> 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.

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

Reply via email to