Can anybody explain what's the story behind "The Wikitravel Mirror" with the ambingously similar address http://www.wikitravel.net ? It seems to access the original wikitravel.org database and makes deep links onto some wikitravel.org pages. The ugly difference between the "mirror" and the original is an additional link collection and an advertising banner on each page. --Hansm 15:17, 2004 Jun 5 (EDT)
I don't know what it is, but comparing its content with some of my contributions it is certainly a good month out of date. Obviously we cannot complain about this site's use of wikitravel content, but I'm personally a bit miffed about the way it is masquarading as a mirror, when clearly it is a very poor mirror, if at all. Chris j wood 19:14, 5 Jun 2004 (EDT)
It looks as if the site's owner tries to make money with confused people that misstype the URL. Follwing the link "My Sites", you are lead to a list of so called "mirrors" that all work the same way: They are a partly outdated copy of free licensed sites, often with some advertising banners added. I think there is at least one point about that we could complain. The "mirror" pretents to be the original and deep links the real wikitravel when you click on the "edit" item. This is a very dirty way of "mirroring". Of course, in the footer there is a short remark that the pages base on wikitravel.org, but that does not seem to be enough. For me, it were all right if it would just mirror the content and make obvious that the "edit", "discussion" etc. faetures are done on the original wikitravel site. -- Hansm 05:52, 2004 Jun 6 (EDT)
But unlike the other "mirrors" we dealt with before, this one gives proper credit. There's no "thou shalt not make money off the content" clause in the license. Nor is there a clause "you must be up to date". I really don't see any angle from which you could stop this guy. Hell, they even redirect the "Edit" links to wikitravel.org, which is the way it should be. Of course I agree what he's doing is immoral - linking to "directories" as "yahoos.info" is as scummy as they come. -- Nils
* It is definitely misleading. On www.wikitravel.net: "Wikitravel is a project ..." and "So far we have 2350 destination" On wikitravel.org/en/article/Wikitravel:About : "The project was begun in July of 2003 by the two founders, Evan and Maj." Together it is a false claim that, they "wikitravel.net" are the project started by Evan and Maj.
* It is not a mirror if they alter it
* They violate the license: "Article text and images licensed under a Creative Commons License.". This must mean that their ads are not under CC.
Anyway, I think we should start calling "wikitravel" "wikitravel.org" instead. E.g. in the logo, and on the main page.
Travelgaido. Just put this site up and it is still early days. Having issues with showing pictures and links back to Wikitravel for editing. Would really have preferred to use a data dump to create the site.
Webcam Galore. I have integrated the english and german version. They link back to Wikitravel for editing and to the original pages. Pages that weren't properly imported are redirected to the original pages at Wikitravel.
...because I couldn't see any mirror content from wikitravel on there. I hpresume these used to be mirrors, but now no longer have anything from wikitravel on there. Another possibility is that they are spam entries sneakily added to this page. But spammers aren't that clever, so it's a unlikely I think. ...or it's possible there is wikitravel content there, I just didn't see it. -- Harry Wood 04:52, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
I'm really sorry if this is a FAQ but I did look around and found only a few open tech requests on wikitravel shared...
I see that the wikitravel site is supported by a company who (as I understand it) make their money publishing printed copies of wikitravel information. I wholeheartedly applaud the way the site seems to be run in a very open way with the CC-SA licence, even though that means they might lose business. I don't expect them to make it easy for other people to download wikitravel in its entirely (using their bandwidth), but I do worry that if something happens to them or (no offence, just speculating) they had a change of policy, the site might go down and all this CC-SA content would be lost, without any option for anyone else to take bits or even re-host the whole site. Even though legally all the content is reproducible it's no good if no one can download it. Does anyone know if there are mirrors, covenants about snapshots being available if (say) they go bust or ability for interested people to download a snapshot of the entire site, just as a safeguard?--Zorn 19:24, 7 July 2009 (EDT)