Daniel-
I see a problem; none of the current Wikimedia
projects wants to be a travel
guide, so where o where will Wikitravel's text be used? The last thing I
want is travel guide type text such as "Good places to eat in Mexico City"
in our Wikipedia article on Mexico City. That type of stuff is not
appropriate for an encyclopedia. Just provide an external link to the
Wikitravel article at [[Mexico City]].
Sure, in case of restaurant advice. But Wikitravel and Wikipedia will
inevitably overlap in other areas. Just checking their Recent changes now,
I see "Driving in Australia", which contains stuff like
...
Speed and distance in Australia are measured in kilometres rather than
miles, and Australians drive on the left-hand side of the road at all
times.
Road conditions in the 'outback' are much worse than those in more
inhabited parts. In Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and large parts of
South Australia and Queensland almost all the roads are reliable and in
good condition, and there are plenty of towns, farms and passing motorists
to give directions and aid to the bewildered or lost. Once you leave these
areas the quality and repair of the roads drops dramatically, as does the
amount of use they receive.
...
Or the entry about Kathmandu:
...
Kathmandu airport is the largest, and only international, airport in
Nepal. Visas are available on arrival for citizens of most countries. In
September of 2000 the cost was $20 US. Other options for arriving in
Kathmandu include buses from India (usually Varinasi or Lucknow) and other
parts of Nepal such as Chitwan National Park and the trekking hub of
Pokhara. Other options for entry into Nepal are limited.
...
Both of these could have been found in Wikipedia as well. There will be
more procedural knowledge in Wikitravel which is not in a style which we
want on Wikipedia, and more POV-advice type articles. But there will
certainly be lots of material that would be worth copy and pasting.
We plan on coercing both the CC and GNU people
It's usually the GNU people who do the coercing. I am looking forward to
more compatible licenses, but I highly doubt that this will come to pass
anytime soon.
to make their copyleft
content licenses copy/paste compatible anyway, so I don't see any real
benefits for Wikitravel to be dual licensed now;
You would have all the benefits of compatibility without any wait.
all that would accomplish
is confuse their contributors (part of the whole point of the CC/Att-SA
license is to be /less/ confusing than other copyleft content licenses -
such as the FDL).
Actually, the reason that Wikitravel uses the CC/SA license has not so
much to do with confusing contributors (who don't read the legalese anyway
and just contribute) but with making it easier for third parties to use
Wikitravel material. See
http://www.wikitravel.org/article/Wikitravel:Why_Wikitravel_isn%27t_GFDL
To these people, the FDL option would merely be an additional option to
use the material, one which they can safely ignore.
Of course, Wikitravel could also do what the infoAnarchy wiki does and
simply put all their material in the public domain. There you go -- no
more trouble with "copyleft enforcement", 100% compatible with every other
license.
Regards,
Erik