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.
Why was WikiVoyage chosen?
Disclosure: I was potentially an "unnamed co-conspirator" in the lawsuit.
And this is my version of how the split came to be: http://gyrovague.com/2012/07/12/wikitravel-editors-abandon-i...
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!
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.
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.
Could I export my reviews from there and put them elsewhere if I wanted to?
> 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.
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