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

Wikitravel talk:Terms of use

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 22:57, 14 January 2013 by IB-Dick (Talk | contribs)

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

Purpose[edit]

So, we have yet to have a serious problem with any systematic abuse by any Wikitravel users. I don't really even want to discuss the possibility that much, since it's kind of a big downer.

But I would much rather have some policy in place before we have a big crisis than try to make some up on the fly. So, I wrote this terms of use, and hopefully that will help us make difficult decisions when they come up.

Both Maj and I think this is about the lowest common denominator of what we can accept from people using our server. If you're working on the project and trying to reach the project's goals, and you're willing to work like an adult with other people, then, hey, that should be enough for us to eventually work something out, for any problem. But if you're using the server to share movies of some football injury, or if you refuse to either accept or try to change stated policy, then it's time for you to move on.

I'm working on making database dumps in the Mediawiki database format, as well as Docbook XML format, available for forking. I think that as long as the barrier to creating your own version of Wikitravel is low, it's pretty fair to ask people to respect our goals and other contributors. If they don't agree with some of that, they can take the content and go elsewhere. --Evan 15:33, 25 Dec 2003 (PST)

Terms of Service?[edit]

Swept in from the Pub:

Do we need any kind of Terms of Service page? (Wikipedia seems to feel they don't need that although they do have drafts that seem to end up concluding, rightly or wrongly, that there is no service and therefore no terms of service because there is no formal service relationship, thus no agreement or terms.)

--Rogerhc 01:35, 6 March 2006 (EST)

We have a Wikitravel:Terms of use. Is that about what you were looking for? --Evan 07:19, 6 March 2006 (EST)
Yes, thank you Evan. --Rogerhc 00:00, 18 April 2006 (EDT)

Disclaimers?[edit]

Swept in from the Pub:

1. Why does the Disclaimers link at the bottom of every page go to an Old Bug Reports page? (Is this a mistake?)

2. Do we need a Disclaimer page? (Wikipedia has one, several actually.)

--Rogerhc 01:35, 6 March 2006 (EST)

If we don't have a real Disclaimers page, how about redirecting Wikitravel:General disclaimer to Wikitravel:Terms of use instead? That's at least a little closer-to-topic than the bug-reports page. - Todd VerBeek 12:36, 10 April 2006 (EDT)

I'm going to re-iterate question number 2. Is there no disclaimer on wikitravel? (can't find one, but I can find a few discussions calling for one) Sorry to be boring. I find talking about legalistic details quite tedious, but I am surprised that there is no disclaimer at all at the moment.

I just got thinking about it because I found myself adding some safety advice. I think health & safety issues are the main point to cover in a disclaimer, particularly as every page has a 'stay safe' section giving safety advice. -- Harry Wood 07:16, 18 December 2006 (EST)

robots.txt[edit]

   Read-only scripts must read the robots.txt file for Wikitravel and follow its suggestions.

There may be problems with that...

http://wikitravel.org/shared/Tech:Fix_Duplicate_Content shows there is no robots.txt file on the mobile site. 91.85.60.206 15:44, 15 November 2012 (EST)

Well spotted! --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:55, 15 November 2012 (EST)

The rule regarding scripts and bots following the robots.txt file is accurate, but it's also less necessary then before. Previously, the robots.txt file contained close to a thousand lines of rules, while the current file only offers one: "Everyone can crawl everything they want as quickly as they want." So, should this rule exist? Yes, because we may at some point decide to add more rules in there, but effectively it offers no restrictions. We should add a copy of the robots.txt file to the mobile site, but thankfully there is no damage done by it not existing.

Just a little history... a couple years ago the site was constantly hammered by scripts and bots that caused a host of performance issues. As we scaled the site's capacity, we alleviated most of the performance issues which allowed us to remove many of the rules in the file. We have also migrated some of the rules to in page meta robots tags, which offer more specific directives as to how we would like individual pages handled by crawlers, scripts and bots.

IB-Dick 17:53, 14 January 2013 (EST)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages