Talk:Wikitravel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikitravel is part of WikiProject Tourism, which is building a comprehensive guide to tourism-related articles on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.

Editors are currently needed to tag tourism-related articles with {{TourismProject}}.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents


[edit] Accessing Wikitravel content from Wikipedia

A blue link to a page on Wikitravel can be made by means of the {{wikitravel}} and {{wikitravelphrasebook}} templates. Instructions about the use of these templates can be found on their respective talk pages. Note that these templates should be used only in the "External links" section.

[edit] Press coverage

I removed this line: Press coverage of the project includes a mention in the North Adams Tanscript as part of an article about wiki projects [1]. Press coverage of Wikitravel includes the New York Times, Times of London, CBC and BBC, and other media. I don't think a comprehensive list of press clippings is necessary for an encyclopedia article, and there's no point in having just one. --ESP 23:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gangtok

I don't know how Wikitravel works, but I would like to add Gangtok to whatever list there is, if any. Nichalp 19:57, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's a separate website, so you'll have to edit the corresponding article there. jdb ❋ 21:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikitravel is indeed a separate Wiki site. It uses the same MediaWiki software as Wikipedia, so from a technical pov it looks and behaves very like Wikipedia. However it is not one of the Wikipedia Foundation family of wikis, and does have its own conventions, manual of style and (compared to Wikipedia) standardised article format. Your best bet is to go to wikitravel.org and take a look at a few featured articles from their main page, or browse their manual of style (via the help link). The people there are friendly and happy to get contributions on new places, so give it a go. -- Chris j wood 12:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Down

Wikitravel appears to be down right now. --Kenyon 15:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's just the redirect from the / page which is broken. Try [2]. Jpatokal 02:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Now it is down. I'm getting blank pages all the time.--87.162.17.164 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitravel posing?

Is anyone else concerned about the appearance of Wikitravel-related templates on Wikipedia that try to make it look like Wikitravel is a Wikimedia sister project? See e.g. Template:Move to Wikitravel (currently up for deletion) and Template:Wikitravel. Wikitravel's content is essentially the same as the big wikis, but it's not under a compatible license, and these templates seem like a way to encourage people to break the law. I have no problem with Template:Imdb-style templates that go in the "External links" section, for example as in article Akihabara. Should the sister-project-alikes be replaced with imdb-style templates? Where do I find the people who care about these templates? --Quuxplusone 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and the Wikimedia-looklike template has been reverted back into a one-liner before... and I just reverted it again. Jpatokal 13:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They've also got one at template:wikitravelpar, and right now that's making a box that looks exactly like the ones for commons, 'books, ect. I also think the instructions on how to link to wikitravel should be removed from the article, as that's not encyclopedic, but is simply fishing for link spam. Gentgeen 16:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the current situation is fine — imdb-style templates. But usage instructions for the templates definitely belong near this page, if not on it; I've added them below. Please update the instructions as necessary. --Quuxplusone 22:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. How's this? I copied it from Talk:IMDb. --Quuxplusone 22:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a trick to lure people into working for a commercial project without being fully aware of it. This kind of business is not a good style and should be clearly denounced as often and as clearly as possible.--Klauspeter 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
A trick? The people who take the most care to avoid confusion -- by ensuring that a Wikimedia lookalike template is not used -- are people who are contributors to Wikitravel. I'm unclear where this whole "wikitravel is an evil commercial site" nonsense has come from, but it appears you may have misunderstood the concept of a free license whether it be the GFDL or the CC-bySA. The site is hosted by a commercial company just like Wikia hosts various wikis. It is not demonstrably more or less evil than Wikia. Do you complain about Wikia too? -- Cjensen 09:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CC-by-sa < > GFDL

"Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project, and unlike Wikipedia it uses the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license rather than the GNU Free Documentation License. ... because of the incompatible licenses content can not be easily copied between them."

So, the obvious newbie question: Just what is the difference between these?

Both licenses are so-called copyleft licenses, meaning that modified versions of works available under the license must also be under the license. The idea being that you can't take a Wikipedia page, add a few images, and publish that modified version without a transparent copy and license notification and so forth. In short, copyleft means that the author's work will always be Free.
The problem is that neither license "knows" about the other, so you can't take parts of a cc-by-sa work and parts of a GFDL work and mash them up into a new work.
The differences between the two licenses are mostly cosmetic; Wikitravel uses the cc-by-sa because the GFDL is so cumbersome and unwieldy (see wikitravel:Wikitravel:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL for details). Dual licensing can make some of the discrepancies easier to deal with. --ESP 20:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems slightly odd to say "content can not be easily copied between them." As far as I can tell, it would be extremely simple to copy content between them. It's just that doing so creates licensing problems. -- Writtenonsand 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How about "it's difficult to copy content between them legally"? --ESP 20:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving content to Wikitravel

Is there an existing policy regarding moving travel guide-type (but nonencyclopedic) content that has been entered into Wikipedia to Wikitravel, given that it is not actually a Wikimedia undertaking? --DMG413 03:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The main issue is the license: GFDL (Wikipedia) is not compatible with CC by-sa (Wikitravel). In practice this means that you can only copy your own contributions. Jpatokal 09:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to understand why it would be necessary to do more than simply add a citation such as, "This Wikitravel article is based on material from an English Wikipedia article", or some such. I mean, they're both free licenses, right? What's the issue so long as there's a citation given? --Elipongo 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] power like

I rolled back the addition of the words "power like" between "it uses" and "the Creative Commons ... License". It didn't make sense to me. --ESP 00:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milestones

After a bit of confusion, I added back in the September milestone. I'm not particular about it, just didn't want to lose the information. --ESP 16:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial Site

Wikitravel is a purely commercial site made by a company selling cars and real estate. Wikitravel is intended to be the basis for a commercial printed travel guide. Links to Wikitravel should not be inserted into Wikipedia. -- Unsigned comment by User:Doris060602 at 10:45, 19 November 2006.

I hate to say this, but that just is not true. For most of its life, Wikitravel has been an contributor led open wiki, very much modelled on Wikipedia and sharing many contributors. Indeed I first came to Wikipedia because I was a contributor on Wikitravel, and a lot of the discussion on talk pages there was comparing and contrasting the two sites, so I visited to see.
As it happened, I came to prefer WP and I havn't contributed much to Wikitravel in the last couple of years, but I've just visited it and it doesn't seem much different to what it was, my account is still active and it still seems to soliciting open contributions, which are still published under the CC licence. I am aware that there has been some commercial tie-up, but as yet I can see no sign of adverts for cars, real estate or anything else on the site.
I could say: Oh, and wasn't Wikipedia originally made by a company selling soft porn on the web?. Perhaps we shouldn't insert links to Wikipedia either ;-). See how easy it is to throw unjustified allegations, especially if they have just a grain of truth in them.
I suggest that we judge whether a site is commercial or not based on its actual actions, and not rumours and urban myths. If Wikitravel does eventually become an advertising site, then by all means we should discuss dropping our links. But there is no sign of that happening yet, and so no reason not to link to it. -- Chris j wood 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me cite Wikipedia: 'Although it uses a wiki model to create the guide and to deliver it on the World Wide Web, the project is also aimed towards production of printed guides.' And, please, read the Wikipedia artical on Wikitravel and InternetBrands, which indeed IS a car seller, real estate company, and travel agency. Thus the commercial purpose is very clear and open to the community. The company seems to be collecting information for a commercial travel book for free. Everyone has to decide whether he is interested in cooperating. Of course, there is nothing unethical in this. BUT: As a commercial site, there should definitely be no links from Wikipedia. There must be some stakeholders of the company Internet Brands within the Wikipedia community, otherwise this would never have been a controversial subject. --Klauspeter 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The guides for various cities and communities at WikiTravel use the Creative Commons license, so they can be printed out and used by anyone—individual travelers, travel agents, visitors bureaus, etc. Because of the CC license, the information can even be copied and used on other websites that follow the CC license.
Then take a look at the WikiTravel pages themselves. On their best pages, they are better written, more informative, and less commercial than practically any other travel website on the internet. I see no reason why there should be links to well-written WikiTravel articles.
If you want to propose a Wikipedia policy that there shouldn't be any links to WikiTravel articles, I suggest that you start on the talk page for Wikipedia's External links policy page. BlankVerse 12:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that you did not disclose you name. Concerning Wikitravel, have a look at the "Partnersite" [World66]. The travel agency running both sites earns money by attracting advertisement. That is ok., as long as everyone who contributes agrees with it and knows it. But Wikitravel's outlook is like Wikipedia, suggesting that is noncommercial. This is not ok., because it gets people working for a commercial project without explicite knowledge. No good style. Again: Do not link to Wikitravel! Beware the beginnings.--Klauspeter 13:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You are aware that Wikipedia also links to IMDB, which is a commercial site, and many others? And unlike Wikitravel, you cannot copy stuff from IMDB to your own website as, for example, http://www.insidertourist.com has done. Check out the external links policy as BlankVerse suggests to understand when and where Wikipedia links to other sites. Secondly, he did disclose his name. Click on the funny-colored "BlankVerse" thingie there and it will take you to his user page where you can learn all about this prolific Wikipedia contributor. -- Cjensen 09:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Klauspeter. I'm afraid your objections are based on a misunderstanding of both Wikitravel and Wikipedia. Dealing with what I see as your principal objections seperately:
  • The project is also aimed towards production of printed guides. Absolutely true; always has been, ever since the start of the project and long before the involvement of Internet Brands. The reason is quite obvious and nothing to do with your conspiracy theories. Travel guides need to be consulted by people on the move, and printed guides are a good way of doing this (along with versions for PDAs etc). WP has no policy against the printed word that I'm aware of, and there is (or was) a project for a printed copy of WP.
  • Internet Brands are collecting information for a printed book on the free. They may well be, but they certainly don't need to own Wikitravel to do that; the CC license allows anybody to do that. And so does the GFDL that WP uses. If you are concerned about people collecting information for free and then gaining commercial benefit from it, then you should seriously consider whether you want to contribute to WP.
  • Wikitravel is an advertising site. If this was true, it would certainly be a disincentive to linking, although there is no absolute WP policy against this. But if there are adverts on Wikitravel, they are very well hidden. It certainly is not a site whose principal purpose is advertising.
  • Wikitravel is a commercial site. It does appear that the brand and the infrastructure is now commercially owned (although the CC licence should ensure that the content remains owned by the contributors, just as the GFDL does for WP). So what. In its early years, WP was hosted on servers owned by a commercial company called Bomis, which mostly operated in the internet soft porn business. I suggest you read the section in WP:NOT that explains that WP is not an experiment in radical politics. WP does not care about the ownership of the web sites it links to; just the content.
--chris_j_wood 12:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikitravel's plan is to become advertiser-supported, but they apparently haven't done so yet - so it's hard to call them a "spam" web-site. However any trademarks or other promotional content they include in their articles will be subject to the copyleft provisions of their Creative Commons license! Therefore any potential trademarks or promotional content will be freely available to anyone to use anyway they want - like to run a spoofing web-site for example. However those uses will still be copyrighted under a Creative Commons copyright license.--Chrisbak 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are rather confused. Copyright and trademark are not the same thing. I can write the words "Microsoft sucks" and grant you the right to use them under the GFDL, but the word Microsoft™ is still a trademark of the Microsoft Corporation, and their lawyers will strike me down with great anger if, say, I try to sell my own software called "Microsoft Doors" — no matter how copylefted the software is. Jpatokal 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Wikitravel

Last time I was using Wikitravel, there were no reliable sources for important matters such as health and safety in pretty much all of the articles. Worth adding this to the Wikipedia article on the site?--HisSpaceResearch 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the question. Were you expecting Wikipedia-style references in a travel guide? Or just the sections containing important safety tips? Do you think the average reader of Lonely Planet expects its safety tips to be referenced? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, just trying to understand your expectations. I agree that if a Wikitravel is deviating from what a reader might expect, then I word or two about that might reasonably be profitably added to this article. -- Cjensen 00:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't expect the average user of a paper travel guide to want references, but that's different as not anyone can edit a travel book, whereas there is generally no warranting of the reliability of what is said on Wikitravel at all, it being a wiki.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you really have a travel guide with a warranty? Or do you mean that as some kind of figure of speech? If it does have one, what does the warrantee promise you if the book contains errors?
Michellin just introduced a guide to Northern California restaurants which included some information which was already five years out of date. Part of the motivation of the Wikitravel founders was that while they were traveling, they went to an establishment listed in their guidebook which did not in fact exist. Besides such obvious errors in actual guides, consider that guides are filled with facts, and there are just too many facts to realistically check with any frequency. A wiki can, in theory, allow a traveller who discovers an error to immediately correct it for the next traveler. -- Cjensen 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well as far as I know. WT is a poorly annoted/maintained webpage. I have spoted many incorrect entries on this webpage and I certainly would not consider to plan a holiday based on the information derived from this webpage. Plus Wikitravel is sailing under the "Wiki" umbrella, but is wholly owned by Internet Brands(a company doing business with advertising. Guess wht the are doing here Cherity work???). So don't expect to get some indepentdent advice on this webpage. I certainly prefer a professional webpage that tells the truce about its interests (selling trips/hotel etc), but not a slimmy webpage based on poorly annotated information. -- Wikitravel makes broad claims on the number of articels, but obviously many, or should I say the majority of articels are just skeletons without any useful or not much usefull information. I will provide some links for my claims in the near future (tomorrow, when I have time to insert some links). -- 88.105.0.7 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the content of Wikitravel (which is all that really matters) is not owned by Internet Brands, any more than the content of Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia foundation, Bomis or Jimbo Wales. In both cases any individual piece of content is owned by the actual contributor of that bit of content, but licensed for use by others. Also it is considered bad etiquette not to sign comments on talk pages. You can do this by adding -- ~~~~ at the end of your comment. -- Chris j wood 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, if when 88.105.0.7 writes above 'I will provide some links for my claims', these will need to be links to reputable sources critiquing Wikitravel. Providing your own links direct to what you perceive as inaccuracies in Wikitravel would count as 'original research' and hence be disallowed as Wikipedia content. -- Chris j wood 09:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Wikitravel

Concerning this: DerFussi is still an admin, but not an active contributor. Although he contributes to an other project, he still has an eye on the German Wikitravel to limit the damage and check his own articles. The German Wikitravel does suffer from loss of content and vandalism. -- DerFussi 10:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Today an user of the English Wikitravel asked me to resign as an admin of German Wikitravel. If I do so Jpatokal should reconsider his reverting of the article. But that is not just the point. I do not want to be used for your discussion. -- DerFussi 15:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Victor12 suggested I ask you to consider my article on PERU. It's a travel piece but with a much broader scope and mandate. It takes issue with the guide books that counsel against renting a car in Peru. My position is that if millions of Peruvians can successfully negotiate their passage from point A to point B everyday, why can't the tourist be among those millions. My article dispells the myths and fears re driving in Peru. Here's the link and Victor's suggestion:: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2006_v5_n2/lewis-21.htm Thanking you in advance for the consideration.

   You do realize Wikipedia is not a travel guide, right? You should try Wikitravel instead. --Victor12 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Artsandopinion (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis

[edit] Wikitravel Press

I added a line about Wikitravel Press, a new company started by the wikitravel founders to sell printed guides using material from wikitravel. At first blush, it appears that the guidebooks are essentially a print run of material that is on the wikitravel site indicating that the proceeds are probably ploughed back into maintaining the site. Can someone confirm this and add appropriate text to the article. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically correct: to be a little more precise, the Press and the site are legally separate entities, but the Press has a licensing agreement and that's how the proceeds get ploughed back. I've tweaked your additions a bit and noted that the first books were officially launched today. WP:COI disclaimer: I'm one of the founders of the Press. Jpatokal (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's offline

What's going on there? Maikel (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Working fine for me. Jpatokal (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's back online for me as well. On May 1 it was offline for several hours. Maikel (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitravel Blocking Other External Links?

Some time ago, I had placed a link to my website, into one of the external links listings for a Chinese province, (which my website is based on). It stayed there for quite some time, along with several other useful websites. I had switched my website from a .net to .com listing recently, so I went in to go and update my link, and noticed that it was missing, replaced with the wikitravel website. Well, I added my link to the list again, only to have it disappear in a few days time. No matter how many times I've added my site in, it's been taken off, and 90% of the time, the culprit has been wikitravel, and in particular, a user named Krypt0fish. I decided to look into this a little more, and took a look at the list of Chinese Provinces on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_%28China%29

Clicking on the links to the individual provinces, you will see that nearly all of them have had their external links erased, so there is only a link to the government website, and to wikitravel.

I find this behavior to be somewhat unethical and dishonest on the part of the wikitravel people. I don't see why they should have some sort of monopoly on the external links listings, (especially given the fact that most of their China-related articles are seriously lacking in detail). I've only really researched this for China, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did it elsewhere, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.9.53.49 (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Wikitravel and everything to do with Wikipedia policy: see Wikipedia:External links. I also don't see why you're blaming "Wikitravel" for removing your link, as there isn't even a user called "Krypt0fish" on Wikitravel. Jpatokal (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)