On 10 April 2012 12:59, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> 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 to be quite out of date too.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! -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
