Per Denis' I took a stab at expanding this. It seems like there might be two good ways to get this going:
Start gathering info about where things stand now - what documentation exists, what processes exist, etc.
Start brainstorming possible improvements and ideas on this talk page. Anything from redoing documentation to eliminating business contributions to adding "verified" badges to listings, etc.
To the second point, a couple ideas that occurred to me are making article status more prominent (perhaps revisiting Template:Title-icons and doing a bit more with those) and possibly implementing icons that could be added to listings such that a rollover would show users who "verified"/"endorsed" the listing and when they did so, for example:
The Shiz, 1234 Shiz Street, ☎ +1-555-555-5555, . With four fireplaces and a view of the Magic Mountains this place is great for a romantic evening, and the food, while pricey, is memorable.
The "verified"/"endorsed" icon would obviously benefit greatly from using a template, should probably use something other than a star, and ideally should change the image depending on the number and freshness of the people verifying/endorsing. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:49, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
That little verified icon is awful cool! I might call it an "approved" icon instead, and maybe use a check mark? We would need to restrict its use, though, perhaps to autoconfirmed users.
I think a small template that we could place either in a section, such as "sleep", or even at the top of the article (ideally in the header) that would show the article was reviewed and deemed reliable, and would show who reviewed it and when, could be very useful as well.
I also like the idea of adding title icons to guide and usable templates (I assume that would be the best way of doing it?). --PeterTalk 21:23, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
I already thought of this "verified" listing idea, but I worked it out in a slightly different fashion (see ). However, your design is probably even better. The problem is who decides which listings would be endorsed, and how much of these listings we have. I'd say it should be limited to one per price category, else it'd lose its significance. --globe-trotter 15:54, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
I was envisioning this less as "endorsed" as in "this is the best" and more as "the people or person shown in the alt tag have verified that this listing is accurate as of the dates shown". I think it would be undesirable to have to try to come to a consensus on a single choice for any given article, although if ten people choose to "verify" a listing then it might be a good indication that it's a place worth visiting. Obviously some criteria would be needed as to who can "verify" a listing (must have been active for X months, have a user page, etc?) but that's probably a topic for discussion once the goals of this tool are established. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:12, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Who posted the listing
I would like to argue that any listing using "we" or "our" should be not edited but summarily deleted, as obviously self-interested and, therefore, unreliable. Like any other rule, this would be subject to exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but I think that whenever it's obvious a listing was posted by a self-interested person, whether because it's 100% obvious it's touting ("well-appointed rooms," et al.) or because "we" or "our" was used, unless other, non-interested people can vouch for the place, it should not be listed - and I mean probably never listed. Ikan Kekek 23:05, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
I think it's fine to remove listings for this reason, but it should also be just as OK to keep it after detouting. While touts do come across as infuriating little dissemblers, most are just totally clueless. The owner of the Welcome Manor Inn in Bronzeville is a really cool guy who runs a great business. The listing he originally added, though, looked like this —it now looks like one of the better listings in the article. --PeterTalk 16:29, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
I even think business owners placing their own businesses are an asset to Wikitravel. I get plenty of spammy/touty hotel listings in the Bangkok district pages, but after de-touting they make fine additions to the articles. I don't see why we should delete these listings while they are useful additions in general. --globe-trotter 23:56, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Most of my early edits here involved adding business listings, and I am sure I cocked them up big time :). I am of the same view as Peter that most business owners are clueless rather than deliberate abusers. There are of course notable exceptions to that.--Burmesedays 01:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Here's the problem: Unless someone without financial interest in a business can vouch for its being a good one, there is good reason to distrust self-interested listings, even if detouted in style by a subsequent editor. What is your solution in the very numerous cases that an administrator has no knowledge of the establishment other than an obviously self-interested listing? I can detout, but I still don't trust the detouted listing if I am personally unfamiliar with the establishment. Ikan Kekek 02:14, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
There is no fool-proof solution, which is why we do not seek to be review site. Contact details and prices can often be verified by a website, but we cannot go any further than that, nor should we pretend that we ever could.--burmesedays 03:05, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
So what is this expedition about? Purely reliability of contact information and pricing, not descriptions in any sense? If so, is there very much to discuss? Ikan Kekek 04:10, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
A tiny percentage of business listings could be verified in the manner Ryan proposes I guess. However, there is no site-wide solution I can think of other than attempting to ban a business listing made by anyone with an interest in that business. Aside from the impossibility of policing that, there will never be consensus reached for such a draconian action. --burmesedays 04:29, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
So is your proposal to essentially give up, close the discussion, and go on to something else there's more consensus on? Ikan Kekek 04:39, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
:=). Nope. I would be delighted if a practical solution was found.
Going back to your original suggestion about first person writing, it is already a reason for deletion which any editor has the discretion to enforce. I agree with Peter on that point.--burmesedays 04:51, 27 August 2011 (EDT)