Initial Thoughts, Concerns and Comments
Any thoughts, concerns or suggestions about cooperating with WikiOutdoors? Also, any feedback for the WikiOutdoors folks would be greatly appreciated!
Kirasw 17:25, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- Hi, Kirasw. So, I think this sounds like a really good idea. Detailed trail guides and such have been one of those subjects that we've wrestled with and which some (most?) people think falls out of scope for Wikitravel. If WikiOutdoors turns out to be the right partner here, this could be really good for us.
- I think there are a lot of pluses: WikiOutdoors is a wiki, and it's got a Creative Commons license. However, it's a NonCommercial license, which I think might rub some people the wrong way. In particular, we couldn't move content from Wikitravel to WikiOutdoors, or vice versa. I'm not sure how important that is to other Wikitravellers; I've learned to live with it with wikiHow, but I know they'd change their license if they could.
- I'll try to solicit some input from other Wikitravellers here. I think the best option for us is to have a TwinPages link on related pages, so that, say, Yosemite National Park might have a link to your Yosemite page at the same place it has a Wikipedia and Open Directory link. --Evan 19:58, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- Thanks Evan. I think the reciprocal links are probably the best way to start anyway given that the any content shared across the two projects might be either too detailed or too general. Then, as we move forward in our cooperation, we can figure out if there are other ways to work together that would be compatible for both projects' goals. Kirasw 18:39, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- This page contains legal errors since it claims that WikiOutdoors' CC-byNC can be copied into Wikitravel. It can't. -- Colin 20:59, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- Yeah, the "non-commercial" clause rules that out, because Wikitravel material may be used commercially. Unless WikiOutdoors switches to the same license (which would still be feasible at this early stage), the "cooperation" between the two would have to be limited to reciprocal linking. I do think the two projects are for the most part mutually complementary. - Todd VerBeek 21:35, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- For now, while the copyrights are different, I will remove the incorrect info on the Sharing Content section. I'd also welcome any thoughts you all have about the CC-byNC copyright as we are still in the early stages of WikiOutdoors. Correction - just saw that this content was already changed. Thanks! Kirasw 18:39, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- Kira, have you talked to Jack Herrick at wikiHow? wikiHow uses a NonCommercial license, and I know Jack has some opinions about it. If you haven't already, I'll make an introduction so you can talk to him about it. --Evan 21:59, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- Just to throw in my (probably less than) two cents, it really would be a good thing if the WikiOutdoors license could allow sharing content with Wikitravel. I fully understand that there's a mistrust of commercial enterprises among many people, but I think the majority of people add content so that it will be useful to others, and that they get excited about seeing their name and work in a magazine, brochure, etc. With just a handful of articles WikiOutdoors is still in a state where it could change licenses, and even though most content won't be appropriate for sharing, it would be great to see a license that allowed common content to be used on both projects. -- Ryan 22:52, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- I've been watching this for a few days now and I feel Ryan's completely right about the license issues. Changing licenses is, at this early stage, a viable option. A quick scan suggest most articles are the brain child of Kira and she could easily relicense her contribution and ask that others do. If someone objects all that really needs to be done is take a scapel to a few articles and some articles may need to be deleted, but the work wouldn't be too overwhelming. I imagine World 66 had a horrible time with it's relicensing issues, but since WikiOutdoor is in toddler mode I don't think it would be too hard. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 23:06, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- Thanks for all of the feedback on the licensing. I do know Jack Herrick (his wife and I are colleagues at Intuit), and he's given us some early feedback on the licensing. We also got some feedback from Ross Mayfield over at Socialtext, and, after those conversations, decided on the CC-byNC licensing. Let me give this a little thought, as much as mommy brain will allow, and have a chat with my technology partner, Michael. I appreciate all of your thoughts on the issue, especially as WikiOutdoors is still new. Kirasw 16:10, 6 December 2006 (EST)
WikiOutdoors as Viable Commodity?
- In principle, I am very much in favor of this cooperation. However, is WikiOutdoors really a viable commodity? If it was founded in February 2006 and still only has 60 articles as of today, it's not clear that the site is gaining any traction with the on-line community. (Heck, I could write that many articles there myself, and still not talk about the really obscure/interesting places.) I don't think that's a show-stopper, but we will have to think about expectations and check back now and then to make sure it's viable. When I get a minute, I'll take a crack at the what-goes-where issue; it's fair to say that the Santa Fe (New Mexico) example used on the project page hits close to home ... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:55, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- FYI: Kirasw was on hiatus the last couple of months-- her daughter was born in September, but it looks like the outreach to Wikitravel is part of a effort to get things going again. I think we'll see it pick up speed over the next few weeks. Maj 17:34, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- Thanks Maj! I've been a bit slow on WikiOutdoors over the last couple of months as I learned how to take care of my new baby. And, yes, the outreach to Wikitravel is indeed part of getting things ramped up again. I'm also hoping to learn a lot from Wikitravellers in terms of improving WikiOutdoors so that it's truly a resource for folks who want detailed, up-to-date info on things like hiking, biking, etc. Kirasw 18:39, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- Well, thus challenged, I'll start a handle and a page over there tonight -- may as well be part of the solution (and I remember well how a bambino in the household affects one's lifestyle...). Realistically, however, the concern remains. Let's keep an eye on this to make sure it takes root, as we collaboratively attempt to help it do so. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:12, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- Sounds like a good way forward. Maj 20:54, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- Thanks Bill-on-the-Hill! I already saw your first contribution at WikiOutdoors. Nice work!Kirasw 16:10, 6 December 2006 (EST)
- Bump. This site has fallen into near-complete disuse -- except by spambots, which have just taken the thing over. It's been a long time since anyone other than myself has done extended cleanup there. I'm an admin but not one of the "owners", and have temporarily stopped cleaning up messes simply to see if anyone else will do so. Nobody is. I am not convinced that it is in Wikitravel's interests to point people toward a "resource" that has as much spam as content. Discuss, please. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:23, 10 November 2007 (EST)
WikiOutdoors Licensing Update
Based on the feedback from the Wikitravel community, the WikiOutdoors folks and further discussion with wiki enthusiasts, we've decided to update the licensing on WikiOutdoors. Existing articles on WikiOutdoors and all future articles are now licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Thanks to everyone in the Wikitravel community who weighed in on the topic. If I understand the licensing correctly, even though the WikiOutdoors' license is newer, we can freely share content between the two sites. If this understanding is correct (i.e. if no one here objects), I will update the Wikitravel:Cooperating with WikiOutdoors article as appropriate. Thanks again, Kirasw 22:54, 2 January 2007 (EST)
I'm glad to see that WikiOutdoors is going to be a fully Open Source outdoors guide. I'd like to have the same kind of links to WO as we have with Wikipedia, Open Directory, or World66. Any reason not to? --Evan 22:46, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- I'd support this. WikiOutdoors just covers stuff I'd rather someone else dealt with -- details of trails and stuff. Question: If an entry in the Do section refers to a trail, could we point to WikiOutdoors for it in the Do listing? I'd like to see us keep the basic description and how to get to the trailhead, but a pointer to WikiOutdoors for the details of the route Might Be Nice. For example, the "Do/Hiking" section in our Yosemite article is awesome, but a pointer to much more detailed information about each hike would be a bonus. -- Colin 22:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- Sounds right to me, but this should be checked from time to time, because I'm still not convinced that WikiOutdoors is going to make it. The articles just aren't getting written there. Still, transparent links from here to there should help get them jump-started, so I say go for it; there are definite advantages, and no down sides that I can see. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:02, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- I'd love to see links back and forth between WO and Wikitravel. I am very committed to keeping WO alive and to reaching out to outdoor enthusiasts to grow the community and the information available on WikiOutdoors. Please let me know how WikiOutdoors can help support Wikitravel's goals too, beyond linking. Also, let me know if there's a best way to get started with the linking. Thanks again. Kirasw 21:13, 9 January 2007 (EST)
- On the Healdsburg 'Get Out' section, I added a link to WikiOutdoors pointing to a hike in the Armstrong Redwoods State Reserve. That way, folks are going directly to the trail information that's relevant to the page they are on. Is this how you'd like to proceed for articles that don't already list hikes? Thanks, Kirasw 13:30, 17 January 2007 (EST)
- Actually, we have a special way to make links with "sister sites" like Wikipedia or Open Directory. If you look in the left nav area of an article (say, Vienna), we have an "other sites" box at the bottom that links to related pages on other sites. I think that's probably what we'd like to do for WO. --Evan 14:00, 17 January 2007 (EST)
- So what must be done to make it so? Seems like there's a consensus that it would be a good thing to do. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:24, 19 January 2007 (EST)
- It's done. You can make a link to a WO page using [[wikioutdoors:...]]. It'd probably be good to get Wikitravel:Linking to WikiOutdoors started. --Evan 11:23, 31 January 2007 (EST)
- Thank you! I will get this page started, and we can get moving. Also, thanks for visiting WikiOutdoors Evan. Any feedback on how we can improve it or lessons learned from your experience with Wikitravel. Kirasw 13:00, 4 February 2007 (EST)
Ending cooperation with WikiOutdoors
Re: #WikiOutdoors as Viable Commodity?
If Bill-on-the-Hill says so, I'm inclined to agree based his experience as an admin on our site and theirs. Gorilla Jones 00:41, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Sounds reasonable to me. I just had a look and the site is indeed dead... even the owner's user talk page is filled with spam – cacahuate talk 02:28, 19 November 2007 (EST)
- Sounds sensible to me too. But is there anything we might do to salvage the situation? Give them software? Loan them admins? Suggest to IB that they buy the site (cheaply?) and fix it? Other possibilities? Also, since their license is compatible, do they have content worth copying here? Pashley 07:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)
- The IB buyout is an interesting idea. The problem there isn't lack of admins (I'm one, and the sparse traffic doesn't require many more admins than exist) but rather inaction on the part of the owners and their techies, who don't seem able to put a spam blacklist in place, combined with a general disinterest in posting. It wouldn't really be that hard to fix the problems, if there was a techie to do it. As for whether the content is worth copying here, I'd say that it's "worth" preserving, but scratches a different itch than Wikitravel does. The content consists mainly of fairly detailed trail guides on the one hand, and reviews of outfitters, tour operators, etc., on the other. Some of it is reasonably good stuff (I say modestly, having written a lot of the good stuff...), but it doesn't mesh well with our objectives and definitions of articles. So yeah, an IB buyout might be the best solution: keep it separate, devote small amounts of techie time to fixing it, and raise its profile so that people actually contribute. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)