User talk:Evan/Oct 2004
See also: User talk:Evan/Archives
- Excellent! We're leaving Chicago today, down the Big River. --Evan 11:01, 4 May 2004 (EDT)
- Have fun! I guess most of my Chicago additions were too late to be of use.. hopefully the St. Louis stuff will come in handy. Check out Hullaballoo. -- Mark 11:54, 4 May 2004 (EDT)
Thanks for your even-keeled response to my ctitique of the US article, and for your invitation to edit the article. I made a response to you in the form of a proposal at the bottom of the talk page. I wanted here to make sure you saw it. I hope you will reply. William M Goetsch 09:50, 6 May 2004 (EDT)
Hi, I saw that again, the Romanian Wikiktravel mentions GNU FDL as his license. Still, Atribution ShareAlike is used as a license on LanguageRo.php. Why didn't you use LanguageRo for interface?.
Anyway, the text of the license in romanian would be
Ajutor de editare, caractere speciale: ă â î ş ţ Ă Â Î Ş Ţ <br><br> Reţineţi că toate contribuţiile la Wikitravel sunt considerate ca respectând licenţa <strong>Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0</strong> de la Creative Commons. (vezi $1 pentru detalii).
Again, thanks for such an even handed reply on my USA comments. I imagine that everyonce in awhile you get somebody new selling a new approach that thinks he knows everything. I doubt I could be so detached and well mannered about something I had started.
The Wiki notion of egalitarianismo is a new concept to me, and interesting, but it seems in a way to be inefficient, what with constant small changes, rollbacks, contention about small isues which go on and on and back and forth. Philosophically it reminds me of some economist's comment about the so-called British "commons": if no one owns it, it tends to go to hell. Nevertheless, I will get with the program and make mods directly in the affected page.
I read "The traveler comes first" and I certainly buy-in to all four statements there, especially, "We share our excitement about the destinations we cover" I think that is essential.
As to the notion of not merely making links, but actually having some content of our own, I also agree. But there are some considerations here that require balance, and I'm not sure we have struck the best balance. If I am going to travel somewhere the first thing I would probably do is use Google. The trouble with Google though is that it is too much, and there is a lot of chaff in with a few kernels of wheat. That's where I see our niche: providing some modest commentary and a consistent (templates) brief range of coverage concerning truly "static" information, and then, importantly, selecting the best of the external references for the traveler.
The world's a big place and if we try to become encyclopedic we'll never get "rich" enough to be consistently useful, and people won't use us. The "holes" in Wikitravel's world coverage are monumental. Plus, external links are in general more au courant, especially in "Things to do" and other "dynamic" information that we have little chance of keeping up to date. William M Goetsch 08:17, 9 May 2004 (EDT)
Goals and non-goals
If you have a minute to peek into Wikitravel:Votes for deletion it seems that I've managed to construe Wikitravel:Goals and non-goals exactly differently than User:Nils. Since you wrote the page, your clarification would be definitively helpful. -- Colin 12:32, 10 May 2004 (EDT)
Evan, the "referendum" and "voting" resulted from the discussion on using the most common English name versus using the official name. Even if it says "referendum" and "voting", that is not what it is. It should have been "poll" and "polling" and give an idea of the general opinions of Wikitravellers on the issue. (See Wikitravel talk:Article naming conventions where it is stated that In fact, we should probably call this a poll rather than a referendum...) I'm not going into further detail here, you can read all about it when you have the time.
Secondly, to me your response sounded --I'm going to be frank-- aggressive and dictatorial, and I felt it was unlike Evan. Maybe you didn't have the possibility to read the whole discussion, but was this sort of reaction really necessary? Wouldn't it have been better to have asked that the thing be stopped until you could take the time to have your say in the matter? In your response to Mr. Goetsch on Talk:United States of America you say: ... Maj and I don't claim any special privileges on Wikitravel. After declaring this initiative "null and void" you would forgive people for starting to doubt your claim.
Maybe you had a good reason for reacting the way you did, but right now I can't say I understand it. Akubra 16:40, 13 May 2004 (EDT)