Talk:Hospitality service

message: My impression is that the stuff described in the article fits well with hospitality exchange, however under hospitality service I expected to find something about food catering, event hosting or hotels. I'm not a native speaker but a Google search on "hospitality service" seems to support my view. Georg Stillfried (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard agree, and I am a native speaker. This page falls under the category of "hospitality services", and I would expect an entry on "hospitality service" to define that category, whereas this seems an extremely narrow subset. The fact that "hospex" is its nickname suggests that hospitality exchange is a more common term. Hospitality exchange also seems more consistent with a model originally based on ideals of sharing and fostering communication between nationalities, with many non-profits still operating in this market. Faff296 (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title (move?)

message: The point is that the guy who wrote bewelcome is a "very very small network" has a personal feeling against BeWelcome. He is accusing me of beeing the founder of BeWelcome, just like if it was a crime !
I am one of the founders on BeWelcome, but also as the programmer who also made previously 80% of the Hospitalityclub programs, I think it can be considerated that I know what I am talking about, I know very well the history of each networks, they are not countless. 
They are several of them, and this is a good thing. Among these several, they are some active regarding they number of members (like CouchSurfing and previously like HospitalityClub), some active thru the number of programmers/designers who are working in it with daily visible results (like BeWelcome), some who are older than the web and will remain a long time alive, even if not the biggest (like Servas), some who have not really display any activity since two or three years like (globalfreeloaders), some who nobody speak about here like (http://www.comitasintergentes.org/ -my opinion beeing that it is a dying project-). 
I have no problem with any of these networks, all of them can be quoted here.
I also noticed that several people in this discussion agrees that BeWelcome is to be include in this page, and I need to remind that since almost one year BeWelcome is not anymore a Beta project.
It is a very serious project, with a real legal basis and really setup public organization
Anyway, to reduce the argument Big Network / Small NetWork, I have made a paragraph Other Smaller networks, I think someone will change this someday, future will tell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyhegron (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think BeWelcome is worth to mention here. It is true, there are quite a lot Hospitality Guide Networks out there (I added a link to a overview of them). There are two reasons whey BeWelcome does complement this article (reasons most Wikipedians will be happy about): BeWelcome is the first and only network that 1. is OpenSource and 2. is maintained by a democratic volunteer organisation. Regarding the size, I think it is just a question of a couple of months, until it has the same size as the other networks. It is impressive how many Page Views it produces lately (see alexa.com), compared to the low Rank and Reach, and as it seems like, it might soon overtake HospitalityClub in this aspect... --Aaida (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I would appriciate it very much when you could use an account for your contributions as it is emphasized by the Wikipedia community. To continue the discussion, I have to clarify some points: 1.) You are welcome to compare the date with all the other networks that are listed within Wikipedia and see how it is related to them. However, you are right, Alexa might be unreliable. Nevertheless, Alexa indicates some activity what distinguish it from many other (here mentioned) networks. 2.) I mentioned the points above not in relation to any Wikipedia guidelines, but that the network might bring a new aspect and kind of network to the list. Yes, Wikipedia does not have any guidelines regarding this or might be especially in favor for those, but hopefully you are in favor of those principles as you contribute here (or at least not in favor of the opposite). You are right; it might be good to establish a BeWelcome Wikipedia entry first. Nevertheless, I think the points and arguments mentioned above are enough to legitimate that the network is listed in this entry. --Aaida (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: answering the ''back topic''

message: I added the note again with a recent newspaper article as additional referencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2008/apr/19/caracas.adventure?page=all to support those facts. I think, together with the above points, it is sufficient to mention BeWelcome here (opposite to the above claims that Wikipedia is used for ‘advertisement’ only). In my view there are enough things that a) show that BeWelcome is not just another network (and adds additional value to this entry) and b) that it can be seen as a natural evolution of hospitality exchange/services. However, the future will show if this network (and construction) will be successful. --Aaida (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please log in and try to find a consensus in the post and not just undo edits as it is welcome here on Wikipedia. I changed the main article regarding the point about "split of" you raised, this is for me understandable. Further, I have to point out that I am in no way associated to BeWelcome. My interest in this issue is hospitality exchange and I do not care much about the network disputes. Am I right with assumption that you are affiliated with HospitalityClub? About the other "dozens of others out there", they will come after we solved the arguments here and come to a compromise. I do think it is important as it produced quite some discussion here on the talk page, I do think there is quite some truth in both sides. Hopefully I can count on your help (afterwards), that your interest goes further then solely blocking new or controversial points (that do not fit in your agenda). --Aaida (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it back. Sure, I can have a different view then you have. That is normal, but does not change much. That is also a Wiki and not centrally structured. To your comment, I am not biased towards it, but it extends this article in a logical way. I can see no reason why those points should not be stated (as they are as well referenced). I do give more credit to the fact that things are stated in the newspaper article (e.g. the point that there quite some previous HospitalityClub core volunteers involved and not just merely users as you argued here). Additional, I do find the note that the founder of HospitalityClub brings in important as well  (BeWelcome took the design and money). If you think differently, please handle and prove this for every part. Hopefully we can reach a consensus soon. --Aaida (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it is inappropriate to have a discussion about involvement and personal political motivations as long as you hide yourself behind proxies. Even though you do not agree that the references do support the networks place at this place, they at least do clearly show that most of your points are biased (and even undermine previous statements of yours). Therewith, I do think even more, that this network, as do others, has its legitimated place in this article. I do think that it can have its place in the history section as there was not much more happing in recent years otherweise and through its special structure and origins. Suggestions about this are very welcome. I would like to move on and bring this editing war to an end. --Aaida (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thinking about the history, TripUp came to my mind. I added Trip Up as a further development too. I think there are more of those, I think it would be good to add them too. I removed the reference to about the money issueshttp://www.bevolunteer.org/forum/index.php?topic=427.0 as you think it is inappropriate in this section. --Aaida (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As mentioned before, see it as etiquette why you should log in. Unfortunatly, you deny. However, Wikipedia does not like to see anonymous edits via proxies. I joined the discussion as there was already an ongoing editing war. I thought it would bring a solution to the discussion to add the already discussed network at this place (as said before, I am happy to add it at another place, as I do not see that it would turn the article in a listing). I would love to focus not only on this network, but also about other possible extensions of this article. Nevertheless, I do not think that we should use quantity as selection criterion. Suggestions? --Aaida (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Aaida, i am not using a proxy.  I have direct internet access through my ISP.  So I hope that clears up your issue around edits.  Also, as said before, to add ths new and really very small network ( we are talking here of hospitality exchange, available users who are involved in that exchange is a very clear measure.  500,000 worldwide in one network alone. Age is another.  ) would mean to also list all other networks which existed prior, otherwise it would be unfair to those networks would it not?  And so it would become a listing.  To avoid it being a listing the various contributors to this page have gone with the big names.  And by big I mean HUGE.  Well established, well known, popular, active, repeatedly referenced in worldwide press, etc.  See my analogy of a small computer company listing itself on the microsoft wikipage because it is the "latest company" to use that software.  Surely you can see that is a little strange, as is this proposed change.  --59.167.169.2 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Both of you seem intent on doing what is best for the article. This is excellent, although the edit war is getting out of hand. If advertising / external links is the problem, then can you both please read this essay; Wikipedia:External links. This you can use to make sure both of you reach the ideal solution. I would have loved to have stayed around for longer and helped you both out with it much more than I can at present, but this stage of the year is always extremely busy for me, and I don't have enough time on my hands to do much more at this exact moment in time. Lradrama 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. However, I do feel a bit disadvantaged as the latest version is the one without the extensions of the article. It will be in his interest to delay any consensus. It would be good if somebody who has more time can drop by for longer. Thanks. --Aaida (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  I think with concerns around overrepresentation, the site previously being listed by multiple organisers behind the website to self promote ( listing it as #1 in the listing, I note something seriously frowned upon in the external links essay ), and obvious issue of if more is included we need to be fair to those organisations which have been around longer, it is best to discuss the change before putting it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.169.2 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BeWelcome as 'split-up' of Hospitality Club (and other networks)

message: Could somebody include those lost deleted parts again (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospitality_service&diff=next&oldid=208722827). Thanks! I do think this has to do with the fact that I included the 'POV' in the main article. --Aaida (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: <strike>lost</strike> deleted  discussion

message: "In 2007 BeWelcome opened as first network on open source and supported by an organization with democratic structures. It might be regarded as a further progression of the existing networks, many previous active core volunteers joined the new initiative.http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2008/apr/19/caracas.adventure?page=all A further development was the start of TripUp, owned by a commercial travel search company, that has launched the CouchSwap Facebook application. Therewith, it is possible to find friends with sofas to crash on via existing social networks and their trust system.http://mashable.com/2007/07/31/couchswap-facebook-app/" 
I would like the above paragraph to the 'history' section of the article. I do think that history is writen now and not only limited on the origination and early development (what would limit this article to Servas only (I guess?). Could you please give your thoughts about this and bring in your changes. I do think - looking on the past edit wars - that this issue might be controversial. --Aaida (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in no way affiliated with BeWelcome or any other network. I think we can leave this discussion. For the sake of this article, I would ask you to come up with more suggestions and to stop blocking the extension of the article. I see the relevance in the above networks in a) development to real organisations, open source and developed directly out of the existing networks (see more points above) and b) the trend to go "open social" and become network/interface independent (what might be seen as a more mainstream development). If you know more networks that would be relevant please come with them and the sources/references. Then we can evaluate what should and what should not be included. Thank you very much. I think the development hasn't stopped with the already existing networks (e.g. it seems as if there is a decline in the development of HospitalityClub - where are the good and diligent volunteers?) However, I can see that I have a somewhat more progressive opinion and you a more conservative. I hope we will find a consensus/compromise in this issue soon. --Aaida (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  you may not be affiliated, but you clearly favour this website over many others, because your focus here has been only to add one website out of dozens to the page. So for this arguments sake you are clearly interested in promoting just BW, I don't think there is any question of that.  I'm perfectly happy for an independent administrator to come in and see your edits and provide an opinion on that! What do you mean by "development to real organisations" ?  Opensource is really immaterial to a website.  It just talks about the code behind it, not the concept of hospitality exchange itself, so hopefully we can leave that discussion already.  Also, I don't see your point about "open social", nor about this being a trend?  The trend I see in social networks is that they are centrally driven, most as a profit making business.  As for development, I'm not sure what you think has stopped. Both CS and HC are extremely active networks ( this is not in question is it? ) and are continually developing.  If you are talking about the HTML itself, then that is only one component of an organisation and a small one at that.  Look at the google homepage:  it hasn't developed much at all, yet it's domination of the search market is unquestionable.  But you have completely ignored my point...  you are interested to expand the history section, why have you ignored all "timeline" related events in the hospitality exchange world to jump all the way to the most recent event of a new website appearing?  And finally, as much as you may want to think of this new network as being born out of HC/CS, that simply isn't the truth.  Some people who were participants in hospitality exchange ( some 5 or 6? ) decided to start a new website with a differen't organisation structure.  Just because they had previously contributed in some way to a different network ( an activity which practically anybody is welcome to do and has no requirements or commitments of effort ) doesn't mean the new site is an "evolution"  :)  Also, I again point out that I am not behind a proxy, and ask you to stop making this claim, unless you want to provide some evidence?  Unfounded claims like that are against wikipedia guidelines, as is attempting to identify people who edit anonymously unless they have chosen to do so themselves.  IF you continue that path I will simply report you. --59.167.169.2 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you know more networks that would be relevant please come with them and the sources/references. Then we can evaluate what should and what should not be included. Thank you very much." I would like to move on... --Aaida (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  history and future development

message: I can't find any reason that BeWelcome is notable enough to be included here; even the article cited says that the site is only 3000 members. An article on the company would be hard to keep from deletion, as multiple sources would have to be cited - something I can't find for the site. I don't believe that the site should be included in the History section here, as that's added WP:UNDUE weight for the site, and comes off as spam/advertising. I'd also remind all the editors of WP:3RR, which was violated on April 29. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another opinion 

message: can we do a quick calculation here?  please edit figures & total if out of date and add the source:
    
    Data retrieved on January 15, 2009 (unless specified otherwise), updated in August 2009
    
    * CouchSurfing --     1,330,318 
    * Hospitality Club --   386,550  (April 2008)
    * GlobalFreeLoaders --   56,961  (April 2008)
    * Servas Intl --       > 13,000  (April 2008)
    * Warm Showers List- over 8,000 
    * BeWelcome --            7,236 
    * TravelHoo --            6,954 (March 29)  ...shut down? 
    * Pasporta Servo --       1,350  
    * WWOOF --                  800 (March 29, 2008)
    * LGHEI --                  500 (March 29, 2008)
    * Homeshare Intl --
      -----------------------------
    * TOTAL:              1,810,319
Keep in mind that while members may overlap, many of these services' entries are also actually couples using a single account.
If someone knows how to make this into some kind of spreadsheet (autocalculating) table, that'd be great. My apologies is this qualifies as original research, i couldn't find this from a single source.
the wikitravel article, it is also very informative.Brallan 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: number of users

message: Gentlemen, we see both
* CouchSurfing - A very active network ...
* Hospitality Club - A very active network ...
are very active. Is one actually more active that the other? Jidanni (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "very active"

message: I'm coming from the Online platforms for collaborative consumption article (section #Accommodation) and I'm wondering why 9flats, Airbnb and Wimdu are missing from this article's #Notable hospitality networks section. Aren't those notable?
Also wouldn't it be a good idea to create a table of the entries in :Category:Hospitality services with some info on each row so that they can be compared, sorted and their notability evaluated (e.g. by number of users).
--Fixuture (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing entries in the "Notable hospitality networks" section - what about a table with all services for comparison