Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpatokal | Hacker News Reader

As the founder of Wikitravel Press and an ex-Lonely Planet employee, it depresses me to no end that the world's default source of travel information is completely copyrighted and controlled by a totally opaque corporation knee-deep in hock to the travel industry's own commercial interests.

I continue to believe that Wikivoyage, the CC-licensed and Wikimedia-hosted fork of Wikitravel, holds great promise, but I've also come to believe that travel reviews of points of interest and the wiki format are conceptually incompatible. As this article illustrates, one man's Angkor Wat is another's pile of boring rocks, and you'd need to build a hybrid -- a Wiki for factual info, and unlimited personal reviews -- to get the best of both worlds.

https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page

View on HN

I'm quite saddened by the wiki voyage/travel situation.

It's improving, but voyage still trails travel's 4181 alexa rank at 22,638.

That's a huge gap. I've seen an overall drop in content quality and accuracy compared to the pre-internet brands era.

When I looked at the two last summer, it wasn't clear that the two were separate. I was surprised to learn of the difference.

Why was WikiVoyage chosen?

WikiVoyage forked to join the Wikimedia family of sites after WT's owner failed to keep its infrastructure up to date (30 seconds to make commit an edit). That the owners of WikiTravel (Internet Brands) literally sued contributors for this was less than helpful to WT's continued existence.

Disclosure: I was potentially an "unnamed co-conspirator" in the lawsuit.

This blog post of mine summarizes some of the key differences: http://gyrovague.com/2013/01/14/free-travel-guide-wikivoyage...

And this is my version of how the split came to be: http://gyrovague.com/2012/07/12/wikitravel-editors-abandon-i...

In hindsight, I phrased my question poorly -- sorry.

My question pertained more to branding. Why the name "WikiVoyage?"

I understand Wiki* namespace lock-in due to the Wikimedia relationship, but it doesn't seem like a great differentiator from WikiTravel. IMHO, I don't think the lay person gets the difference. Though "voyage" is a synonym for travel (and the word for travel in French), it associates closer to sailing and cruises.

That said, I did find your blog entries interesting. Thanks!

Because a) there was an earlier German fork set up under that name, and b) the community could not agree on a better name. Personally, I liked "Wikinomad", but them's the breaks.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikivoyage/Naming_Process

>I continue to believe that Wikivoyage, the CC-licensed and Wikimedia-hosted fork of Wikitravel, holds great promise...

I can't believe in Wikivoyage at all. Wikitravel has been flawed from the outset and forking into wikivoyage has succeeded in making two bad sites. Trying to apply travel to the (current) wiki model is not going to work.

>...you'd need to build a hybrid -- a Wiki for factual info, and unlimited personal reviews -- to get the best of both worlds.

Tripadvisor does pretty much what you are describing, with a strong emphasis on selling you a hotel room, tour or whatnot. And it is a little light on factual information and heavy on fake opinion.

Time for someone to build something better.

No, Tripadvisor's all about reviews of points of interest (hotels, restaurants, etc), with a messy jungle of forums bolted onto the side. It's near-useless for the context that guidebooks (and Wikivoyage) excel at: how to get there, a place's history, safety advice, etc.

On my last trip I used Wikipedia (not wikitravel) to find which airlines serviced an certain airport.

Interesting. The answer here gives a good idea about WikiTravel and WikiVoyage - www.quora.com/How-is-Wikivoyage-different-from-Wikitravel

I will move to WikiVoyage now, but I have to say -- WikiTravel still benefits from a better (and a more famous) name. Many people won't even get to know this difference.

I contribute occasionally to Trip Advisor but realize that I don't know who owns my reviews: them or me?

Could I export my reviews from there and put them elsewhere if I wanted to?

Ah nevermind here we go, fun times:

> you grant TripAdvisor and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sublicensable right to (a) use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter devised, for any purpose

> If it is determined that you retain moral rights (including rights of attribution or integrity) in the Content, you hereby declare that (a) you do not require that any personally identifying information be used in connection with the Content, or any derivative works of or upgrades or updates thereto; (b) you have no objection to the publication, use, modification, deletion and exploitation of the Content by TripAdvisor or its licensees, successors and assigns; (c) you forever waive and agree not to claim or assert any entitlement to any and all moral rights of an author in any of the Content; and (d) you forever release TripAdvisor, and its licensees, successors and assigns, from any claims that you could otherwise assert against TripAdvisor by virtue of any such moral rights.

Wow. Thanks. It's very possible that these clauses are illegal in many countries, but nonetheless it's good to know, and chilling.

All UGC sites need a browser plugin that presents the UGC ownership clauses in a nearby yellow box, whenever someone is submitting new content.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com