Why are all these DMOZ links being added to the pages? Isn't this linking to another travel web site rather than putting the info. inside Wikitravel? And some of the content is entirely inappropriate e.g. Education and Health and some is commercial advertising e.g. Real Estate. --Nzpcmad 16:40, 8 Aug 2004 (EDT)
I dunno. I'm not really sure what it gains us, but I'm trying to go with the flow. -- Mark 17:45, 8 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Wikitravel:External links explicitly states "What to link to? External links should point to first sources (tourist offices, official Web sites, etc.); avoid linking to secondary sources like on-line travel guides, restaurant or nightlife guides, or other "secondary" sources. We should have that kind of information in Wikitravel, not linked to from Wikitravel." Doesn't including DMOZ directly contradict this? Also, we can link to Wikitravel articles from Wikipedia and vice versa. You can't do this with DMOZ. You have to request that they link to Wikitravel and it is their arbitrary decision. e.g. "Regional: North America: Canada: Quebec: Localities: M: Montreal: Travel and Tourism: Travel Guides" for the Montreal DMOZ does not include Wikitravel. --Nzpcmad 18:26, 8 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Yeah, you're right. I figure this illustrates the point I've been trying to make about external links in general. Meanwhile I've been adding the DMOZ links as so to be a good sport. -- Mark 18:38, 8 Aug 2004 (EDT)
As to why.... there have been comments both that we do not link to enough stuff, and counter comments that we don't want to become a web directory. Evan observed that if we just simply allow a single DMOZ link (just as we already allow Wikipedia links) that we would then be providing the traveller's with a pointer to a web directory if they need one. And then the whole issue of keeping the directory up-to-date becomes DMOZ's problem. The idea here is that there may be useful sites that are not in keeping with our link policy, but if we can point at DMOZ we might be able to avoid altering our policy to be more accepting of links. This of course doesn't cover everything (see the discussion page for more details). -- Colin 02:05, 9 Aug 2004 (EDT)
I don't think it's at all about linking to another travel site. Open Directory topic pages aren't specifically travel-oriented (as you pointed out), but geographically-based Web directories.
I see these links more like Wikitravel:links to Wikipedia. We're not creating an encyclopedic view of places, so we provide a twin-pages link to the equivalent encyclopedia page. Similarly, we're not providing a comprehensive Web directory for each place, so we provide a TwinPages link to an equivalent Web directory topic.
Some information in a Wikipedia page may be good to have in a Wikitravel page. Similarly, some links in an Open Directory topic may be good to have in a Wikitravel destination guide. In both cases, however, the purpose of the other site is very different from ours.
I don't think twin pages really fall under the external links rules.
I can disable this feature if people really want it. I mostly wanted to ease some of the tension about external links -- that we had to provide a full inventory of possible Web sites related to a destination, in case some traveler may possibly want to view that link. By deferring to a twin page, we can concentrate less on some possible theoretical traveller's needs and more on what's needed for a travel guide.
I would prefer to link to an Open Source wiki Web directory and if anyone knows one, I'd be happy to change our twin links. I do think at this point that Open Directory is the most complete directory-style site on the Web, though. --Evan 03:09, 9 Aug 2004 (EDT)
I could be wrong, but I don't think anybody has argued for "a full inventory of possible Web sites related to a destination", but rather a very very selective set. Likewise nobody I've heard from here thinks we should list every hotel in a given destination (that would be a directory), just a selected few in each price range.
The very problem with trying to handle outside links by handing off to DMOZ is that they *are* trying to be a comprehensive directory. This means that rather than providing good travel information we are tossing the user into a swamp of non-applicable stuff hoping they might be able to find the one gem. -- Mark 04:00, 9 Aug 2004 (EDT)
One of the problems is that DMOZ is actually aiming to be a directory of web sites, not of web pages or web information. Which actually means they don't carry links to some of the stuff we want to link to.
Taking Wikitravel itself as an example, Wikitravel is a global travel guide site, and it therefore cannot be indexed anywhere in the Regional heirarchy we are linking into. This is why, as Nzpcmad points out above, Wikitravel doesn't appear in DMOZ's "Regional: North America: Canada: Quebec: Localities: M: Montreal: Travel and Tourism: Travel Guides" category, which is a category for web sites that are travel guides of Montreal only.
I personally think the whole DMOZ thing is based on a flawed concept (what people really want is a directory of information available on the web, not of web sites).
I don't have a problem with adding the DMOZ links, but in no way does it resolve the discussion on external links. There is still a need for Wikitravel contributors to be able to add external links to the site based on their local, subjective experience. In just the same way as they add entries for hotels, bars, sights, whatever. This will no more lead WikiTravel to becoming a directory of web links any more than it will lead it to become a directory of hotels. -- Chris j wood 12:16, 9 Aug 2004 (EDT)
I think that's a fair assessment. The main point here is to allow us to be selective -- if we defer the responsibility for providing all possible relevant links to Open Directory, we can concentrate on what we think are appropriate links.
Anyways, what I'm hearing so far is indifference towards this idea, so I'm going to leave it in for now. --Evan 14:55, 9 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Personally, I'm a Wikipedia editor who was looking for a Wiki-like Web Directory, specifically because DMOZ doesn't qualify at all. They are very closed in their membership, including reducing the time before an editor is banned for being idle to a mere four months, then reinstating only a very few, seemingly those whose ideas and ideologies fit best with the leaders. This explains why they're months, or even years, behind listing submissions...something which has been getting worse since 2000 or so. I was googling for an actually open web directory, and found this talk page. Anyone here ever actually find such a critter? It would be of use for some Wikipedia articles, as well. --KazVorpal 21:54, 10 March 2006 (EST)
Link to Place/Travel and Tourism if available?
It should link to the main Panajachel page. The whole point of linking out to Dmoz is to relieve the pressure to add lots of links to Wikitravel guides, especially links that don't directly have to do with travel. So, link to the main location page. --Evan 17:25, 25 November 2006 (EST)