3 ms·

It's not different, except for a few ads on each page. The main difference is that wikipedia pages will now link to wikivoyage instead of wikitravel. Google w

by tnuc 14y ago

It's not different, except for a few ads on each page. The main difference is that wikipedia pages will now link to wikivoyage instead of wikitravel. Google will still have wikitravel at the top of the search rankings for some time so it is only a matter of time to see who wins. <cynical> Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. </cynical> If you read; http://gyrovague.com/2013/01/14/free-travel-guide-wikivoyage-comes-out-of-beta-and-is-already-kicking-ass/ http://gyrovague.com/2013/01/14/free-travel-guide-wikivoyage... You will read how it is going to take on Tripadvisor et al. I really don't expect it to. I just hope it doesn't turn into the stupid edit warring problems that exists with wikipedia.

jpatokal 14y ago
Author of that link here. Did you actually read it? I specifically state that it's not the "nightmare" the media's making it out to be. Wikimedia is funded entirely by donations and the vast majority of them go to pay for Wikipedia. While adding eg. hotel bookings to Wikivoyage would be a near-guaranteed money spinner and, if done right, a genuine enhancement to the site, it would be an uphill battle to get the occasionally rabidly anti-capitalist wider Wikimedia community to accept this taint of Mammon. ... This also explains why, as a travel industry insider myself, I don’t think Wikivoyage poses an existential threat to TripAdvisor, Google or, for that matter, Lonely Planet: it’s simply not playing the same game. Quite the contrary, it promises to be a great resource of information for everybody. In the same way that Google pulls in data for Wikipedia for its search results and Lonely Planet’s website uses images sourced from Wikimedia Commons, other travel guides will be able to complement their own content with additional data from Wikivoyage. Disclaimer: I work for Lonely Planet, but these are my opinions, not the company's.

by tnuc 14y ago

jpatokal 14y ago

Author of that link here. Did you actually read it? I specifically state that it's not the "nightmare" the media's making it out to be. Wikimedia is funded entirely by donations and the vast majority of them go to pay for Wikipedia. While adding eg. hotel bookings to Wikivoyage would be a near-guaranteed money spinner and, if done right, a genuine enhancement to the site, it would be an uphill battle to get the occasionally rabidly anti-capitalist wider Wikimedia community to accept this taint of Mammon. ... This also explains why, as a travel industry insider myself, I don’t think Wikivoyage poses an existential threat to TripAdvisor, Google or, for that matter, Lonely Planet: it’s simply not playing the same game. Quite the contrary, it promises to be a great resource of information for everybody. In the same way that Google pulls in data for Wikipedia for its search results and Lonely Planet’s website uses images sourced from Wikimedia Commons, other travel guides will be able to complement their own content with additional data from Wikivoyage. Disclaimer: I work for Lonely Planet, but these are my opinions, not the company's.