Wikivoyage talk:Here to build a travel guide
This draft policy was copied and adapted from a page on Wikipedia, specifically the version dated 16 July 2020 and current as of 25 July 2020.
Not here to build a travel guide[edit]
- Swept in from the pub
Over the years we've imported some policies from Wikipedia, for instance Wikivoyage:Deny recognition. Wikipedia has quite a few policy/guideline pages (maybe some of them overlapping?), but I stumbled upon an interesting one that might be of use here: w:WP:NOTHERE. It does not only cover traditional vandalism, but all sorts of disruptive editing.
I'm especially thinking about one user that has been here for years but almost exclusively edited their user page, and when Ikan asked about it last November they responded by basically showing him the middle finger and then deleted the discussion. The user has been active over the last couple of days too. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage:User page help is not as helpful as one would like here. The user page doesn't contain anything offensive that violates this policy, but on the other hand, the guideline does say "Remember that Wikivoyage is not a personal home page service or a vacation photo service." I don't think we've contemplated the possibility of someone not contributing to the project but taking up user space.
- It doesn't really matter. The space doesn't cost us anything, but we wouldn't lose anything by telling this user to take his business to MySpace. I don't think we should spend time developing a policy (although copying the Wikipedia one would take no time if others think it's worth doing). I think if this user bothers people, an admin could blank his page and protect it, then we can move on, and he can move elsewhere. Ground Zero (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. If we add a policy, we should be sure it adds something that is truly needed to our existing policy. As it stands currently I wouldn’t see the issue with this user as being particularly important. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- This individual user may not be important, but remember this isn't the first and won't be the last user who wastes our time and resources on what basically amounts to self-promotion in their userspace, and when you add all those users up, and all the time we spend trying to figure out what to do about them in the absence of a clear procedure (e.g. this discussion), that's when filling the hole in our policy becomes the path of least resistance. It wouldn't bother me if we simply copied Wikipedia's, but it would bother me if we shrugged this issue off and did nothing, especially after the tone of the user's remarks to Ikan Kekek, which under current policy would only earn him a 3-day ban per Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun and Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I just thought this Wikipedia policy page is a really good one, because the hallmarks of each of our major "problematic editors" over the years are listed there. So if there are some points we haven't mentioned in our policies as unacceptable behavior, then those could be good to copy. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the versatility of the policy is another argument in its favor. On that note, I think it would also be a good idea if we incorporated w:WP:Competence is required into this proposed policy. I know a local CIR policy was a controversial idea when it was proposed before, but the objections were mainly based on the notion that we'd be instituting it solely to deal with one individual user. My final remarks on that discussion were that I thought I remembered some past occasions unrelated to that user where the policy would have been useful, and that I would keep my eye out for future cases to bolster the argument in favor of the policy. True to my prediction, I identified another one earlier this year, and here's yet another one from just this past week. (Yes, I was able to use Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban to justify banning that second user based on the fact that she was already banned at Wikipedia. That's not the point. Our ability to deal with disruptive users at Wikivoyage should not be dependent on what Wikipedia does or doesn't do, and anyway I'm still not 100% sure the ban was justified since Wikipedia seems to unequivocally define this user's pattern of behavior as disruptive whereas the question seems a lot more ambiguous according to our policy.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- We luckily don't need all the tools that WP has for our serious problematic users because there are probably a thousand times more of them at WP, but CIR seems like a good addition. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I took a closer look at w:WP:NOTHERE. It looks fine to me. I think we can copy it in as a Wikivoyage policy, so it belongs to our community and then adjust it from there if needed. w:WP:Competence is required is worthy of consideration, but may need more tailoring to fit our needs and should be considered in a separate discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- While I don't think the example user is worth bothering over at all, importing the Not Here policy makes sense more broadly.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I took a closer look at w:WP:NOTHERE. It looks fine to me. I think we can copy it in as a Wikivoyage policy, so it belongs to our community and then adjust it from there if needed. w:WP:Competence is required is worthy of consideration, but may need more tailoring to fit our needs and should be considered in a separate discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- We luckily don't need all the tools that WP has for our serious problematic users because there are probably a thousand times more of them at WP, but CIR seems like a good addition. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the versatility of the policy is another argument in its favor. On that note, I think it would also be a good idea if we incorporated w:WP:Competence is required into this proposed policy. I know a local CIR policy was a controversial idea when it was proposed before, but the objections were mainly based on the notion that we'd be instituting it solely to deal with one individual user. My final remarks on that discussion were that I thought I remembered some past occasions unrelated to that user where the policy would have been useful, and that I would keep my eye out for future cases to bolster the argument in favor of the policy. True to my prediction, I identified another one earlier this year, and here's yet another one from just this past week. (Yes, I was able to use Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban to justify banning that second user based on the fact that she was already banned at Wikipedia. That's not the point. Our ability to deal with disruptive users at Wikivoyage should not be dependent on what Wikipedia does or doesn't do, and anyway I'm still not 100% sure the ban was justified since Wikipedia seems to unequivocally define this user's pattern of behavior as disruptive whereas the question seems a lot more ambiguous according to our policy.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I just thought this Wikipedia policy page is a really good one, because the hallmarks of each of our major "problematic editors" over the years are listed there. So if there are some points we haven't mentioned in our policies as unacceptable behavior, then those could be good to copy. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- This individual user may not be important, but remember this isn't the first and won't be the last user who wastes our time and resources on what basically amounts to self-promotion in their userspace, and when you add all those users up, and all the time we spend trying to figure out what to do about them in the absence of a clear procedure (e.g. this discussion), that's when filling the hole in our policy becomes the path of least resistance. It wouldn't bother me if we simply copied Wikipedia's, but it would bother me if we shrugged this issue off and did nothing, especially after the tone of the user's remarks to Ikan Kekek, which under current policy would only earn him a 3-day ban per Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun and Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. If we add a policy, we should be sure it adds something that is truly needed to our existing policy. As it stands currently I wouldn’t see the issue with this user as being particularly important. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Per AndreCarrotflower's comment I've blocked the user for three days, as s/he definitely has no interest in collaborating on a wiki whatsoever, demonstrated by "I'm not gonna just create a random page by copying a city from Wikipedia, you can use bots for that" and "How rude are you." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think the "nothere" policy, suitably edited for Wikivoyage, is a good thing to have here. I'm still unconvinced about a competence policy and concerned that it could be mean. If there is a consensus to have some version of it here, I would consider it necessary to agree on how to tread lightly on the wording. For example, I can think of an excellent example of someone who doesn't have or doesn't act on this - the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up. - but I think we would need to make it abundantly clear that we're talking about large volumes of writing that's absolutely chock full of grammar, spelling, punctuation and spacing errors, not just people who might make some significant errors because English is not their first language but provide great content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Shall we try to get consensus for Not Here first, or treat them as a package? They are related, but I can see some people supporting Not Here by itself, but opposing Not Here and CIR as a package.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it would be best to work on Nothere first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Shall we try to get consensus for Not Here first, or treat them as a package? They are related, but I can see some people supporting Not Here by itself, but opposing Not Here and CIR as a package.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Draft policy[edit]
So, I have copied W:Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia and adapted it into Wikivoyage:Here to build a travel guide, which is currently in my userspace as a draft. It's closely based on the Wikipedia policy, though I removed some things that didn't seem relevant to us and have added some new bits that are not in the original version. I have also tried to adapt the tone to be more in keeping with our other policy pages, mainly through use of the second person, and by dropping the overly-formal Wikipediese in favour of our more down-to-earth house style.
Friends, please feed back your thoughts here and feel free to edit the draft directly. I'll be going offline for the night shortly after posting this comment, but look forward to reading your ideas when I return. Best wishes as always, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- We mention failing to cooperate a “second,” “third,” “fourth” time, but I’m not sure we give users third or fourth chances (and that’s okay with me). WP has a system of notices and warnings, so it’s justified in their article, but we don’t, so I would remove that wording. Otherwise good. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think the text of the policy is fine as is. I don't see the need to remove the wording about "third or fourth chances" - that way it reads in context, it seems obvious to me that ThunderingTyphoons! meant it as a figure of speech rather than to indicate how many chances we're required to give people. (And, frankly, if a user who's been given a second chance and squandered it were to respond by citing that clause of policy and demanding a third or fourth chance, we ought to take that as further confirmation that the user isn't here to build a travel guide.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have added a sentence about bigoted edits given the issues with AC and LM that we had. But otherwise, I think the text mostly looks good. The dog2 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and I added one more section to cover the Telstra user. The dog2 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback and edits, guys. I actually consider "third" and "fourth" chances to be consistent with our escalating user block policy, where the first chance is a warning and the fourth chance a three-month block, the last before indefinite. Although we have got increasingly less tolerant of trolls and vandals, with good reason, that doesn't mean we should rush to indefban everyone so quickly. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and I added one more section to cover the Telstra user. The dog2 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have added a sentence about bigoted edits given the issues with AC and LM that we had. But otherwise, I think the text mostly looks good. The dog2 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think the text of the policy is fine as is. I don't see the need to remove the wording about "third or fourth chances" - that way it reads in context, it seems obvious to me that ThunderingTyphoons! meant it as a figure of speech rather than to indicate how many chances we're required to give people. (And, frankly, if a user who's been given a second chance and squandered it were to respond by citing that clause of policy and demanding a third or fourth chance, we ought to take that as further confirmation that the user isn't here to build a travel guide.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
August 2020[edit]
So, several weeks after drafting this page and with unanimous support and a long time since the last edit or suggested change, I have moved this into mainspace; it can be found at Wikivoyage:Here to build a travel guide. Thanks again to the numerous people who weighed in and helped to shape this policy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Blanking the user page in question[edit]
Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals identifies, as a "non-goal":
- "Personal homepage service. Each registered user on Wikivoyage has a user page; these should be used to support the development of the travel guide, and not as an all about me or my cat website. One or two photographs on your user page is reasonable; more than five is pushing it."
As @Supevan: is not doing anything to support the development of the travel guide, I think his/her user page could be blanked under this policy. He/she is welcome to explain why it should not be. Ground Zero (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- That policy doesn't mention what action to take over user pages; I rather suspect it was written intending that everyone would read it and unquestioningly follow its recommendations.
- But that userpage is not harming or offending anyone, not bringing the project into disrepute, not advertising for a company or trying to convert readers to a religion or political party, not costing the Wikimedia Foundation any money, and not (or shouldn't be) wasting anyone's time other than the author's. Supevan has been rightly blocked for civility issues, and I hope that engenders a change of attitude. But why does anyone want to forcibly remove his user page? What's the benefit in doing so? What's the harm in not doing so? Why can't we just leave things (and people) alone who are minding their own business? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm totally content not to waste time on this, but I thought it was worth bringing up because it's kind of irritating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- TBH, policies and actions like this are probably part of why wikivoyage has so low search ranking. Social-whatever is the main webservices direction these days and without a community of people who just hang around and perhaps can answer some "place-specific" questions, it's hard to compete with tripadvisor and such. This guys seems to just keep his travel journal here, because why not (and it's even related to WV) - and he even created some pages in the past. He doesn't do vandalism nor promote whatever. Maybe he even will do some edits eventually, again. Just hide his changes with your personal filters and leave him be... Or you can't because he's not marked as "trusted user", and thus admins have to review all his changes? -- andree.sk(talk) 10:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the above; there's always a chance this guy will decide one day to contribute to Wikivoyage again, but that chance goes out the window when we pester him for not volunteering his time for us, or drive him away by deleting his page. If he's a reader of Wikivoyage, then something like that will ensure he (a) doesn't use us to plan a trip again (b) doesn't recommend us to his friends. His edits do show up as needing patrolling, but if certain patrollers would rather leave that job to others like me who don't mind doing it, that's totally fine. Personally, I like the social elements of this site, and would like there to be more.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for example Telstra has actually contributed to Wikivoyage a great deal more than this guy (and some of it has been useful content), yet he's blocked. Ypsilon (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, blocked for vandalising countless travel articles on countless occasions for years and years. It's practically the polar opposite of keeping to yourself editing just your user page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I don't care; I'm sorry I brought up the question of whether he has the right to delete others' remarks on his user talk page and whether he should be blocked (and I said it was probably not worth talking about). But I don't think he'll suddenly decide to edit anything but his userpage again. I think I'll ignore this discussion going forward. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!. Leave well enough alone. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw the suggestion then. No need to discuss further. Ground Zero (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!. Leave well enough alone. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"High standards of behavior"[edit]
"Wikivoyage has high standards of behavior and expects that its contributors will heed warnings and take user policies seriously." Do we need this? I understand the desire to encourage people to behave well, but I think this comes across making the community sound uptight and obsessed with rules—not really in the spirit of Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun. I thought the paragraph was better without it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think we're as strict as that sentence makes out.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could be reworded. I don’t want us to sound like 1984, “no rules” but many “crimes,” which unfortunately I think sometimes is the case on wiki. After all, how many users make their way to admin status without making some serious mistakes, if they reach that trust within the community at all? Therefore IMHO we need something that serves as a caution to users. But it could be written completely differently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- But is this about reaching admin status or earning trust? Not really, it's about distinguishing between people who are here for the right reasons, and people who aren't. There are many productive users, some of whom have been here a long time, that would never be candidates for admin due to their edit focus but are nonetheless obviously here to improve Wikivoyage. But that's fine; not everyone can or should be an admin. I'll have a look at rewording now and see what comes of it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don’t think it needs to be stated prominently or strongly as I did, just that we do have high standards, and we ought to make that fact clear. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I split up the point and reworded it, and Ypsilon's edit put the part about warnings in well just now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think that’s better, though all I’m seeing is this edit. I must have missed the edit including the rewording, but that’s probably because I’m on a mobile device. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Immediately after that one. The wording is completely different, but tried to capture the essence of your sentence.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think that's definitely helpful to new users. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Immediately after that one. The wording is completely different, but tried to capture the essence of your sentence.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think that’s better, though all I’m seeing is this edit. I must have missed the edit including the rewording, but that’s probably because I’m on a mobile device. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I split up the point and reworded it, and Ypsilon's edit put the part about warnings in well just now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don’t think it needs to be stated prominently or strongly as I did, just that we do have high standards, and we ought to make that fact clear. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- But is this about reaching admin status or earning trust? Not really, it's about distinguishing between people who are here for the right reasons, and people who aren't. There are many productive users, some of whom have been here a long time, that would never be candidates for admin due to their edit focus but are nonetheless obviously here to improve Wikivoyage. But that's fine; not everyone can or should be an admin. I'll have a look at rewording now and see what comes of it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could be reworded. I don’t want us to sound like 1984, “no rules” but many “crimes,” which unfortunately I think sometimes is the case on wiki. After all, how many users make their way to admin status without making some serious mistakes, if they reach that trust within the community at all? Therefore IMHO we need something that serves as a caution to users. But it could be written completely differently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk page non-responsiveness[edit]
...is something that, IIRC, policy currently doesn't directly address. Accordingly, I added this passage to the "little or no interest in working collaboratively" clause in the "Clearly not being here to build a travel guide" section. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable, thank you. That might be something to elaborate on at Wikivoyage:Using talk pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted redirect[edit]
Please revert this one edit: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Here_to_build_a_travel_guide&diff=4554449&oldid=4362734 172.58.206.140 22:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Done (but not by me).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
