[Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide Naming poll open

2012-10-02 Thread Philippe Beaudette
Hi all,

The naming poll for the Travel Guide site is now open.  For the next 14
days, you may be eligible to vote for as many of the proposed names as you
wish.  For full details on voting criteria and other process notes as to
how the name will be selected, please see the voting page at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guide/Naming_Process.

Thanks,
pb

___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...

2012-08-23 Thread Andrew Gray
On 22 August 2012 22:39, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
 For those interested, a quick reminder:

 The travel guide RFC will (soft) close in 1 hour, 17 minutes as of the
 moment this mail is sent. (At 0:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide

Thanks for the pointer. For those wondering what the end result was,
it was just under 4:1 in favour of taking on a new WT type project.

There seems to have been a flurry of activity in the past few days,
per the talk page - Internet Brands running a survey of their readers
opposing the split, attempts to canvass WT editors to contribute to
the RFC resulting in blocking and desysopping... all very messy.

WikiVoyage seems to have started preparing for a migration (though
this may only be an intermediate step) -
http://www.wikivoyage.org/general/Migration_FAQ

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...

2012-08-23 Thread Thomas Morton
I see none of the issues raised were really addressed.

Another spam filled, little populated, project then.

*sigh*

Tom

On 23 August 2012 11:53, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:

 On 22 August 2012 22:39, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
  For those interested, a quick reminder:
 
  The travel guide RFC will (soft) close in 1 hour, 17 minutes as of the
  moment this mail is sent. (At 0:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC))
 
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide

 Thanks for the pointer. For those wondering what the end result was,
 it was just under 4:1 in favour of taking on a new WT type project.

 There seems to have been a flurry of activity in the past few days,
 per the talk page - Internet Brands running a survey of their readers
 opposing the split, attempts to canvass WT editors to contribute to
 the RFC resulting in blocking and desysopping... all very messy.

 WikiVoyage seems to have started preparing for a migration (though
 this may only be an intermediate step) -
 http://www.wikivoyage.org/general/Migration_FAQ

 --
 - Andrew Gray
   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...

2012-08-23 Thread James Heilman
Most of the issues where addressed. And they only way to determine if many
of the concerns hold water is to simply try it. A travel guide will likely
be heavily read and edited.

As a comparison their are an approximately an equal number of medical
articles on Wikipedia to travel articles. Yet the travel articles had a
much higher number of dedicated editors. I hope that you Thomas do not see
this as justification to delete the medical project? Also if you look at
readership on Wikipedia. We have many thousands of article that receive
little to no viewership I do not consider this viewership justification for
deleting them.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...

2012-08-23 Thread Alice Wiegand
And here's a very short note about the next steps:
The board is reviewing the RfC and its talk page over the next week.
We are going to share our thoughts with you soon on the RfC's talk
page. Please feel free to leave comments there, that's still possible
and will be read ;-)

Regards, Alice


On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
 For those interested, a quick reminder:

 The travel guide RFC will (soft) close in 1 hour, 17 minutes as of the
 moment this mail is sent. (At 0:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide

 sincerely,
 Kim Bruning

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...

2012-08-23 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Alice Wiegand, 23/08/2012 23:55:

And here's a very short note about the next steps:
The board is reviewing the RfC and its talk page over the next week.
We are going to share our thoughts with you soon on the RfC's talk
page. Please feel free to leave comments there, that's still possible
and will be read ;-)


Don't forget https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Travel_Guide which 
seems to have the most useful and focused comments (which don't include 
my own).


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide

2012-07-12 Thread James Heilman
A travel guide discussion will be taking place today at Wikimania during
lunch. Representatives from Wikivoyage and from the editor community of
WIkitravel will be hear to answer any questions. A request for comment is
ongoing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide

2012-07-12 Thread Arne Klempert
Hi James, where exactly are we going to meet? Arne
Am 12.07.2012 07:54 schrieb James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com:

 A travel guide discussion will be taking place today at Wikimania during
 lunch. Representatives from Wikivoyage and from the editor community of
 WIkitravel will be hear to answer any questions. A request for comment is
 ongoing http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide

 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

 The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
 www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide Wiki

2012-04-12 Thread Thomas Morton

 First, NPOV would probably be a deal-breaker. The travel wiki community
 (usually working at Wikitravel) have long used Traveller's Point of View.
 This point of view is not neutral at all, but favours the traveller.
 Hoteliers, restaurateurs, etc. have different points of view, but for us
 it's the traveller's that counts. We're under the impression that there are
 other Wikimedia foundation projects which don't use NPOV, and so those of
 us favouring approaching WMF have been able to argue that we wouldn't be
 forced to use it. If that's wrong then we should probably just give up this
 line of exploration and go find another solution.


I'm not sure NPOV would be such a problem - because NPOV is really
misnamed. It's about representing the mainstream viewpoint in a fair and
objective way.

For a Wiki dedicated to travel information the mainstream viewpoint is
certainly the travellers.

What I think would be important to avoid is too much subjective information
from one individual; for example, where I to write about York, UK I would
recommend not going to the Jorvik centre (a main attraction) because I
thought it overpriced and boring.

Whilst my viewpoint on this is subjectively valid, it may not reflect the
overall viewpoint of travellers to York (I know plenty of people who loved
it)! NPOV aims to make sure that the most mainstream of these viewpoints if
reflected - and any other viewpoints (i.e. hate it) are given space if
deemed appropriate.

So in summary I don't see that there is any real difference in our stance
on this - it might just need a bit of rethinking.

This really ties back into something more important; which is sourcing. I
think one thing that WT sorely lacks is secondary sourcing the support the
material, and that this would improve its content significantly. I'd be
cautious of supporting a new WMF project that avoided sourcing in favour of
mostly whatever the editors contribute from their experience. I think a
good argument could be made for using personal experience to write a WT
guide - but it should also incorporate good sourcing and editorial
standards as developed here (Wikinews is a good example of where
they successfully manage such a tradeoff).

Second, this is a fairly old and established community, with its own
 habits, mores, etc. As with other communities it makes some sense perhaps
 to learn about ours a bit before visiting. I think some of our fellow
 travellers are a bit concerned about being swamped by the shear size of the
 communities involved in other WMF projects (Wikipedia) and rightly so. They
 worry that the travel guide community runs a chance of quickly losing
 editorial control, and that this will lead not to the desired
 consolidation, but rather more unhealthy splintering in the collaborative
 travel guide space.


I think that's a relevant concern; there would have to be tradeoffs on both
sides I imagine. If WT are looking purely for a new host then.. I'm not
sure that is a good fit. If you are looking for a movement to become a
wider part of, to hold a specific corner (the travel side) and contribute
your own viewpoints as well as recieve some of ours... then that is
definitely a good idea.

You'd like to attract a community, but under your own rules... however this
community has a number of viewpoints that might not match up with how WT
currently operates (from my investigation anyway).

I don't see this, personally, as an unassailable problem.

One further thing worth pointing out; from the discussions so far I gather
the current host is unlikely to provide any technical support, such as a
full dump for importing? This represents a problem to overcome because of
attribution - any import would need a way to record the attribution history
of each page (i.e. the authors) to comply with the licensing. I don't think
pointing to the original WT page would work because, obviously, that could
disappear etc. Just a point to remember.

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide Wiki

2012-04-12 Thread Mark Jaroski
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:41, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote:

 What I think would be important to avoid is too much subjective information
 from one individual; for example, where I to write about York, UK I would
 recommend not going to the Jorvik centre (a main attraction) because I
 thought it overpriced and boring.



 Whilst my viewpoint on this is subjectively valid, it may not reflect the
 overall viewpoint of travellers to York (I know plenty of people who loved
 it)! NPOV aims to make sure that the most mainstream of these viewpoints if
 reflected - and any other viewpoints (i.e. hate it) are given space if
 deemed appropriate.



The whole point of a travel guide is subjective information from
individuals! However, there are travellers with different interests. Jorvik
actually works out pretty well for travellers with children, for instance,
but for (young) adults travelling on their own it's pretty overpriced, and
not so interesting so that's what the guide should say. I don't think
that's NPOV though, because the Jorvik probably think they're pretty
awesome for everybody.




 So in summary I don't see that there is any real difference in our stance
 on this - it might just need a bit of rethinking.


We'd like to express it as Traveller's Point of View.


 This really ties back into something more important; which is sourcing. I
 think one thing that WT sorely lacks is secondary sourcing the support the
 material, and that this would improve its content significantly. I'd be
 cautious of supporting a new WMF project that avoided sourcing in favour of
 mostly whatever the editors contribute from their experience. I think a
 good argument could be made for using personal experience to write a WT
 guide - but it should also incorporate good sourcing and editorial
 standards as developed here (Wikinews is a good example of where
 they successfully manage such a tradeoff).


Uh, sourcing? While things like telephone numbers and addresses are clearly
sourced from somewhere I tend to think that most travel guide writing is *
original* creative work. We've also tried to maintain a slightly cheeky
tone, which is hard to do in collaborative work.



 One further thing worth pointing out; from the discussions so far I gather
 the current host is unlikely to provide any technical support, such as a
 full dump for importing? This represents a problem to overcome because of
 attribution - any import would need a way to record the attribution history
 of each page (i.e. the authors) to comply with the licensing. I don't think
 pointing to the original WT page would work because, obviously, that could
 disappear etc. Just a point to remember.


I'm more concerned that now that we're discussing this in a more-or-less
public forum that they could get wind of it and start actively resisting.
They could make things a bit more difficult, though there are XML back-ups
out there which we could fall back on.

 I still think it's a good idea to not mention them or the collaborative
travel guide we're talking about by name for the time being. I do very much
prefer to think of them as a hosting provider than an owner, because
that's what they do: hosting in return for the right to advertise on the
site. They just happen to own the URL and, I believe, the name.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide Wiki

2012-04-12 Thread Mark Jaroski
We've mainly approached this issue encouraging the different groups of
travellers to add relevant content for their areas. We specifically try to
mix it all in, because we don't want to section anyone off. There was
considerable controversy back in 2005 or so about adding an LBGT section to
the guide template: most of the community came down on the side of mixing
everything in. Likewise with family-friendly stuff like Jorvik.

We have in fact strived for a level of neutrality among different kinds of
travel. I think the particular policy document would be worth reading here:
Be Fair

http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Be_fair

I know, I know, I wrote that I'd rather not name the site, and there I go
adding a link. I didn't want to cut and paste.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide Wiki

2012-04-12 Thread Thomas Morton

  What I think would be important to avoid is too much subjective
 information
  from one individual; for example, where I to write about York, UK I would
  recommend not going to the Jorvik centre (a main attraction) because I
  thought it overpriced and boring.
 


  Whilst my viewpoint on this is subjectively valid, it may not reflect the
  overall viewpoint of travellers to York (I know plenty of people who
 loved
  it)! NPOV aims to make sure that the most mainstream of these viewpoints
 if
  reflected - and any other viewpoints (i.e. hate it) are given space if
  deemed appropriate.
 


 The whole point of a travel guide is subjective information from
 individuals!


Is it? I'd define it as useful advice for travellers.

Subjective information from only a few people can be useless, because most
people will have different viewpoints (for example; I would write about the
beautiful historical parts of Amsterdam, but, say, a younger person could
just have easily been looking for information on drug tourism).

The point of NPOV is balancing these personal priorities to make sure the
readers gets lots of useful information. Rather than say Don't bother
walking up to the Sacré-Coeur, it's a long climb and not worth the bother
you'd say The climb up to Sacré-Coeur can be a long one.



 However, there are travellers with different interests. Jorvik
 actually works out pretty well for travellers with children, for instance,
 but for (young) adults travelling on their own it's pretty overpriced, and
 not so interesting so that's what the guide should say.


Well I went as a child; and would recommend families not to bother
(overpriced, not all that interesting). Which possibly hihglights the point?



 I don't think
 that's NPOV though, because the Jorvik probably think they're pretty
 awesome for everybody.


Well, yes, but that's not NPOV because the Jorvik centre's view is
demonstrably biased :) (i.e. not a travellers perspective).



  So in summary I don't see that there is any real difference in our stance
  on this - it might just need a bit of rethinking.
 

 We'd like to express it as Traveller's Point of View.


I think this is a good name for it.

p.s. I read your fair link with interest - I think that is a good way to
resolve the issue with clashing of personal experience. However one thing a
bigger community brings is a difficulty in resolving these problems (or,
they crop up more often). On Wikipedia we can use sources so that
uninvolved people can voice an opinion and help resolve the situation - but
where this relies on personal experience that is simply not possible. Do
you have an approach to help scale this form of dispute resolution?

Other questions I had:

- What sort of size is the WT community at the moment?

- What are the policies/approach to copyright violations and other issues
such as slander, etc?

- What is the policy r.e. advertising and promotional (quite often, when I
use WT, I see a lot of content that seems quite promotional in quality -
e.g. for a particular restaurant).

Cheers,
Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide Wiki

2012-04-12 Thread Thomas Morton
Just to highlight my earlier point about sourcing, the article on Florence
currently says:

Opera was invented in Florence.


This happens to be true - but I have no proof of it, and it may well simply
be the opinion of the original writer. Much of the rest of the historical
section is the same; it is encyclopaedic detail about the city, spiced up
for travel guide purposes. I have no issue with the spicing up (it is
appropriate in the context), but I think this is the sort of content that
can/should be sourced to help the reader be assured the material is true in
at least some way (even if there is subjective opinion mixed in).

Tom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide Wiki

2012-04-12 Thread Casey Brown
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Mark Jaroski mark.jaro...@gmail.com wrote:
 We're under the impression that there are
 other Wikimedia foundation projects which don't use NPOV, and so those of
 us favouring approaching WMF have been able to argue that we wouldn't be
 forced to use it. If that's wrong then we should probably just give up this
 line of exploration and go find another solution.

My impression of sister projects is the same. Not all of the same
rules that apply to Wikipedia also apply to sister projects. With the
exception of very few mandatory things (like respect for information
about living persons), individual projects can determine their own
rules and policies as much as they want.

-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide Wiki

2012-04-12 Thread Tom Morris
On 12 April 2012 21:24, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
 With respect to audience, on Wikipedia we write for a general audience yet
 our medical content is still used by 50-70% of practicing physicians.
 Lonely planet lists hotels in different section based on price. On
 Wikipedia we use editorial judgement about what to include and what not to
 include. We have subjective policies like [[WP:DUE]]. Just because
 something is subjective does not mean it cannot be done. There are books
 like the 1000 must see places before you die.
 http://www.1000beforeyoudie.com/  Referencing of this content is possible.


It is one of the most pernicious myths in Wikimedia-land that we
aren't riddled with subjective standards.

1. As an English Wikinews reviewer, I make decisions as to the
importance and newsworthiness of what goes on the homepage every time
I publish a story. Is the latest development in the Trayvon Martin
case more or less important than Facebook buying Instagram? On what
basis do I make such a decision? Oh yeah, newsworthiness. That well
known, objective measure! ;-)

2. On Commons, there is a category called Suggestive use of
feathers. Is there some sort of Platonic measure of how one uses
feathers suggestively? Same for Erotic pole dancing. Am I to believe
that Commons editors are deciding on some purely objective basis
whether pole dancing images are erotic or not? (I pick on the
erotic/suggestive categories solely because of the BLP-esque issues
Commons often raises and fails to adequately deal with.)

Subjective decisions happen all the time on the projects. There's a
reason why we generally prefer our admins to be made of flesh and
blood rather than just building hyper-intelligent AIs to run the
projects.

-- 
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l