Men, beware those seed-pods!
Swept in from the Wikitravel:Travellers' pub:
Every now and then I stumble across a little nugget of localised travel wisdom on Wikitravel that makes me laugh out loud, and have a little more faith in the project's reason for being. I refer in particular to the observation made by user User:184.108.40.206 on the Fez page, under the heading "Berber Pharmacy". How many other guidebooks can offer advice that detailed! Allyak 05:44, 26 Jul 2005 (EDT)
General ramble and a few questions
Swept in from the Pub:
One of the things I love about travel guides is the sense of adventure they instil. Well-written guides don’t only inform and educate, but they inspire you to venture to far-flung destinations, amuse you with wry observations on local culture and provide you with insights into history and observant tips on how to make the best of your travels.
Which is why, when I look across WikiTravel—a website which I presume is written largely by passionate travel nuts like myself—I’m amazed at how dry the tone is across most articles. Entries for most cities, even some of the most awe-inspiring, read like encyclopaedic entries from a university textbook. Beijing, for instance, isn’t described as a complex child of Communism and Feudalism slowly awakening to the drumbeat of the West, but “as the capital of the most populous country in the world ... well known for its flatness and regular construction”.
As a little experiment, visit the WikiTravel entry for a city you haven’t travelled to yet and read the introduction and Understand sections. Does it make you want to travel there? Now compare that to the little intros published on sites like Lonely Planet, Rough Guide or Fodors. As an example, here are four guide book introductions for Beijing:
- If your visions of Beijing are centred around pods of Maoist revolutionaries in buttoned-down tunics performing exercise in Tiananmen Square, put them to rest ... today's youth are more interested in MTV than Mao, rhetorical slogans from the Cultural Revolution have given way to butchered English splashed across designer-copy T-shirts, and expats, tourists, foreign investors and a mobile phone-toting hip-oisie are mixing it up with the bureaucrats.
- The brash modernity of BEIJING (the name means "northern capital") comes as a surprise to many visitors. Traversed by freeways (it's the proud owner of more than a hundred flyovers) and spiked with highrises, this vivid metropolis is China at its most dynamic. For the last thousand years, the drama of China's imperial history was played out here, with the emperor sitting enthroned at the centre of the Chinese universe, and though today the city is a very different one, it remains spiritually and politically the heart of the country.
- Beijing's historic, cultural, and political preeminence dates back nearly six centuries. Yet, in spite of devastating urban renewal, modern Beijing continues to convey an imperial grandeur … Its 12 million residents are a compelling mix of old and new. Early morning taiqi (tai chi) enthusiasts, bearded old men with caged songbirds, and amateur Peking Opera crooners still frequent the city's many charming parks. … The result is an ironic mix of new prosperity and throwback politics: socialist mantras emblazoned on electronic billboards hung at shopping arcades that sell Gucci and Big Macs.
- Beijing (北京) is the capital of the most populous country in the world, the People's Republic of China. It was also the seat of the Qing dynasty emperor until the formation of a republic in 1911, so it has rich historical sites, and important government institutions. The city is well known for its flatness and regular construction. There is only one hill to be found in the city limits (in Jingshan Park to the north of the famous Forbidden City), and like the configuration of the Forbidden City, it has concentric "ring roads", which are actually rectangular, that go around the metropolis.
This is one example, but it is by no means rare. Although there’s some great writing and prose on WikiTravel, I think the extract above is fairly representative of the vast majority of entries.
So, what’s your point?
I appreciate that WikiTravel contributors aren’t necessarily travel writers or English majors and my comparison is a little unfair in that regard. I also understand that WikiTravel is very focused on practical travel advice, rather than descriptive prose. But is it possible to have factual advice that just happens to be entertaining to read as well?
It was one particular edit that got me thinking down this line. A user changed part of my entry on Iran to tone down the, well, tone a little. The two grains of humour I’d sprinkled the copy with while drafting the entry were sanitised into a factually identically but more ‘correct’ and straight-laced account. Now tone is inherently subjective and I appreciate that just because I find a quip funny, many others may not (and given my sense of humour most probably won't). Puccini didn’t like my tone and changed the edit. Fair enough.
But a thought occurred to me: if we’re blindly chasing a tone to satisfy everybody’s tastes (or get the fewest people offside), then won’t we ultimately end up with the bland language that seems to be dominating WikiTravel at the moment? All of the non WikiTravel examples above—in fact most entertaining guidebooks in general—usually offer some kind of opinion or make some kind of remark that somebody may take offence to and edit out in a wiki environment. And how would you defend such language? A fact can be debated and proven, but tone and observations are inherently subjective and therefore harder to support.
Is this even problem, or is seeking language that makes you want to book a plane ticket right now asking for too much from a wiki publication? Does WikiTravel aspire to be something more than a compendium of train timetables, museum opening hours and hotel addresses? Should it? Can any wiki group publishing effort produce a consistent tone other than one of factual detachment? Can consensus produce something that’s not only useful, but enjoyable to read?
Lotsa questions ... not enough sleep.
Allyak 08:36, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)
- I think that it's absolutely possible to have strong, well-written prose in a wiki and in Wikitravel. I realize an awful lot of Wikitravel right now is flat and boring; there are also lots of other things that need work. People will sometimes mistakenly edit an article to make it less lively; they will also put in advertisements, misspellings, and photographs of their own bottom. I don't think you should draw any particular conclusions on editorial policy or the nature of wiki by one or another edit or contributor.
- Let me also say that lively writing is a goal, and I don't think a travel guide is finished -- a star -- until its "prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable." To quote neutral point of view,
- A "neutral point of view" also doesn't mean using bland, empty, vapid, or timorous prose. Wikitravellers should feel free -- nay, obligated -- to use concrete, lively descriptions that paint a clear, concise picture of the subject in question. "Greek restaurant just off the plaza" doesn't tell anyone anything. "Dingy but passable Greek restaurant with surly waitstaff, rich and generous portions of moussaka, tinny stereo system" gives a lot more info. You don't have to tone down your writing in Wikitravel just to remain neutral.
- I know that I in particular am a source of much boring, flat writing, since I make a point of moving and restructuring articles to fit our manual of style without actually knowing anything about the places I'm writing about. So I'll take someone's long, rambling essay about their day in Marseilles and try to cull the factual details. Oftentimes this means taking a paragraph like this:
- For those who love the finer things in life -- specifically food and fine wines! -- Marseilles has a universe of options to serve every taste and fancy. Who couldn't love the spectacular array of fine dishes and full-bodied wines provided by a panoply of publicans in this city? The fine diner will find themselves best served by heading to Rue Main, where a gustatory ecstasia awaits in the form of Chez Larry's. Found at the 112 point on the street so named, Chez Larry's should often be telephoned in advance to secure a reservation in order to be insured of excellent service. Those prudent souls who wish to employ this method should use the reservations telephone number at 52-331-2218, which will put them directly through to a reservations agent who will be more than happy to assist them. You can call from your hotel or even call from home before you arrive. In a pinch, you can use a public pay telephone or borrow someone's cellular phone in order to make this important phone call. But don't call on a Friday, because that's the one day out of the week that Chez Larry's is closed to visitors (for reasons unknown). Otherwise seatings are available for gourmets and gourmands alike starting at the hours of six o'clock in the evening. So, go, enjoy the Italian food and drink that await you at Chez Larry's! Once you are finished with your meal, which will be before midnight since that is when the restaurant closes, you can seek other forms of entertainment throughout the city, whatever your desire! It is up to you.
- ...and changing it to:
- Chez Larry's, 112 Rue Main, 52-331-2218. M-Thu, Sa-Su 6PM-12AM. Italian food.
- I think that's just tightening up some purple silliness into the essential information; it's no less visual or concrete, but sadly much shorter than the original. Usually I won't have been to the restaurant in question, so I'll have nothing to add.
- I know I also make stub articles out of navigational branchpoints with ledes like "Independence is a city in Missouri" -- definitely not Pulitzer material. This may be a seed for more boring writing -- we should probably make a point of livening up outline-status articles to set a good example.
- Maj wants to start a Wikitravel:Writers' Expedition to stimulate contribution by writers and editors, especially those not necessarily writing about their own experience. You may be interested in helping out. --Evan 11:23, 20 Jan 2006 (EST)
- I very much agree with Allyak, and I consider this issue one of my pet peeves; see eg. Talk:East Asia and the near-edit war over changes like this.
- However, unlike most travel guides Wikitravel is edited by locals, not travelers, who have a vested interest in making the place sound "nice" and thus get offended by flippant, if funny, comments about sushi and ninjas when, dadgummit, visitors to Japan should be impressed by technology and multinational corporations instead. And then there's also the heavy crossover of Wikipedians who bring the mantra of "boring is NPOV and thus good" with them. The latter can possibly be educated with time, but the former, I'm afraid, is an unwinnable battle that can't really be solved without somehow separating factual and editorial content. Jpatokal 03:49, 21 Jan 2006 (EST)
- Wikitravel is edited by locals, not travelers is untrue. Wikitravel is edited by locals and travelers. --Evan 14:58, 23 Jan 2006 (EST)
- I meant that most of the blancmange-porridge edits come from locals defending "their" turf, not travelers... Jpatokal 04:06, 20 October 2006 (EDT)
- Thanks for getting back to me on that. --Evan 09:35, 18 Jun 2014 (EDT)
Strengthening the policy
This is one of the most difficult policies to "enforce," since the nature of what is desirable, lively travel writing and what is over-the-top is so subjective. Currently, our only real recourse when we have controversy is to discuss on the talk page, but as Wikitravel grows, we will have more and more differences of opinions on proper tone in articles, and more and more time will be diverted from productive travel writing to caviling over very specific language.
To make this policy easier to "enforce," and to prevent too much time-wasting, I'd propose the following addition:
- If you find writing that seems informal or sarcastic to an unacceptable degree, do not simply "dull down" the prose. Instead, replace it with travel writing that is both more acceptable and just as lively.
I think this would reduce the work necessary to keep our guides full of lively writing (and that is difficult in a collaborative wiki project). Since human nature is generally more disposed to complaining and debating trifles than doing real work, this should discourage caviling, which can soak up the time of productive contributors. Moreover, it would add extra incentive to new contributors to really try their hand at travel writing, hopefully leading to more productive contributions over time. --Peter Talk 04:59, 30 May 2009 (EDT)
- Well, I take the lack of response to mean this is pretty uncontroversial, so I've gone ahead and added this. --Peter Talk 21:42, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
On collaboration and style
swept in from pub:
Andrew Lih makes some comments about the relative unpopularity of Wikinews, but I think those comments may also provide some insight into why our tone guidelines are so hard to follow. http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collaborative-journalism-project/ LtPowers 21:23, 10 February 2010 (EST)
- Could someone atttempt to summarize, which of WikiNews specifics, or which conclusions from the article could be extrapolated to Wikitravel? --DenisYurkin 22:49, 10 February 2010 (EST)
- Basically just that they believe that wikis are not well suited to deadlines and group narrative writing (creativity in prose).
- I tend to agree, but hope that our lack of deadlines and our tone policy (which is ever more strict when applied to our higher quality articles) may give us an advantage over Wikinews in attracting writing that is engaging and fun to read. If we wait long enough, hopefully someone interested in travel writing (surely there are a lot of such people in the world!) will come along and write an entertaining lead for Khobar or Kearney, Nebraska. Enforcing the "replace lively writing only with more lively writing" rule should help us keep it entertaining. --Peter Talk 23:01, 10 February 2010 (EST)
- Enforcing the "replace lively writing only with more lively writing" rule should help us keep it entertaining
- I don't remember we have such a policy anywhere here--have I missed something?
- And does it imply that if edit changes lively writing to something dull, while adding more useful info, it likely should be reverted? Or probably I misunderstood the point. --DenisYurkin 14:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)
- See the last sentence in Wikitravel:Tone. If an edit dulls down lively writing, but adds good content, I think the dulling down should be reverted, but the new useful content integrated into the existing writing. --Peter Talk 15:06, 12 February 2010 (EST)
Swept in from the Wikitravel:Travellers' Pub
So we've got one guy trying to change the lead on Chicago because he thought it sounded like it was written by a local tourism board. And we've got one guy trying to change Disney Cruise Line because it's "too promotional". "Sounds like a brochure". "Hyperbole". Neither one wants to take 'no' for an answer, and I'm getting a little tired of having to constant reverts on both articles. Am I nuts? Is there some universal truth I'm missing here, that a travel guide shouldn't try to promote its content? That a bit of excitement about one's destination should come through in the writing? Or do these articles really go too far? LtPowers 20:21, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
- With respect to Disney Cruise Line, the text seems OK and if the anonymous user isn't willing to try to gain consensus for a change on the talk page then a revert is warranted. With respect to Chicago it would be good to get some of the major contributors to that article involved (as you've suggested on the talk page), although they seem to have temporarily gone missing. That article's lede isn't my favorite, but I'm not convinced that the anon's changes are much of an improvement. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:36, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
- While the anon on the Chicago article made some decent points, his/her mix of lies and jokes in his/her edits make it very difficult to accept any changes s/he makes (at least back when I was keeping up on it). That user appeared to be more willing to discuss things and I think I recall some decent suggestions/edits if they could just cut out the jokes and sarcasm.
- The only thing that might sound promotional on the Disney article is "but Disney has placed their focus on quality over quantity. They've taken the design principles and customer service standards that make a Disney theme park such a memorable experience and adapted them to fit the cruising industry. I haven't looked at the Disney article." It feels a little promotional, since it states these things as though they are definite and universally known/accepted. It could be softened by saying that they've "attempted", "tried", "seem to have achieved..", some other wording that leaves the level of success of their efforts up to some debate by the traveler. The other parts of the user's deletions seem to be deleting adjectives and other descriptive words/phrases that keep the article lively. If the user refuses to discuss on the talk page, they could be temporarily banned or the page could be temporarily protected.
- I think a good travel guide has to promote the destination, though. Even articles about places with a lot of drawbacks like Somalia should be written in a way that showcases all the great things that it has to offer. Otherwise, why bother having articles if there is nothing good worth saying? A general positivity about each destination is in line with both the tone and "be fair" policies. ChubbyWimbus 23:43, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
- Can I say I don't really care for either version of the lead on the Chicago article? Both strike me as being too literary and difficult to understand. I like when Wikitravel articles are fun to read, but in both versions I make it as far as "hog butchering" and realize I have no idea what I've just been told. "Heart of comedy"? "Jazz found its swing"? The second and third paras are much easier to understand, right until I get to "pride of tired feet and eyes raised once more to the sky", which I'm still trying to decipher the meaning of. --BigPeteB 01:19, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
Need suggestions on information added/tone depleted
I found this edit today and I'm not sure what to do with it. It has added some useful details -- though I don't know how necessary the details are, and they may become out of date quickly -- but at the expense of the conversational tone I'd been trying to follow. It has changed a couple of casual paragraphs into a large block of bulleted data and link-heavy parentheticals, and I'm just not sure that it's an improvement.
Does anyone have suggestions on how to deal with edits such as this?
-- LtPowers 11:15, 7 December 2011 (EST)
- The editors choice is to add the additional facts to the previous version, or change the tone of the latest. Personally, I can only pick up 3 facts that were introduced, and I'd be inclined to add them quickly to the previous version. --Inas 15:23, 7 December 2011 (EST)
- This is what remains of the changes after I fixed them up. Good? LtPowers 13:55, 9 December 2011 (EST)
- A bit of a compromise, but seems okay to me. I think at much an issue is how many facts (routes numbers, timetable info) we want to include in a guide to an English speaking destination where transportation guides are well developed. To me, in these destinations you want to know what is available and how it compares for cost and convenience. --Inas 17:25, 11 December 2011 (EST)
I just noticed that Ray Bradbury's quote had been moved to the bottom, with comment, "I love quotes, but that one will just discourage many non-native speakers to read on. Therefore, moved from the top." I restored it to the top, because I honestly think it the most important thing written on the page, and really think it is the first thing people should see when referred here. But I have given it an infobox-ish makeover to let non-native speakers feel comfortable in moving on to the plainer English below. --Peter Talk 21:49, 27 March 2012 (EDT)