It looks like a fake, they are trying to sell you stuff ... The wiki is only used to create links to commercial websites. --zeno 13:25, May 24, 2004 (EDT)
I removed the link, because the site is not available any more. --zeno 06:54, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, or has been asked before, but I noticed that another collaborative travel project, world66.com, is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license. Does this means that all their content can be posted here and vice versa? I would be grateful if someone could clear that up. Ta. Professorbiscuit 11:50, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)
All our content could be posted there. I'm dubious about World66's content, since it was originally a GFDL site, and they switched over to by-sa without getting the consent of their contributors. If we copy any of their content here, and somebody reuses it, and one of their contributors who submitted under the GFDL sues our downstream reuser... well, I feel that we've done that reuser a disservice.
It's also worth noting that most of the images at World66 are downloaded from other Web sites through Google images, and aren't submitted by contributors.
So, in general, I'd be really wary about copying info from World 66 here. --Evan 14:38, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)
I am also suspicious of the 10,000 destinations claim. I had a look at a couple of New Zealand articles I know are here, they are listed on World66 but have no content. They may have 10,000 destinations in their database but how many of those destinations have real content? At least Wikitravel tell you how many real article exist and gives clear indications of article size and popularity. The World66 Top Destinations list also have no indication on how they are ranked, (or who is paying for the ranking). Finally, the image search serves copyrighted images, though it certainly provides a link to them. Interesting project. I wonder what will happen when they redistribute Wikitravel content, which they must inevitably do if their destinations remain content poor. -- Huttite 07:44, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)
...So I registered on World66 ... I tried a few edits to see what I could and could not do. Mainly to bring the New Zealand content up to scratch. Compared to Wikitravel I found World66 very frustrating to work with. Each destination appears to be a leaf on a destination tree, with a rigid structure that once created cannot be changed or even deleted, moved or otherwise modified. I also believe that it does not attribute copyright appropriately as I was able to claim as my own work, copy that had been submitted by anonymous contributors (me logged out). Anonymous contributors are not credited. There also appears to be a background proofing clique that is not apparent from the front of the website. I noticed that a large number of blank pages were seemingly created by people submitting things like internet cafes and the like. Thus an internet cafe creates an entry (to point to their website) and presto improves their pagerank - sounds like they have a spammer problem too - I wonder why - This would also be an answer to the 10,000 destination claim. -- Huttite 05:51, 10 Jan 2005 (EST)
I came across this site http://www.world66.com, which is a commercial travel guide site which is user-editable (though probably not Wiki-based) and is licensed under Creative Commons. Yet all of the content seems to be different from WikiTravel. Most of the articles are large stubs with no listings, which were written up beforehand (i.e., not Wiki style). But there is one in place for practically every destination, so there are no conspicuous gaps like here. Interesting to see how this will develop, with World66 and Wikitravel able to use each other's content.
-- Paul Richter 02:31, 20 Apr 2005 (EDT)
World66 was originally a GFDL commercial guide, but it flopped, and the content was spontaneously relicensed under CC. The legality of this maneuver is somewhat questionable... also, they split each destinations in tons of tiny little stubs, making the thing much harder to read, navigate or print than Wikitravel. See also Wikitravel talk:List of related projects for further discussion of this. Jpatokal 02:39, 20 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Wiktravel looks much better in my opinion... Felix
Having also contributed to World66, in my opinion, Wikitravel is also much better to contribute to too.... -- Huttite 20:50, 23 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I've just stumbled upon the recently released StudyAbroad.com Wiki - It looks like a mixture of guide and travelogue, aimed at students currently or planning to study abroad. It also uses MediaWiki but there isn't even a copyright notice to it. Rmx 15:03, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)
Greetings fellow travelers.
Moments ago I stumbled upon
It helps people who are going to the same place discover each other.
So do you see this site as a competitor to Wikitravel,
or do you think collaborative links in both directions would be a good thing?
--DavidCary 15:32, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
I have started a wiki, http://www.wikiscuba.org, to describe scuba diving locations around the world. It was in part inspired by wikitravel and I thought there could be some wikitravellers interested in participating in the wikiscuba project as well. There is a discussion on Talk:Scuba diving between myself and Jpatokal. We initially disagreed as to whether this warranted an entirely different wiki, but I think we've come to the conclusion that a separate wiki with technical information about diving sites for divers might be preferable over the inclusion of more technical scuba information in wikitravel. In any case, it would be great to have as much 'cross-talk' as possible. I'm sure there are travellers who would benefit from having links to scuba diving information when planning a trip and many divers planning a diving trip would like to find information about the local culture/attractions.
I guess at this point, what I'm fishing (no pun intended) for is any suggestion on how best we could make the dive location wiki interface with wikitravel. Also if anyone is interested in participating in that project, leaving me a message on my talk page would be good. The database at wikiscuba was mostly a try to get acquainted with setting up the wiki. I wouldn't go and create accounts just yet.
Note that there's also another scuba diving wiki that is starting with general technical information about scuba diving (I didn't secure both the .org and .com domain names in the beginning, so ironically it's hosted at http://www.wikiscuba.com/wiki). Although that wiki is probably not interesting for most wikitravellers, it might be of interest to people who use wikiscuba(.org). I'm in the process of discussing with the instigator of the wikiscuba(.com) project to see if he would be open to fusing both projects together.Charles 17:23, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)
From what I read at the discussion page it looks like User:Jpatokal is still in favor of keeping scuba diving information here on Wikitravel. -- Mark 04:44, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
That would be correct. Of course I wish Charles the best of luck if he wishes to set up something entirely new, but I hate to see the wheel reinvented and the synergies to Wikitravel seem, to me, pretty obvious. Jpatokal 04:52, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
Thanks for correcting me. I'm not trying to take anything away from wikitravel. I think divers who are preparing an actual dive want more specific information about specific dive sites (depth, water temp., typical visibility, etc.). I don't think this information should be included in wikitravel. There have already been several discussions (about scuba diving, golf, etc.) and my feel is that detailed technical information shouldn't be on wikitravel. In that sense, I don't think it's reinventing the wheel. Call me stubborn, but I still fail to see how detailed scuba information would fit in wikitravel. I would love to see interaction and redirects between two wikis, of course. I think it would be beneficial to both. Charles 10:11, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
Yes, similar to the thoughts you had on Scuba, I was thinking about how information for golfers could be slotted in. Personally, I would much rather these (and other) areas could be kept within WikiTravel to avoid duplication of effort, rather than as seperate sites (wikigolf, wikiscuba). However, I am worried about possible conflicts with the goals/non-goals of wikiTravel. I would like somewhere to read/write details about any particular golf I would be travelling to (even tinpot local courses), however it they would likely not be important enough to list in the Do section, and I am hesitant to create a Golfing in xxx section for every location with a golf course (which is pretty much everywhere). This was why I was starting and appending courses to the Golf section, intending possibly to split it up later when we had multiple course information for a particular region.Hkpatv 01:24, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
My feeling on the matter is that there is a place for more specific activities on Wikitravel. For example, a general discussion of Bali might mention diving issues of interest to a general audience ("there will be a lot of divers here" or "if you ever wanted to learn to dive, there are a lot of good shops here"), but a more specific Diving in Lovina Beach would cover the more technical issues (depth, water temperature, things to see, etc.).
That said, I think there's more to say about scuba than would fit in a travel guide (equipment, safety, etc.) and there's definitely room in the world for a specific diving wiki. (Same goes for golf, surfing, offroad driving, or other targeted activities). So good luck on Wikiscuba (and wikigolf!) and let's make sure we keep lines of communication open. --Evan 10:58, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
Search will find every occurance of "golf" or "scuba" on Wikitravel and present each pagename. So if golf or scuba info is put on a subpage of the city page it is nearest too, for example San_Francisco/golf, that will display nicely in the Article title matches section of the Search results. Note that because there is a "golf" page in the (Main) namespace hitting ruturn (Go) takes you there instead of to Search results. So you must click Search instead of hitting return.
English teachers' Wiki
As of May 1, 2006, there is a new Wiki  specifically for English teachers.
Their section on travel suggests contributing general travel information to Wikitravel instead, putting only ESL-specific information on their new site.