"Cooperating" means a reciprocal relationship where people work together for a common goal. I don't feel like that's the case with Hospitality Club and Wikitravel.
This definition of cooperations seems a bit narrow to me. Cooperations can be between projects that have totally different aims, but still can help one another. I still feel that your mission (create a free travel guide) and ours (create a network of free accommodation and friendly people to meet) go naturally hand in hand. But if you feel otherwise...well, nothing I can do.
My main experience so far with Hospitality Club has been the addition of multiple links to different parts of hospitalityclub.org on Wikitravel pages. These additions don't fit in with our Manual of style guideline for external links. I'm trying my darnedest to AssumeGoodFaith, but it just doesn't feel like sharing knowledge to me; it feels like WikiSpam.
The piece of knowledge we CAN share, is that you can get free accommodation and meet friendly people when you travel using a hospitality exchange network. I agree that this is NOT something that can/has to be explained in long sentences - many people just don't know the idea. For them, a simple link or a short hint is enough. And be sure that this little piece of info is more valuable to most travelers than long intros on history or trains or whatever, which can be found in any other travel guide online or offline. You are an internet project, so again, I don't understand all the fuzz about links.
I realize that it's important to HC to get more members and more visibility. The project is great, and I think it's a good goal. However, I don't think that it's OK to subvert ourgoals and non-goals to do that.
We're trying to make a travel guide, here. We're not trying to promote any particular travel service, Web site, business or destination. So, I don't think dumping tons of HC links into all our pages is the best way for our two projects to cooperate. --Evan 14:20, 9 Jun 2004 (EDT)
See above. You dont have to promote anything. But hospitality exchanges are relevant info.Veit 17:24, 9 Jun 2004 (EDT)
This gets a big "ditto" from me. There's no reason why Hospitality Club should be treated any differently then, say, Wikipedia, or Bootsnall. If people would like to mention their membership, they can do it on their user pages. Majnoona 14:37, 9 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Sorry, but I didnt understand this. First: what gets the ditto?? I didnt read any comments about the Membership page in Evan's note, maybe we should discuss that over there. Also, what means "treated any differently" - I dont get that. How do you "treat" other sites/projects?? Why would you "treat" (really, what does that mean? Mention? Link? Allow to edit????) totally different projects as WP, BnA or the HC the same way? I really dont get it.Veit 17:24, 9 Jun 2004 (EDT)
That's quite in interesting discussion... I really like both projects and think you both should highly recommand each other and become partner projects. You both have common target groups but different sources of input (Wikitravel is closer to WikiPedia etc., HospitalityClub has its own members and friends), why not just promoting each other and overtaking contents without any restrictions in both ways? Later on you still could think about putting both on one platform if you want to. -- Tim
Thanks, Tim :-) I thought the same thing. I wouldnt have any problems sending our members over to Wikitravel. That's why I tested the waters adding (in my opinion) non-spammy, relevant info and links. But all my input was rigorously moved around, deleted, so now I don't feel so confident anymore that I really wanna send people here. We might just let our members build a relevant travel guide within the HC and take content from Wikitravel where appropriate. sigh. Veit 01:26, 13 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I did not see what you added here but if you posted loads of links all leading to HC I can understand Wikitravel. I wouldn't accept that neither (which does not mean I'd erase all .), my intention were rather to add a link and own section for the other service in the Special Pages sections of both sites. I think the people from Wikitravel don't realize how many people already use HC. And what about your licence? Contents here stay in public, they can't be stolen, so why do you want to oblige them to always announce links to the original pages? -- Tim
Feel free to integrate content from the HC into Wikitravel, as long as you follow our requirement to add a link
Please correct me if I'm wrong... but that's nonsensical, isn't it? We have a specific license on the content of this site which allows for no such restriction. (Our license doesn't require folks to keep any links when copying material from WikiTravel). Therefore, HC content cannot be used on WikiTravel unless HC changes their terms to allow the link to be removed (which we will do, of course). -- Colin 02:21, 10 Jun 2004 (EDT)
What's nonsensical about that? I thought Wikipedia's license also requires just that - link back to the original page?? We didnt build up a license but implemented a clear, rough and dirty solution (ok, guess it might not hold in courts, but hey, I am not a lawyer). We ask people who wanna use our content to link back to the HC. This way our content can be used to spread our main mission: the idea of hospitality exchange. BTW, I thought Wikitravel also requires a link back when you copy content? Can someone clear that up?Veit 01:27, 13 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Wikitravel does not require linkbacks. Wikitravel asks that you linkback so that your users can make improvements to the content, but it is not required. See Wikitravel:How to re-use Wikitravel guides for further details.
So what's nonsensical? If HC's content requires a linkback, it cannot be incorporated into Wikitravel because only stuff that is compatible with our license can be incorporated. Since Wikitravel does not require that linkbacks be preserved, we would be violating your license if we incorporated your text by trying to relicense it under our license.
So while your offer of sharing is appreciated, it is not possible unless either you or we change our license. -- Colin 01:52, 13 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I removed this from the content of the page, since it uses first person stuff, but not in reference to Wikitravel. On Wikitravel: pages, we normally speak from the point of view of this project, not the POV of another organization. --Evan 11:16, 10 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Here we are :-)
From our side we need one thing most: new members. People need to learn about the idea, many havent even heard of it. But would love to use it when they travel. So one good thing might be to include a standard reference to hospitality exchange in the Sleep category on the country/region/city pages. Also, I think it makes sense to include a link to the relevant HC country/region/city page at the end of articles where we DO have a large number of members or good travel info on our pages, as this is a really useful reference for many travelers.
Feel free to integrate content from the HC into Wikitravel, as long as you follow our requirement to add a link (eg., give credit). We didnt worry much about licenses when putting that note in there, but now I see that it is almost the identical requirement of GNU or CC. We WANT people to use our content as long as it helps to spread the idea of hospitality exchange around the globe!
That's interesting. The two projects have one thing in common. There are about traveling. But I don't understand why HC need more than Hospitality exchange. Yann 13:33, 10 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Well, I feel really amazed that even on a page talking about a possible cooperation of our two projects you have to delete my stuff. I dont feel comfortable anymore talking about cooperations on your "turf", where you even delete input by me. I dont have time to play around that much and watch out that my words meet all of your language requirements, especially on a Cooperation page (I just added all contributions you deleted to my personal page). Maybe you should think about your communication with interested projects. AGAIN: I was very interested in Wikitravel and thought we could cooperate happily and a lot, but being edited out like this I feel like a little kiddy that is taught by his daddy how to behave - and sorry, that ain't my way of doing fun and useful cooperations.Veit 01:26, 13 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Well, I'm sorry that that's been your experience. I think you came to Wikitravel with some different expectations. I hope you still find ways to contribute to the project. --Evan 11:14, 13 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Might have to do with the harshness of written text? Wiki and email-list communications sometimes lead to pointless and unneeded frictions. It might be good if there were a kind of IRC discussion possible to straighten things up. Any prefered channel, time? Although it's probably not necessary to have all the actors there at once :) IRL would be even better, but that seems unrealistic... Guaka 19:30, 14 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Where can I object the deletion of Wikitravel:Wikitravellers in Hospitality Club? I don't really understand why it was necessary to do so... It was a very good way to know more about fellow Wikitravellers, and also to have more cooperation between the HC and the Wikitravel project... I really wonder why the things that happened happened... Guaka 12:50, 21 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I have no idea how to restart a discussion about a deleted page. You can find the discussion surrounding the issue in the Page History of Wikitravel:Votes for deletion. That said, I have mixed feelings about bringing up the issue again. On the one hand, you seem to have missed the discussion and it would have been nice to have your participation. On the other hand, in general, re-opening contraversial issues is a worrisome concept. -- Colin 13:37, 21 Jun 2004 (EDT)
The second question I'm hearing is how to object to a deletion after it's happened. I'm guessing you didn't get a chance to do that before, or that you didn't notice it. If you wanted to just post a general objection, I'd guess that here in the pub is a good place, or maybe on Wikitravel talk:votes for deletion.
I think the final implied question is, how do you go about getting that page back? We haven't done that before, and we don't have a process for it. If you wanted to start a discussion about that, Wikitravel talk:deletion policy would be a good place to put it.
As a personal note, I'd ask that you help with Wikitravel:Cooperating with Hospitality Club. You have been a longtime Wikitraveller, and it seems to me that you've got some experience with the Club, so you'd probably be a really good person to give input on that page. I'd like to see some creative ways to make that relationship work -- especially ways that HC can help Wikitravel achieve our goal of making a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide with a neutral point of view. --Evan 14:36, 21 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Ok. I left some text here and there. I think the deletion policy needs some work. Guaka 08:22, 22 Jun 2004 (EDT)
or did I miss a <next page> link? Surprising that it went quiet allofasudden.
I can appreciate both sides of the argument, repetitive links in either would be tiresome. Hospitality exchange (HE) sounds a great idea, I was fortunate to get one evening of hospitality on a 6 week trip and it was a godsend. What is needed is some way of advertising the existence of the other "product" -- ideally travellers would be savvy to each concept and go find in the 'other' site for themselves without crosslinking. How to make them aware? Ideally of course it would be one page somewhere at the top of the stack i.e. Hospitality exchange, but we all know it will only get read by a minority. Rather than a jump-to-it link, what about a flag (indicator), probably on a Region or City page or however the HE sites agree appropriate to their structure? The flag (a nice but discreet graphic?) would be present if the location was relevant to a HE site but would only itself be linked to Hospitality exchange where they can use the links to get to the various search or homepages. Even though the specific HE site that has members there would not be specified, there is only so much one can do, lead the horse to water seems appropriate here.
Profuse apologies if I have opened an old wound (:makes mental note to look for anti-septic powder:). I vote for my own deletion if necessary. -- Richard 2005 Jan 17 01:20 (GMT)