Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Wikitravel talk:Press coverage

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 09:22, 4 December 2007 by Pashley (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This kinda overlaps with the (dormant) Wikitravel:Awards and mentions page. Jpatokal 01:56, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Good call. What should we do with this? I'd like to have Wikitravel:Awards and mentions a bit more organized though and updated regularly if we redirect of get rid of this all together. -- Sapphire
P.S. I'm willing to go through that list and make it conform to something like I've started here if anyone has any ideas about which way we should head down. -- Sapphire

Terribly out of date[edit]

There must be a better way! — Ravikiran 08:36, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Anecdotes or interview subjects wanted for story on Wikitravel[edit]

Archived from the Pub:

I'm writing a piece on Wikitravel for JetStar's inflight magazine, and am looking for Wikitravellers who can say, in their own words, why Wikitravel is the greatest thing since sliced bread or tell some funny anecdote regarding how it's helped them on their travels. Please drop me a line at jpatokal@iki.fi if interested. Jpatokal 02:18, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

Slate article[edit]

Archived from the Pub:

There's a not-very-positive article on Slate by someone who tried traveling (in Thailand) using only web resources (primarily Wikitravel). His main criticism is that Wikitravel is missing information and too "neutral". - Todd VerBeek 07:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Todd, do you live in a cave? Just kidding. 8) -- Sapphire(Talk) • 08:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I do. I tried getting out once, but couldn't find a decent online travel guide. :) - Todd VerBeek 08:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Good article and I think we should pay some attention to it. The writer has a very valid point, our Be Fair rule can sometimes cause us not to give quality, useful information. --NJR_ZA 03:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Just crawled out of my cave and read the slate article! The author makes a very valid point about the missing 'quality' information. As a long time LP user, I can vouch for the fact that most people use LP as an effective mechanism for filtering all the info out there. Just wondering if anyone has given any thought to how wikitravel can do the same thing without compromising its openness? (Or, is there a 'weaknesses of wikitravel' page out there where perceived weaknesses can be discussed and solutions explored?)--Wandering 17:47, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I think that's sort of a later problem, curious to see how it pans out myself. It will probably become harder to retain a point of view in a listing once there are 50 people watching an article and trying to come to a compromise on a hotel blurb. guess we'll just have to wait and see how things develop, and be willing to change policy, etc to suit the changing needs of the site. the fact that we put a limit on how many listings should be in an article will probably help at some point... just keeping the top 8 or 9 for any given section, based on reviews should a) weed out the crap and b) encourage people to write even more lively and descriptive reviews. All that said, the writer of that article is pretty clueless... if he took one of our star articles like Singapore and traveled with it and disliked it then fine... he would have a point, since we were bold enough to say it was a star article, and it failed him. But he was traveling using articles that we fully admit (with their status box at the bottom of each page) weren't complete. And if you look at the log book that Sapphire references above you'll see that he also didn't realize we had district articles for Bangkok, which is why he had such a tough time there... we've made revisions and tried to make districts more obvious since this article came out. – cacahuate talk 01:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
I didn't see his article when it first came out (because I was traveling in Thailand with Wikitravel articles at the time, appropriately enough - and yeah, the Bangkok article did wonders for me). I love his contention that if he didn't get more than two hotel listings from the Wikitravel article, he'd be sleeping on the street. How does he think these hotel listings are created in the first place? People show up, look at a room, agree to rent it, and later write about it. So if the two Wikitravel listings are booked, go find a third and add it to the article. That's not a disaster scenario. If he's that dependent on being led to every stop, the Bangkok tuk-tuk drivers will eat him alive. How many suits, jewels and ping-pong balls would he be coming home with? It was a lazily written article on a lot of counts. But it probably drove some traffic our way. ("Travelfish"? Seriously? Something called "Travelfish" has good writing? I'm going to spend my time adding comments about whether I agree or disagree with the official opinion of something called a travelfish?)
Cacahaute makes an important point about the changes that more traffic will bring. I don't know how that will work. As much as I'd like more people's input into the Chicago articles, for example, I'd hate to see them become big masses of negotiations and, as a result, as badly written as their Wikipedia equivalents. Gorilla Jones 01:59, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
Umm... Travelfish is actually a pretty good site. Not as good as WT, of course =P, but they limit their scope to "Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam" and they do a decent job, although it's very much a traditional cathedral model — only anointed editors can write, and they're paid for it.
And I think the whole idea of Extra was that eg. the hotel listing bits of Wikitravel can be stripped to the lowest common (factual) denominator, and opinionated reviews shifted over to Extra. Jpatokal 02:23, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
> just keeping the top 8 or 9 for any given section, based on reviews should a) weed out the crap and b) encourage people to write even more lively and descriptive reviews
But most of the time I see that lively reviews are reduced to a shortest possible "essential facts only" 1..3-sentence description. Or are you talking about reviews at Extra? --DenisYurkin 16:49, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages