On 10 April 2012 12:48, Peter Coombe <thewub.w...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 10 April 2012 05:32, Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > În data de 9 aprilie 2012, 21:17, Ziko van Dijk
> > <vand...@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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to