I was pretty happy to see that Arthur Frommer, of Frommer's, said that Wikitravel may help in planning your trip. It's true, too. He doesn't give the kindest description of Wikitravel, but then again, he doesn't really have the incentive to. (Thanks to Jani, who spotted the article and posted it in the Wikitravel logbook for 30 July 2006.)
Don Marti, who has a new blog at LinuxWorld.com, had an interesting take on Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia, originally from Dave Weinberger's notes on Wikipedia credibility. Wow, that's a lot of links. Anyways, the upshot is that Britannica has its back up against the wall, and is in this venom-spitting defensive position, much like Richard Nixon in his last days in the White House.
You kind of have to feel sorry for the ol' Brit. I don't think it should have to work that way. At least for Wikitravel, I want traditional travel publishers to know that the user-contributed, user-fact-checked information on Wikitravel is theirs to use under a very liberal copyleft license. You've got as much right to the travel guides as anyone else, and they can help your business and your readers.
I also think there's a place for the first travel publisher to start sharing their copyrighted information into Wikitravel for continued development and use. There's a lot of positive publicity in it for the company that starts devoting photos, data, and copy to the public good by putting it in Wikitravel. My phone is on and my email slot is open (see my Wikitravel home page for contact details) if there's an executive or editor with the courage and foresight to take the plunge.
tags: wikitravel arthur frommer britannica wikipedia open content copyleft