Typically policies and guidelines are decided by the community of editors that make up a specific site. With respect to referencing and research these will be somewhat different from an encyclopdia which is why attempting to combine this content into Wikipedia is not really appropriate. Also travel information is more in a "how to tone" rather than an encyclopedic one.
În data de 9 aprilie 2012, 21:17, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nl a scris:
One might get problems with policies such as NOR and NPOV. I suppose that they should be applied on Wiki Travel Guide, as on Wikipedia, Wikibooks and other Wikimedia sites.
If using these as they are now would be a precondition for hosting the project at wikimedia, then Wikivoyage is better of on its own. I'm not that familiar with the rules of these different sites, but the articles did not strike me as extremely neutral - but not clearly partisan either. Most of them are very near that balance that makes them appealing to a large public while keeping them serious.
În data de 9 aprilie 2012, 20:49, Juergen Fenn schneeschmelze@googlemail.com a scris:
As I've just written on the talk page there: Frankly speaking, I don't think we need another wiki on travelling as there already is Wikivoyage.
Splitting is indeed a bad idea.
În data de 9 aprilie 2012, 20:49, Juergen Fenn schneeschmelze@googlemail.com a scris:
German editors of Wikivoyage most probably will not change to a WMF project.
În data de 10 aprilie 2012, 02:17, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com a scris:
There is reasons why the English community does not simply rejoin the German community at WikiVoyage.
Splitting on language barriers is even worse :) I understand you guys already have a German NGO, which, as I've come to know, offers many advantages for European users over an American one. But the truth is the WMF has an extensive expertise on running MediaWiki-based websites and you would always have the latest version of the software and acceptable support from the developers. Plus, the single sign-on would also help with participation.
Perhaps your contributors would be interested in some kind of collaboration scheme, were the WMF would host the site? The idea has been brought up on this list some time ago for Citizendium, why could we not apply it for other projects? I think this would also fit with the WMF's intention to broaden the types of affiliation it allows.
Regards, Strainu
On 10 April 2012 05:32, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
În data de 9 aprilie 2012, 21:17, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nl a scris:
One might get problems with policies such as NOR and NPOV. I suppose that they should be applied on Wiki Travel Guide, as on Wikipedia, Wikibooks and other Wikimedia sites.
If using these as they are now would be a precondition for hosting the project at wikimedia, then Wikivoyage is better of on its own. I'm not that familiar with the rules of these different sites, but the articles did not strike me as extremely neutral - but not clearly partisan either. Most of them are very near that balance that makes them appealing to a large public while keeping them serious.
No Original Research shouldn't be an issue, we already have Wikinews accepting original reporting.
Neutral Point of View might be a more delicate area. You probably couldn't write a travel guide using the same standards of NPOV as used on Wikipedia, and if you could it would most likely be very dull. As far as I know all the existing projects follow some form of NPOV, but it isn't actually enshrined in the Foundation's mission statement, vision or values.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values
Peter
On 10 April 2012 12:48, Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10 April 2012 05:32, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
În data de 9 aprilie 2012, 21:17, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nl a scris:
One might get problems with policies such as NOR and NPOV. I suppose that they should be applied on Wiki Travel Guide, as on Wikipedia, Wikibooks and other Wikimedia sites.
If using these as they are now would be a precondition for hosting the project at wikimedia, then Wikivoyage is better of on its own. I'm not that familiar with the rules of these different sites, but the articles did not strike me as extremely neutral - but not clearly partisan either. Most of them are very near that balance that makes them appealing to a large public while keeping them serious.
No Original Research shouldn't be an issue, we already have Wikinews accepting original reporting.
It's a bit different though... on WikiNews you can objectively report things as "OR" - with clear notes taken at the time, etc.
On WikiTravel it's not really like that; because a lot of it revolves around the best... restaurant, bar, place to stay, way to get around, sights to see. This is all extremely subjective and basically depends on who is writing the page.
For example; I would probably write a very different guide to Paris as someone else who had visited the city!
Neutral Point of View might be a more delicate area. You probably couldn't write a travel guide using the same standards of NPOV as used on Wikipedia, and if you could it would most likely be very dull. As far as I know all the existing projects follow some form of NPOV, but it isn't actually enshrined in the Foundation's mission statement, vision or values.
Dullness doesn't have anything to do with NPOV; it's just poor writing. There are featured articles on some very dull 16th century individuals that positively pop and sizzle because the writing is excellent.
Non-neutral material *looks* exciting because it is controversial. But it's a faux-excitment, and is of significantly less utility to the reader.
WikiTravel is AWESOME and should totally be embraced by Wikimedia. However, I'd be cautious of embracing all of their content without some level of filtering...
I use it a lot and many of the pages ramble excessively and complain about issues without any form of sourcing. In fact most articles lack even the most basic sourcing; if they came onboard I don't think that state of affairs could continue, and I'd be cautious of importing content without any form of review.
The other issue is one of advertising and promotion, which is rather delicate. Many pages have recommendations for accommodation, restaurants, bars, etc. that read either as promotional, or very subjective. They tend to be quite out of date too.
Finding a way to integrate a database of amenities for each location (rather than have it on the page in the prose), perhaps with ratings/reviews, would be interesting - and solve the problem of introducing first hand accounts without clear context.
Just some random thoughts; pitched right, Wikitravel would be a great addition to the mix IMO.
Tom
On 10 April 2012 12:59, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
I use it a lot and many of the pages ramble excessively and complain about issues without any form of sourcing. In fact most articles lack even the most basic sourcing; if they came onboard I don't think that state of affairs could continue, and I'd be cautious of importing content without any form of review.
The other issue is one of advertising and promotion, which is rather delicate. Many pages have recommendations for accommodation, restaurants, bars, etc. that read either as promotional, or very subjective. They tend to be quite out of date too.
To be fair, we could make exactly the same criticisms were we debating about whether or not WMF should adopt a certain high-profile encyclopedia project - lots of rambling, badly written, unsourced pages; lots of blatantly promotional (or excessively negative) content... ;-)
I really don't see any real problem with WMF running a "travel guide" site; it fills a niche not adequately covered by our other projects, and while it does involve a different style of writing, it's basically still documenting the world, as factually as possible, for the benefit of readers. The main reason we haven't ever started one ourselves, I suspect, is just that Wikitravel has been there all along!
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote: [snip]
No Original Research shouldn't be an issue, we already have Wikinews accepting original reporting.
Neutral Point of View might be a more delicate area. You probably couldn't write a travel guide using the same standards of NPOV as used on Wikipedia, and if you could it would most likely be very dull. As far as I know all the existing projects follow some form of NPOV, but it isn't actually enshrined in the Foundation's mission statement, vision or values.
I was thinking about this idea of NPOV and I'm thinking that trying to apply NPOV to a travel guide (and here I'm just thinking about the "what to visit" part of it, rather than "which hotel to stay in" or such can go in two directions.
First, I can imagine, as you say that using some kind of NPOV might make the travel guide dull, because it'd end up listing about 300 tiny things to see in one small location, and you'd lose the edge of knowing "what to really see". On the other hand, I can imagine that allowing not-so-known locations to be integrated in a travel guide because of NPOV (everything gets to be there, if it exists, basically) could be also extremely interesting in allowing people to travel differently, and bring them to admire that never-mentioned-in-a-normal-travel-guide monument or go and see that extremely-interesting-for-its-time-but-made-by-a-nobody statue that no other guide bothers to list because well, it's not a Michelangelo thing.
Something of an attention to detail that I can see Wiki communities having as opposed to larger established travel guides that keep on telling you to do the same things everyone else does.
I am not advocating for or against NPOV for a Wiki travel guide, I'm just thinking outloud at what would be the challenges of taking it in or leaving it out.
Cheers,
Delphine
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org