major downside from the perspective of Wikipedia, since people still worry about community effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_en_Espa%C3%B1ol#Reasons_for_the_split http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_en... Of course, there have been large-scale collaborations that have worked out before, so it's not impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia#Off-line_publication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia#Off-line_publi...
ErrantX 16y ago
Well. I was mostly basing the fits and spurts thought on how we tend to get traffic on Wikipedia. Activity and visitor counts do vary wildly; and, of course, one would assume that suddenly high profile news stories would bring in a spike of traffic and possibly donations. I'm not convinced that uptake would be widespread enough, though, to get enough people to contribute. The big ad-banner prompt is a "once a year" prompt, something that exists all the time I reckon would have less impact.