Important: Wikitravel is exploring a license upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0, please give your consent or refusal here.

From Wikitravel

[edit] Introduction

I've been reading a lot of Wikitravel guides that a have promotional, urgent tone to them. Although being proud of your town or business is a virtue, it's off-putting for readers. I wanted to come up with a guideline to say, "Describe, don't urge". This was the best I could come up with, but I'd like some help getting it right. Does the point come across? Is it important (I think it is)? Is it too negative? Please comment here and feel free to just edit away. --Evan 15:45, 7 Jan 2006 (EST)

[edit] Adding teeth

We're starting to get more cases where insistent touts keep adding the same hype again and again. Should we have some sort of policy that, if they keep doing this and especially if they're malicious about it (deleting the competition etc), the establishment in question should be 'blacklisted' entirely? Jpatokal 23:11, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

I agree in principle, but the language for this will have to be phrased very carefully. Deleting the competition is a clear no-no, but some of the other things may be harder to describe in ways that clearly identify malignant touts. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 00:47, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

I've noticed this recently as well, and for establishments that repeatedly delete the competition it might be a good idea to add a note on an article's talk page with a clear warning box to travelers indicating that the establishment in question has engaged in questionable business practices on Wikitravel, and possibly also creating some kind of label that could be placed next to the establishment's name in the main article to indicate they have violated the Don't Tout policy. I don't think we can stop the touts entirely, and a blacklist could work against us - imagine someone removing their own establishment in order to make it look like a competitor should be blacklisted - but I do think it might be worthwhile to have some way of dissuading persistent touts from repeatedly removing valid information and replacing it with their own advertising. -- Ryan 00:57, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

Bump. I'd like to raise the idea again -- not deleting listing, but some kind of "touting flag" that's added for obnoxious behavior (eg. re-touting the listing multiple times) and links to eg. this page, and that can only be cleared by the business owner responding to the concerns raised here on Talk. Jpatokal 05:49, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Legendary

I would add recommendation to explain abstract praises like Legendary, Recommended and maybe even Famous. It's OK to have any of them but I believe we'd prefer that contributors explain what exactly a particular hotel/restaurant/other business is legendary/famous/recommended for--and if it's legendary, try to detail that: among which sector of travellers it is famous (students/backpackers/business travellers/in US/among Russian travellers etc), and what for. Any support? --DenisYurkin 10:52, 27 January 2007 (EST)

I keep planning to make a page on Wikitravel:words to avoid. "Recommended", "highly recommended" and "suggested" would all be on it. They imply a particular recommender or suggester, which doesn't match well with a wiki-created guide book.

I'm not crazy about "legendary" except as applied to Odysseus and Paul Bunyan. It's not that it's inaccurate; it just doesn't contain much information useful to travellers. Maybe "well-known among backpackers" would be better? --Evan 14:56, 27 January 2007 (EST)

How can I help to start a page like that? --DenisYurkin 16:10, 27 January 2007 (EST)

I understand Evan's concern, but it's also quite useful for travellers to be able to pick out the "don't miss" places among a slew of good or just average places. How about some sort of "Docent's Choice" flag? Jpatokal 05:27, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I support the "Docent's choice" idea. Attributing recommendation to Wikitravel docent is much better than using blind tout-like "absolutely recommended". --DenisYurkin 15:05, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I don't like that or anything that makes some contributors better/more authoritative than others. How about we only list places we recommend? And describe well-known and popular places as, say "well known and popular"?Maj 21:39, 28 January 2007 (EST)

[edit] Recommended by

So a search for "Lonely Planet" here on Wikitravel coughs up results where various countries, hostels, beaches etc. are recommended by Lonely Planet. I see two problems with this. First, I don't have a copy of every Lonely Planet currently published for each country in the world, so I can't verify the claims. Second, is this really the right way to go? Something feels wrong about leaning on someone else for recommendations. -- Colin 18:16, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Gawd, that sort of stuff is one of the reasons I wanted to start Wikitravel! Nothing gets me walking a few more blocks to find a hotel/bar/restaurant like a "Recommended by Lonley [sic] Planet" sign... I actually did a bunch of shopping in this one grocery store in Agra because they had a little cardboard sign on the door that said "Not in Lonely Planet. We wont bother you if you shop here." It was the best ad I saw in India... I'm really super down on guidebooks instead of traveller recommendations. Let's clear those puppies out and update the guideslines. Maj 22:38, 4 February 2007 (EST)

However, part of this list is things like "recommended by Lonely Planet BUT {is closed | is really bad | doesn't have this | since then prices went much higher}". I would vote to keep mentions like this--although it won't matter if "Lonely Planet" would be changed to a neutral "guidebooks". --DenisYurkin 01:08, 5 February 2007 (EST)

I agree with Denis (for a change). Wikitravel:Avoid negative reviews explicitly lists prominent mention in other guidebooks as a reason to keep negative listings. Jpatokal 01:38, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Yes you're right about saying "don't go there even though Lonely Planet says to." I'm definitely only interested in removing the "recommended by Lonely Planet" ones with no contrary advice. -- Colin 01:40, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Good point about the negative reviews. Maj 11:43, 5 February 2007 (EST)

I'd like to see these taken out if at all possible. I've always see the appeal to authority as a craven logical fallacy. Yes, we should probably leave in negative reviews when the place is mentioned prominently in other guidebooks, but I'd prefer to avoid mentioning the other guidebook (except in the Talk page, if needed). --Evan 11:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Policy about advertising

swept in from the pub

I have come upon this excerpt when browsing through for the first time:

• Hotel Cairoli , Via Cairoli, 14 cap 16124 Genoa - Ph. +39.010.2461454 - Fax +39.010.2467512 [2]. In the heart of Genoa, which, with its splendid Pallazzi dei Rolli was named a UNESCO World Heritage Site in July of 2006, the Hotel Cairoli is located on Via Cairoli, just a short walk from the Museum of the Risorgimento, the Aquarium, the Bigo and the Porto Antico. Singles Room from 55€, Double from 75€.

Now, this looks STRONGLY like advertising. What is the policy about this? I could not find a page or a guideline about this, but I'd like to have someone with me before editing to something like

• Hotel Cairoli, Via Cairoli 14 CAP 16124 Genoa - Ph. +39.010.2461454 - Fax +39.010.2467512 [2]. Situated in the historical center of the city and close to the Museum of the Risorgimento, the Aquarium, the Bigo and the Porto Antico.

And I would cite the UNESCO thing only once when describing the city itself. In particular, I would avoid prices. Johann.gambolputty 10:51, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

• I'd keep the prices; that's somehing a traveller needs to know. I'd also keep the UNESCO mention; that's interesting. I do think toning it down by removing "splendid .." and knocking out "just a short walk .." is good. Is this hotel listed in Grand old hotels? sounds like it should be. Pashley 10:59, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

• Correcvtion; as I read the above, it as saying the hotel was a UNESCO site. A bit of web search to check; turns out it is the nearby plaza that is. So no need for it in hotel article, I now agree. Web search also revealed the text is a copyright violation from the hotel web site [1], so it definitely needs rewriting. Pashley 11:04, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

Ok, then I will reformulate that. Johann.gambolputty 11:14, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

I kind of like it as is. This is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. If there's any change at all I'd just make "its" into "near the". -- Mark 08:38, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

Yes, please see Wikitravel:Accommodation listings. There's probably too much promotional language -- see Wikitravel:Don't tout -- and most of the facts in the description should be noted elsewhere in the Genoa article. --Evan 08:50, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

What is the limit for hotel details? Is it allowed to upload 1 image of the hotel? What about resort hotel on a beautiful island?

The current short listing format doesn't really support hotel images. On Japanese Wikitravel, on the other hand, you can attach one picture to each hotel, and something similar may be implemented here too if the Wikitravel:Listings idea takes off. Jpatokal 13:06, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Budapest

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE BUDAPEST PAGE ON WIKITRAVEL? Can a reader only suggest a revision that mentions a business if that business is personally favored by the editors? Or, are the editors getting paid off by the Hungarian government or mafia? I am serious. I placed a brief two sentence mention of a helpful Budapest travel guide on the website only for it to be deleted several times because it was called "commercial." Well, if you are going to treat that as commercial, then what do you consider Malev.hu, the Hungarian airline, that is a commercial enterprise, and owned partly by shareholders. And, what about the restaurants Gundel (gundel.hu), Pasta Dost (pastadost.hu), and TrofeaGrill (trofeagrill.hu), all of which have their names and links given. Come on, be fair if you are going to have standards, practice them throughout. If there are to be no commercial enterprises, there should be none, zero. If you are going to let one of them be posted, they should all be able to be posted. Otherwise, where do you draw the line between what commercial enterprise is accepted and which is not? Is it just the business that is paying you under the table?

Perhaps Wikitravel is actually being controlled by Mr. Putin in Moscow, or some other radical? --Mike in Chicago 20:44, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

We neither favor nor avoid commercial products. Please read Wikitravel:External links for our policy. The short answer is that a hotel or restaurant's website should be linked as part of the listing of the hotel or restaurant. General guides (Lonelyplanet) or restaurant review guides (Michellin) should not. Please read the policy for a discussion of what and why, and raise the issue at Wikitravel talk:External links if you still do not understand. -- Colin 21:02, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

[edit] marking advertisements written by business owner

I have "de-touted" advertisement-style description of several listing items recently (mainly accommodation businesses), and I found that in many cases I neither can check that any fact in the original description is true, neither I have reason to remove any single fact. However, I normally re-write the advertisement-style description to a more neutral style, thus removing the chance to a reader to know that the description was originally written by a business owner, and in many cases should be "divided by 2" (taken with additional care).

I wonder if I can leave a special marker for cases like that, so that reader understands the origin of the description. In theory, I could use verify tag for that, but it doesn't have any warning text in it.

This is the most recent example from Budapest listings. I would see a marker to look something like this:

• Beds N’ Roses hotel and guesthouse [2]. tel.: +36-20-332-6322. Elegant and intimate atmosphere, private rooms, each of them with own separate bathroom, extraordinary, romantic pedestrian downtown location by the famous Hungarian Opera House and... low prices. --The previous description seem to be written by business owner. Remove this notice if you can confirm these facts. Not reviewed by Wikitravellers yet.

--DenisYurkin 01:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the greatest benefits of the wiki approach is that if a review is inaccurate, one or more people will eventually be able to correct it. In the mean time we should point over-enthusiastic contributors to this guideline and tone down obvious sales pitches (as outlined in this policy), but I'd be very opposed to a policy that appeared to call a contributor's honesty into question simply because they were apparently the owner of the hotel or restaurant being listed. In the specific example you've listed, unless the hotel in question turns out to not be an elegant, reasonably priced & private guesthouse then I don't see anything wrong with the listing. The wiki process is designed to weed out inaccuracy over time; it's frustrating that it sometimes takes months or years for such inaccuracies to be corrected, but we should trust the process and avoid stigmatizing any particular group of contributors. -- Ryan 02:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Ryan on that... I would actually love it if WT was only written by travelers sharing info, but even if we stipulated that it wouldn't be possible to fully police. And because our policy right now is that anyone can add info, those anyones should all be treated equally. p.s., there was definitely not consensus reached to use that {{verify}} tag for your original intent, and it would be even more of a stretch to extend it to this kind of use :) – cacahuate ^talk 02:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

1. We should encourage business owners to disclose that they are business owners.
2. We should trust them. Unless we have information to the contrary, we should assume that they are mentioning facts fairly.
3. But removing competitors' listings or slanting them negatively should be strongly deprecated.
4. We should tone down listings that look too much like advertisements. In fact, we should convince business owners to be less touty, as that will make it more trustworthy. — Ravikiran 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Ravikiran, I can hardly imagine wikitraveller arguing with your points, at least in theory. The question is how to implement these intentions into practice. I haven't seen much effort on practical side of these points in the last ~year--but maybe I missed something important on the subject. --DenisYurkin 14:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I've added Ravi's points to the article. Some of the information is a bit redundant, but since we usually point overzealous business owners to this article it seems worthwhile to specifically include a section outlining how business owners can contribute. -- Ryan ^(talk) 02:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

We could really use a Welcome Message specifically aimed to guide advertising agencies, hotel owners, or just plain touts. -- Colin 03:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I had the same idea: when we see an anonymous with only a single contribution which look much like an advertisement, we should provide a welcome message with hand, which include a link to Wikitravel:Don't tout#Business owners. I think this criteria is quite easy; even if our guess that it was a business owner is wrong, the message should still sound valid. --DenisYurkin 17:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I see something like this:

Welcome to Wikitravel! Thanks for your recent addition of (venue name) to the (article name) article.

It looks very much like an advertisement. Wikitravel strives to avoid being an "advertising brochure" for any business, city, or service--so {please edit|I have edited} your text to describe the establishment rather than trying to sell it to a reader. I would recommend to read Wikitravel:Don't tout article before your future edits--and we would happy to see you back editing here but also respecting our guidelines ;-)

BTW, we would recommend you registering a login name at Wikitravel to:

• (list of benefits of having a login).

Opinions? --DenisYurkin 14:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Plunged forward adding it to Wikitravel:Welcome message#Business owners. --DenisYurkin 17:00, 26 November 2007 (EST)

First: business owners are also Wikitravellers. Everyone who works on Wikitravel is a Wikitraveller. We're not going to start excluding some people from our private club because of the quality of their additions. Second, there's no way to tell who adds what to Wikitravel, so making assumptions about the content based on your assumptions about the contributor is dumb. It's a teetering tower of ignorance. Third: "don't tout" is an editorial suggestion, not a behavioral one. It's everybody's responsibility to collaboratively edit uninformative, flowery, promotional listings.

Fourth: I'd like to start a page with words to avoid. "Elegant", "intimate", "extraordinary", are all empty words devoid of any information for the traveller trying to make practical decisions. How would you possibly verify these? Who has the authority to be a verifier?

The best thing to do here is trim out the flowers and lace and leave in the informative details (which are kind of scarce in the above listing). An edited version:

• Beds N’ Roses, ☎ +36-20-332-6322, [3]. Private rooms, each with a private bathroom. On a pedestrian street downtown, near the Opera House.  edit

--Evan 11:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Evan, thanks for starting the "Words to avoid" page--and we probably should link to it from "Don't tout" and some other places, right?

And thanks for your edition--I will try to use it in the article. --DenisYurkin 17:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Great idea. I've added it to the see also section of the page. Can't think of anything off the top of my head, but will definitely add to it. -- Fastestdogever 00:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I have another example where "Review written by business owner" looks useful to me.

It's a series of edits in Oia done from the same IP, where reviews for 3 businesses are added, and it's stated explicitly that they share the same owner.

I don't feel myself able to fix them towards our standards of objectivity, but I feel necessary to leave RFI for future contributors as it's not always obvious that they need work, and to help readers to distinguish these reviews from more likely to be objective. At the same time I'm sure none of them will dig into history of edits to find out that these reviews were added by a business owner. And I believe that adding a comment to Talk page will see attention much later than in the article itself--that's reality of today's Wikitravel. --DenisYurkin 19:06, 26 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] should superlatives be sourceable?

I have comment on this edit [4]:

Avoid superlatives (the best, the biggest, the tastiest, the most fascinating) unless they can be sourced and are of specific interest to the traveler.

I think that we need to require that any superlative should be proved by an independent party. As we talk about touting, any tout would argue that his superlative is certainly of interest (and he will be right most of the time, as long as his fact can be proven--which is rarely the case).

Maybe we can just keep the original wording of this phrase? Or how can we improve it to reflect the above idea? --DenisYurkin 06:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll disagree—my favorite thing about Wikitravel, as compared with Wikipedia, is that this site welcomes original research. (That's actually the main reason why I write here instead.)

I can't source any hard study that Lem's BBQ offers the best rib tips in Chicago, but I've tried all the other top establishments, and I know that my opinion is confirmed by other non-professional reviewers on the web. So despite relying on original research, I used the superlative. I think it's fine to "police" questionable superlatives by just bringing up concerns on the talk page, as for any other WT concern. --Peter ^Talk 15:21, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm fine with best, tastiest, most delicious, most comfortable and most charming--all the subjective things. But I'm not comfortable with measurable, objective things: tallest, largest, most popular, smallest etc--when they are used to describe businesses and commercial establishments. --DenisYurkin 15:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

In other words, facts must be true. Puffery is puffery. Reasonableness is in the eye of the reader. If I say that a shopping mall is the largest in California, it has to be so. If I say a restaurant serves the only Malai Kofta on the west side, then I wouldn't expect to find those tasty Kofta balls available elsewhere nearby.

Although I don't think we need to police them, I would hope our guidelines already discourage best ribs, or best pizza lines. Those superlatives are so cliched as to be near meaningless, and even more so on a wiki where every pizza restaurant in a town will be someone's favorite --inas 19:31, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

[edit] De-touting vs Reversion

Jani thought I was being a little harsh with a few reversions yesterday like this one [5], with a hotel owner adding around 10 entries to different articles, all using the same touting language, and using first party pronouns. My current philosophy on reversion vs de-touting is..

1. If a hotel is listed in an OTBP destination, with little accommodation information - always de-tout
2. If a user adds a single listing - traveller or business owner - but they get the language wrong, or use first person pronouns - de-tout as long as there will some useful information left in the listing after removing the touting language other than the hotel name. Avery Inn - our hotel has luxury accommodation and spacious rooms in Avery, has nothing worth keeping at a mainstream destination IMO. See another example here [6].
3. If a user is clearly a user with commercial interest, adding multiple entries for many hotels in a chain, or similar, and the entry is clearly a publicity piece, touting or first party pronouns, revert the addition leaving a reason in the reversion. it is then up to the user with a commercial interest to understand our policies rewrite accordingly.

I was wondering how that fitted with others take on things? Do we need a guideline on this, or just leave it to the normal revert - discuss if required cycle. --inas 19:53, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

In addition to our collaboration of the month, we could have a de-tout challenge of the day. This could be today's challenge [7]. --inas 20:32, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

I agree on all three points. On the first, I've been sticking to my old pledge to not simply revert additions until there are 9 sleep listings on the article. On the third, there is again the question of how many pages are getting spammed—when it seems egregious enough, I simply revert & leave my standard welcome, hotel spammer message on the user's talk page. I'm fine with leaving that judgment to patrollers' discretion.

With regards to how to detout—the quickest way is just to delete all the garbage, and leave the description short, often just a couple words (e.g., "Indoor pool & jacuzzi, free Wifi.") --Peter ^Talk 21:41, 17 September 2009 (EDT)