Wikitravel / Wikivoyage

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:56 am

The Signpost has a report on the Wikitravel / Wikivoyage RfC, about a potential travel wiki to be added to Wikimedia's website portfolio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _and_notes

Internet Brands, the current owners of Wikitravel, are clearly not happy:

On 21 August, Internet Brands' legal department set up an account on the site and issued this warning to eight volunteer editors: "Please be advised that your recent actions communicating directly with members of Wikitravel could put you in violation of numerous federal and state laws. We strongly urge you to cease and desist all action detrimental to Wikitravel.org. If you persist in this course of conduct, you will potentially be a named defendant, and therefore liable for any and all resulting damages."

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Req ... s_Response

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:48 am

Do you think we should offer some negative information about Wikipedia to the Wikitravel people, or just let them duke it out?

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:41 am

EricBarbour wrote:Do you think we should offer some negative information about Wikipedia to the Wikitravel people, or just let them duke it out?

Had a quick scan through it. The debate is essentially one where those who want it controlled (or not) by the WMF look through the eyes of the law according to Wikipedia (there are numerous quotes like admins were appointed by the site owners Without Community Approval OMG!) and the general presumption is that Wikipedia is the One True Way therefore it is obvious that it should be part of the dysfunctional family that is Wikipedia.

It looks like the site owner has been doing things where he views admins have been disloyal and have been lobbying for the change so he has de-admined them, but as far as I am concerned, that is quite reasonable.

I have no view whether the old management are any better or worse, and with a freely licensed site then forking is quite legal it would appear so there is little to be done. There seems to be precious little discussion about what the concrete benefits to the site are, 99% of the discussion is about Wiki-Politics. Therefore it is quite likely that what will happen is that the fork will occur, some n'ere-do-well adminss will take effective ownership of the site, driving out any reasonable contributors and then WikiTravel will slowly die, strangled by its own politics, while at the same time leaving the old site weakened by the split.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:41 am

EricBarbour wrote:Do you think we should offer some negative information about Wikipedia to the Wikitravel people, or just let them duke it out?

http://www.lotsofjokes.com/calling_the_jackass.asp

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:42 am

Frankly I think travel guides, consumer reports, and DIY manuals are probably better suited to the Wikimedia Way than, say, building encyclopedias.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:40 am

SB_Johnny wrote:Frankly I think travel guides, consumer reports, and DIY manuals are probably better suited to the Wikimedia Way than, say, building encyclopedias.

I'd agree with you. However, what concerns me is that instead of being a fresh, separate, project, which I guess it is at the moment, the culture that pervades Wikipedia could actually damage this project.

I guess I should add that just because it has the word Wiki in front of it, it should not be assumed to be inherently evil. I am less convinced that if the WMF or Jimbo are involved that the same can be said.

ErrantX · Unread post by **ErrantX** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:53 am

dogbiscuit wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:Frankly I think travel guides, consumer reports, and DIY manuals are probably better suited to the Wikimedia Way than, say, building encyclopedias.
I'd agree with you. However, what concerns me is that instead of being a fresh, separate, project, which I guess it is at the moment, the culture that pervades Wikipedia could actually damage this project.

I guess I should add that just because it has the word Wiki in front of it, it should not be assumed to be inherently evil. I am less convinced that if the WMF or Jimbo are involved that the same can be said.

It's spam filled junk anyway.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:05 pm

ErrantX wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:Frankly I think travel guides, consumer reports, and DIY manuals are probably better suited to the Wikimedia Way than, say, building encyclopedias.
I'd agree with you. However, what concerns me is that instead of being a fresh, separate, project, which I guess it is at the moment, the culture that pervades Wikipedia could actually damage this project.

I guess I should add that just because it has the word Wiki in front of it, it should not be assumed to be inherently evil. I am less convinced that if the WMF or Jimbo are involved that the same can be said.
It's spam filled junk anyway.

Funnily enough I had a look at a couple of local places and decided it was not a project to loose any sleep over.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:22 pm

lilburne wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Do you think we should offer some negative information about Wikipedia to the Wikitravel people, or just let them duke it out?
http://www.lotsofjokes.com/calling_the_jackass.asp

Wishful thinking. I'd pay good money to see two patrollers beat the crap out of each other.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:24 am

dogbiscuit wrote:
ErrantX wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:Frankly I think travel guides, consumer reports, and DIY manuals are probably better suited to the Wikimedia Way than, say, building encyclopedias.
I'd agree with you. However, what concerns me is that instead of being a fresh, separate, project, which I guess it is at the moment, the culture that pervades Wikipedia could actually damage this project.

I guess I should add that just because it has the word Wiki in front of it, it should not be assumed to be inherently evil. I am less convinced that if the WMF or Jimbo are involved that the same can be said.
It's spam filled junk anyway.
Funnily enough I had a look at a couple of local places and decided it was not a project to loose any sleep over.

That's why they might do a good job of it. The deep rooted hatred of "paid editors" might actually produce a modicum of payoff.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:25 pm

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 21897.html

Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org
2:21 PM (2 minutes ago)

to Wikimedia
Hi all,

on behalf of the Board of Trustees I'm glad to announce the following
statement about the travel guide RfC
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests ... avel_Guide :

Through the RfC, it is clear our community has reached consensus in
favor of the creation of a travel guide. The Board supports the
community decision to create a dedicated project for the collection of
free multilingual travel resources. We believe there is an enormous
amount of space for multiple wiki-based projects with travel content
and welcome the contributions of community members from around the
world.
We look forward to having a project that can provide additional
content for other travel sites to reuse and benefit from, which we
believe this site will do.

As a project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, it will be subject
to the movement vision, mission, and values, as well as the Foundation
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. However, like all other Wikimedia
projects, the community of contributors is responsible for the
management and creation of the content, policies, rules, and
governance of the new project. The community will be responsible for
organizing the travel guide project, and once they have put all of the
necessary pieces together and provided them to the Foundation staff,
the Wikimedia Foundation will make the necessary technical adjustments
to support the site. We look forward to a new project and appreciate
the community taking the initiative to make this possible.

As we have reported in a blogpost [1], Internet Brands has filed a
lawsuit against community members, and, in response, Wikimedia
Foundation has filed a complaint against Internet Brands [2]. This
lawsuit by Internet Brands is not going to intimidate the Foundation
or stop the process.

[1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wi ... et-brands/
[2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fi ... r_2012.pdf

Regards, Alice.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:34 pm

If I follow, the Wikimedia foundation is setting up a user-generated travel site in order to kill off a for-profit user-generated travel site called "Wikitravel?" Do I have this right?

ErrantX · Unread post by **ErrantX** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:43 pm

DanMurphy wrote:If I follow, the Wikimedia foundation is setting up a user-generated travel site in order to kill off a for-profit user-generated travel site called "Wikitravel?" Do I have this right?

Not exactly; the current users that write aforesaid for-profit site have decided to leave, and want WMF to set up a site for them.

(Edit: I should say, it's the admins of Wikitravel [oh, and the Wikivoyage community as a whole, a seperate entity that forked from WT some time ago] rather than all the users; but in my examination that pretty much *was* "All" - it is basically empty)

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:51 pm

ErrantX wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:If I follow, the Wikimedia foundation is setting up a user-generated travel site in order to kill off a for-profit user-generated travel site called "Wikitravel?" Do I have this right?
Not exactly; the current users that write aforesaid for-profit site have decided to leave, and want WMF to set up a site for them.

(Edit: I should say, it's the admins of Wikitravel [oh, and the Wikivoyage community as a whole, a seperate entity that forked from WT some time ago] rather than all the users; but in my examination that pretty much *was* "All" - it is basically empty)

Got it, thanks. I expect this is very, very small beans. But it's interesting philosophically. If someone donates to Wikimedia, they will be helping to fund an unprofessional, poorly written, frequently vandalized, travel guide. Why would anyone want to donate to that?
Adding: That's pretty funny. I went to Wikitravel's main page: The designated "destination of the month?" Buffalo. I'm sure Travel and Leisure will be devoting a whole issue to that hot tourist magnate up state some time soon.

ErrantX · Unread post by **ErrantX** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:56 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
ErrantX wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:If I follow, the Wikimedia foundation is setting up a user-generated travel site in order to kill off a for-profit user-generated travel site called "Wikitravel?" Do I have this right?
Not exactly; the current users that write aforesaid for-profit site have decided to leave, and want WMF to set up a site for them.

(Edit: I should say, it's the admins of Wikitravel [oh, and the Wikivoyage community as a whole, a seperate entity that forked from WT some time ago] rather than all the users; but in my examination that pretty much *was* "All" - it is basically empty)
Got it, thanks. I expect this is very, very small beans. But it's interesting philosophically. If someone donates to Wikimedia, they will be helping to fund an unprofessional, poorly written, frequently vandalized, travel guide. Why would anyone want to donate to that?

Indeed... I did point this out (suggesting this provided a good opportunity to address the issues Wiki Travel has - spam etc. with rewritten policies etc.).

To little avail.

They are as thick-headed as us Wikipedians

Incidentally; I notice the WMF statements don't mention anything about seeding the content with WT articles, or that WT admins are behind this proposal. I suspect because it makes WMF/Community look like a little like the bad guys ("IB are suing community members" = Bad IB, "IB are suing community members who want to fork the content to a site without advertising" = At least you can see their point of view).

As I pointed out on the mailing list; at best this is intellectually dishonest, at worst it is hypocritical.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:01 pm

DanMurphy wrote:If I follow, the Wikimedia foundation is setting up a user-generated travel site in order to kill off a for-profit user-generated travel site called "Wikitravel?" Do I have this right?

Close, killing off a user written, vandal prone poorly written for profit site, for a similar heap of junk for the for personal profit of the Foundation people.

If WikiTravel wasn't such a heap of junk, I could get more enthused, but it is hard to sort out when the for profit seems to have essentially failed.

Anyway, now we know why they need the surplus funds, not to feed the servers, but to pay for litigation for taking other people's content (and the litigation might be vaguely interesting as the contents themselves are on an open licence).

Willbeheard · Unread post by **Willbeheard** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:38 pm

DanMurphy wrote:that hot tourist magnate up state

Sounds good to me.

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:07 pm

Wikimedia Foundation seeks declaratory relief in response to legal threats from Internet Brands

Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a suit in San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers. Over the summer, in response to requests generated by our volunteers, the Wikimedia community conducted a lengthy Request For Comment (RFC) process to facilitate public debate and discussion regarding the benefits and challenges of creating a new, Wikimedia Foundation-hosted travel guide project. The community extended the RFC at the Wikimedia Foundation Board’s request to allow for greater community input, and to encourage input from Internet Brands. Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation of this new project.

Unfortunately, Internet Brands (owner of the travel website Wikitravel) has decided to disrupt this process by engaging in litigation against two Wikitravel volunteers who are also Wikimedia community members. On August 29, Internet Brands sued two volunteer administrators, one based in Los Angeles and one in Canada, asserting a variety of claims. The intent of the action is clear – intimidate other community volunteers from exercising their rights to freely discuss the establishment of a new community focused on the creation of a new, not-for-profit travel guide under the Creative Commons licenses.

While the suit filed by Internet Brands does not directly name the Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant, we believe that we are the real target. We feel our only recourse is to file this suit in order to get everything on the table and deal head on with Internet Brand’s actions over the past few months in trying to impede the creation of this new travel project.

Our community and potential new community members are key to the success of all of our projects. We will steadfastly and proudly defend our community’s right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer community members in their legal defense. We do not feel it is appropriate for Internet Brands, a large corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, to seek to intimidate two individuals.

This new, proposed project would allow all travel content to be freely used and disseminated by anyone for any purpose as long as the content is given proper attribution and is offered with the same free-to-use license. Internet Brands appears to be attempting to thwart the creation of a new, non-commercial travel wiki in a misguided effort to protect its for-profit Wikitravel site.

The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance and the Wikimedia Foundation will not sit idly by and allow a commercial actor like Internet Brands to engage in threats, intimidation and litigation to prevent the organic expression of community interest in favor of a new travel project, one that is not driven by commercial interests.

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We are devoted to creating and nurturing free knowledge projects supported by volunteers. Our actions today represent the full stride of our commitment to protect the Wikimedia movement against the efforts of for-profit entities like Internet Brands to prevent communities and volunteers from making their own decisions about where and how freely-usable content may be shared.

Posted by Philippe Beaudette on behalf of Kelly Kay, Deputy General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Here is a pdf of the suit itself.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:18 pm

This might shed a bit more light.

Also this.

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:32 pm

I guess I should have paid attention to this thread. Can a mod merge this in?

Edit: And done.
--Zoloft

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:23 am

Anroth wrote:This might shed a bit more light.

Also this.

Thanks. I hadn't realized that one of the defendants in the Internet Brands suit is James Heilman MD, also known as Jmh649 (T-C-L), of Rorschach fame.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:09 am

Interesting case. The legal theories are not unreasonable, especially the tortious interference with business relations and civil conspiracy to do the same. I find it interesting that they did not sue the Foundation as well, though; probably because the Foundation has deep pockets, but these two named parties do not.

This is no doubt the reason for the "Legal Defense Fund" that was recently announced.

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:58 am

Kelly Martin wrote:This is no doubt the reason for the "Legal Defense Fund" that was recently announced.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:22 am

You suspect it was started to protect Heilman and his cohorts? Because they knew this lawsuit was coming?
Pathetic as Ottava is, he might be correct in this case -- it might not end well, for either party.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:02 pm

Damn, I was hoping to get something out on Examiner tonight about this, but it looks like that pro-Wikipedia shill Noam Cohen at the NYT scooped me again:

Travel Site Built on Wiki Ethos Now Bedevils Its OwnerBy NOAM COHEN
Published: September 9, 2012

LIVE by the wiki, perhaps die by the wiki.

(photo caption) Dr. James Heilman, a Wikipedia contributor, is being sued for asking Wikitravel writers to shift their allegiance.

When the California company Internet Brands bought the Web site Wikitravel in 2005 for $1.7 million from the two developers who had created it, the company got the site and the name, as well as a community of thousands of volunteers who generated the travel guidance that brought the audience.

...

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:06 pm

EricBarbour wrote:You suspect it was started to protect Heilman and his cohorts? Because they knew this lawsuit was coming? Pathetic as Ottava is, he might be correct in this case -- it might not end well, for either party.

According to the pleadings, the Foundation "asked" Internet Brands to "donate" its trademarks, domain name, and other valuable property related to Wikitravel to the Foundation back in July. I doubt such as request would have been made without at least the awareness of the Board and the General Counsel, and I imagine they were, by then if not long before, aware of the adversarial relationship between Internet Brands and the pirates trying to hijack their "ship".

So far my favorite comment is this one from Sky Harbor, who apparently does not know that seeking declaratory relief is a form of suing someone.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:12 pm

Not a bad little article. Three things jump out at me:
1. The hostility to all forms of commercial enterprise that is common among many of the Wikipedia insiders (Wales is something else again). This guy Heilmann (sp?) seems to have been largely motivated by the fact that there is advertising on "Wikitravel." And the Wikimedia Foundation actually asked for Wikitravel's trademarks for free?
2. I can't for the life of me see what legal leg the owners of Wikitravel have to stand on.
3. No one seems to be asking the fundamental question (including the NYT writer): Why is the non-profit educational Wikimedia Foundation going to subsidize a travel website as direct competition for commercial sites? What does that have to do with education, or whatever its presumed mission is?

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:24 pm

DanMurphy wrote:2. I can't for the life of me see what legal leg the owners of Wikitravel have to stand on.

It's a longshot, but they can probably gin up enough of a case to survive summary judgment on the tortious interference with business relations and civil conspiracy claims and the trademark infringement claims are actually pretty much slam-dunk; in general, you cannot use someone else's marks as part of a solicitation to lure clients away from the owner of that mark (with fairly confined exceptions), and Heileman and company repeatedly used the Wikitravel mark in their attempts to lure Wikitravel's volunteers away. While Internet Brands' editors on Wikitravel were "volunteers" not compensated in the ordinary way, that doesn't mean that they're not valuable assets, and improper interference with that relationship to the detriment of Wikitravel and the enrichment of some other entity would be prohibited by the Business and Professions Code.

The main problem that I see is showing an agency relationship between Heileman, Holliday, and the WMF, but California's "apparent agency" law is so broad that you could probably get a dog declared an agent for a business if you tried hard enough. And that determination often breaks down to facts, and so once again that creates an opportunity for a triable issue of fact that forces a trial before a jury.

While I suspect IB would lose in the end, they're clearly willing to litigate this one hard and heavy. So this will come down to how much resolve the defendants, and the WMF, have to fight over this. Frankly it seems like a great deal of ado over very little, given how craptastic Wikitravel is. Ultimately, I think the entity with the most at risk here is the WMF, not financially, but reputationally.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:43 pm

Ah, I'm starting to see the argument. Heilman on Feb. 23 (first wikitravel edit):

I have finally gotten through captcha... I edit primarily over at Wikipedia. Would love to see these two sites integrated more and thus the google ads disappear. My Wikipedia user page [1]

Third edit:

Integrating as a Wikimedia project

I believe that integrating would be positive for all involved

Would provide a secure funding base and reduce the need for google ads
Increase editors as no google ads
Would make it easier for the two sites to direct people adding content to the better place
Would make Wikitravel better know (lots of great content here in a useful format)
Would thus speed up the development of the project

I cannot really think of any drawbacks. Wikimedia projects are now under the same license is here. --Doc James 10:25, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Further discussion:

If Wikitravel:Internet Brands was interested in moving the site to Wikimedia management I suspect many people would be in support, but since they own the trademarks it would be up to them to make that decision (hopefully User:IBobi or someone from IB can provide their position). Moving to Wikimedia without their blessing, and without trademarks, would essentially mean forking the project, and while that's entirely legal since all content is CC-SA licensed, using Wikitravel to have that discussion might not be entirely appropriate. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:19, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Furthermore, if ads are an issue, registered users can turn ads off in their site preferences. LtPowers 13:59, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Yes I realize that those within the Wikimedia movement are free to take all the content here and put it under their own "name" as the content is CC just as those here are free to do the same with Wikipedia. I do not think splitting the editor base however is best for the content in question / open source movement. We already have to much duplication of efforts in other areas. I though I would post the idea here to see if those here had any interest in collaborating more closely. I sit on the board of Wikimedia Canada and could bring this forwards to the WMF if there was interest. Good to know about the ads Lt.Doc James 07:41, 25 February 2012 (EST)

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:02 pm

Why isn't the WMF liberating all those nasty commercial sites on Wikia?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:44 pm

Okay..... I had not looked into Heilman's past activities on WP, because people kept telling me that he was a "good honest content contributor"
and things to that effect. But now I'm being told that he's involved in a dirty trick the WMF is running, in order to hijack a commercial wiki's
content and writers, and that he may even be a primary instigator. Combine that with the Rorschach inkblot business, and suddenly Dr. Heilman
doesn't look like a "good honest content contributor" anymore.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:02 pm

Honest? He seems to be an ideological true believer (and a real hater of google ads). "Good?" Well, he clearly sees Wikimedia projects as a tool for spreading his ideology. But so increasingly does the Wikimedia Foundation itself.

The ink blot stuff I'd put in the "jerky" category. The tests themselves are basically voodoo, and anyone who wanted to research them already could. So the net damage in real terms was zero. But his motivations were something else again.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:05 am

EricBarbour wrote:Okay..... I had not looked into Heilman's past activities on WP, because people kept telling me that he was a "good honest content contributor"
and things to that effect. But now I'm being told that he's involved in a dirty trick the WMF is running, in order to hijack a commercial wiki's
content and writers, and that he may even be a primary instigator. Combine that with the Rorschach inkblot business, and suddenly Dr. Heilman
doesn't look like a "good honest content contributor" anymore.

Jmh649 a.k.a. Doc James was an ally of Will's in the TM wars, and in the TimidGuy ban appeal case.

ErrantX · Unread post by **ErrantX** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:32 am

Some of the claims in the suit lack merit.

However others, particularly Count IV, seem to have basis.

If it does go to jury trial they could well struggle (on the face of evidence presented so far).

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:58 pm

I think it would be helpful to have a summary of the issues, as I am getting confused.

The bits of WMF action that seem plain wrong are the things where they apparently sought (demanded?) that they be handed the branding of the site rather than the contents - that is not forking.

There is an exploration of the timeline where it is not clear to me how much Wikipedians inserted themselves into the WikiTravel site to instigate a coup. Not sure that this is actually illegal, but there does seem something iffy about what went on.

The debate on Wikipedia (ok, Meta or whereever) is a typical "only our rules count". A really laughable thing is where they are apoplectic that administrator on WikiTravel might not be elected by the community. As there was no even-handed debate, does that count? Typical Wikipedian we are right, the rest of the world's rules don't count because this is Wikipedia approach - which is what may entrap them in a lawsuit - they just don't bother understanding that other worlds exist.

So the suit seems to be about being interfered with the fork - which is not a problem as IB know they cannot protect the content, but the counter-claim is that IB have had the business side of their doings interfered with, not the content.

IB should do OK because in suit and counter-suit, the content is worthless pap, so IB have little to pay out for, but the value of the business model seems to being shown in that WMF are prepared to go to law over it. WMF should have trialled a WMF traveller's guide themselves from scratch, leveraging their current user base (although with Shankbone and Fae being the contributors that came to our attention on destinations on Wikipedia, it might not be a travel guide for everyone). I'm really surprised that the WMF want the content that much.

That said, there are already the signs that it'll go horribly wrong - the debates about NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH have already started.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:34 pm

dogbiscuit wrote: That said, there are already the signs that it'll go horribly wrong - the debates about NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH have already started.

Do you have a link for that? How can they even have a debate on that given the project scope?

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:44 pm

Anroth wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote: That said, there are already the signs that it'll go horribly wrong - the debates about NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH have already started.
Do you have a link for that? How can they even have a debate on that given the project scope?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... ouraged.21
To be fair, it is generally observing that they need another set of rules, but they already have grasped that Wikipedians will struggle with that, much like there is friction between Commons and English Wikipedia.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:47 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... ouraged.21
To be fair, it is generally observing that they need another set of rules, but they already have grasped that Wikipedians will struggle with that, much like there is friction between Commons and English Wikipedia.

From reading it I expected the editors from the existing project to move over. I cant see Wikipedia's stable of obsessive compulsives writing interesting travel guides. Although Mathsci gets about a bit to various conferences, someone might want to ask him to do some travel pieces...

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:46 am

Statement posted on Wikimedia-l:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 22159.html

(also posted on the WMF blog:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/27/up ... ctivities/)

Yesterday, Ryan Holliday, one of the community members sued by Internet
Brands, filed a motion to strike and dismiss Internet Brands’ complaint
(you can access the filing here
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fil ... Strike.pdf)
. Ryan’s motion argues that Internet Brands’ lawsuit is a SLAPP (Strategic
Lawsuit Against Public Participation) — a meritless case brought not to
win, but to punish him and frighten others from exercising their free
speech rights to discuss the creation of a new travel project. Ryan is also
seeking an award of attorneys’ fees, meaning that if he wins, Internet
Brands will be required to pay the legal costs incurred to prepare the
motion. The court will hear the motion on November 5, 2012.

We fully agree with Ryan’s position, and we hope his motion is successful.
We think community volunteers like Ryan deserve our thanks, not meritless
lawsuits. You can read about the original suit filed by the Wikimedia
Foundation in a blog post (
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wi ... et-brands/)
from September 5, 2012.

on behalf of
Kelly Kay, Deputy Counsel

--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
blog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:22 pm

Article in The Telegraph

Wikitravel versus Wikimedia: something is going badly wrong with the free content movement

By William Henderson

Internet Brands, owner of the Wikitravel website, is attempting to sue two of its volunteer editors after they agreed to transfer operation of their site to the Wikimedia Foundation, the foundation which operates Wikipedia. It's a messy business – and worrying for supporters of user-edited sites. [...]

Although all of Wikitravel’s content is free under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License 3.0, the case against the Wikimedia Foundation concerns how these two volunteers have gone about encouraging a forking of the content, and not ownership of the content itself.

(This article appeared a couple of weeks ago, but we missed it at the time.)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:29 pm

I figure it's time to test the political climate on Wikivoyage, so here goes.

If they take me in, I'll fix some of the most glaring errors found in the several places I know the most about. Already, I checked the town where I got married, and where I live, and there are numerous errors in each article.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:38 pm

Looks like the legal conflicts for Wikivoyage continue, and in this case, the WMF pretty quickly knuckled under to the World Trade Organization.

(Note that Jimbo's buddy Tony Blair has been rumored to seek the director chair at the World Trade Organization. Therefore, it wouldn't look good for Jimbo if his WMF legal team were making things difficult for the WTO.)

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:25 pm

They should style the new one around this.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:49 pm

Ming feels that the one real advantage to such a project would be that all the travel info in the train/subway station and road articles could be foisted on them.

Woden.Ragnarok · Unread post by **Woden.Ragnarok** » Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:22 pm

Ming wrote:Ming feels that the one real advantage to such a project would be that all the travel info in the train/subway station and road articles could be foisted on them.

I agree but the few attempts made so far have failed with WV deleting after transwiki.