Wikivoyage talk:Listings

Archived discussions 2006–13 2014–15 2016–17 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

restaurant descriptions

Swept in from the pub

writing these can be a time consuming activity. actually ChatGPT is quite good in doing it with this query:

give me a short description about this list of restaurants in [[*CITY NAME*]]. write it in a neutral way without using words like "ideal". the descriptions are for a travel guide. Focus on specific savory food, don't write anything about drinks or sweet food. Write a bit about the style of the restaurant. Don't say anything about food delivery. Please no bla bla sentences like "A convenient stop for a quick and satisfying bite."

for a better processing, the list should only include the names of the restaurants without "updated December 2017" and so on. 2A01:599:214:306:1493:C1E1:20A4:5294 14:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Chatbots risk violating copyright, but the other issue is relying on them without doing some human editing. You can use them as a tool, but don't post unedited chatbot text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

yeah, the produced text needs some checking and editing. 2A01:599:214:306:1493:C1E1:20A4:5294 16:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Adamantly Oppose! We want input from humans, mainly travellers, not from computer programs. I can think of only one clearly legitimate use of AI in creating WV pages; translating from other WV languages. It is conceivable that, as Ikan suggests, there might be other uses, but I am far from convinced of that. Pashley (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  "''adamantly'' oppose" ...

  ChatGPT gets the information from reviews, which are written by humans. the produced text is just a summary. of course the produced text needs some checking and editing. also for improving the query. 2A01:599:214:306:1493:C1E1:20A4:5294 16:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  If you've checked everything for accuracy and edited the text such that no-one could tell what tools you used, you're good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Reviews, which are written by humans"? The year is 2025, reviews are often astroturfed or AI generated, and if they are not, they soon will be. Daggerstab (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• I too Oppose the use of AI to write listings due to the tendency toward hallucination of such tools, which tend to fabricate obscure details and facts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  As do I. I don't mind having a tool actually write the description, if the result is good, but all facts (including subjective descriptions) need to be verified by the person adding them (either from personal experience or through checking the sources for trustworthiness of each individual claim). –LPfi (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. I recognize that some people use AI tools to polish their grammar and spelling, and I don't see an issue with that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, the reviews the chatbot is using might be written by real people, or then not - who knows if some of them are AI generated in the first place. However even if those reviews would be truthful (not always the case), the AI can still fumble up the information as SelfieCity pointed out. Therefore we shouldn't be using such services to create WV content. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – a hard no. AI chatbots are useless at this kind of thing, not to mention the countless other problems that would arise. --shb (t | c | m) 21:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  While I have a lot of sympathy with this, when someone starts off by saying that they're finding that a tool "is quite good in doing it", it's not very convincing to just tell them that they're wrong. If it's working for them, it's "useful". I think the opposition should focus on other things, e.g., the fact that it's risky (might hallucinate false information) and not our goal (we want to be unique).

  Of course, if someone were to use such a tool in the way that Ikan and others suggest, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

A similar conversation is ongoing at our sister project Wikinews (and that conversation references similar such conversations at other sister projects): n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance#ChatGPT. I am generally opposed to these for various reasons, but we don't have a local policy here and at the bare minimum, if you are using an AI tool to generate new material (but not, e.g. fixing spelling or suggesting ways to improve your vocabulary), then it needs to be disclosed which tool you used, which prompts you used, and when you made the request. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a similarly heavy policy proposal at the English Wikibooks (where you have not answered a question you were asked, BTW). I don't think that's either feasible or helpful. I think it could also create unexpected problems. Imagine if the prompt is:

"Hey AI, here's the long post from my blog about this restaurant. Please summarize it in two sentences, without giving any identifying information about me <pastes long text>".

Posting that prompt would mean disclosing your real-world identity, because anyone could use the prompt to find your blog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

There may be similar problems, but in the given example, you could just give the blog post without telling it was yours. Then of course, you would be accused of a copyvio, so you would need to get your permission to use that post ("Hi. Your blog post so well described what also was my experience. May I use it in summarised form on Wikivoyage?"). I think there needs to be a practice developed for such situations, which aren't restricted to AI (how did you get that photo, on private property?).

On the other hand, already a long time ago you could be identified from your writing style. The study I vaguely remember said that analysing 40kB (?) of yours (emails? Usenet posts?) was enough to identify posts from you among a closed sample of people (a few thousand?). Using a spell checker, the needed text body was somewhat bigger, but still easy to collect.

–LPfi (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

We should have a local AI policy

Per the above and per relevant discussions at our sister projects, we should have a local policy on the use of generative AI/LLM tools. As I've written here and elsewhere, I think at a bare minimum that for any of these creating new content, users must disclose which tool was used, which prompt(s) it was given, and when the request was made. If others agree that we should get out ahead of this, I propose that we begin drafting at Wikivoyage:Artificial intelligence (WV:AI) sooner rather than later. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

We've had a discussion on this before and WhatamIdoing raised some good points before that having a specific policy on AI doesn't do any good but we could lose potentially good contributors over this. I can't find the specific comment, I still agree with her sentiment and would prefer having no AI policy. //shb (t | c | m) 21:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Huh, I'd be motivated to understand that argument. Thanks. I hope WIAD decides to chime in and educate me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It basically comes down to two problems:

• A rule against AI is unenforceable. We don't know where/how contributors are getting the text they post. It is, as a matter of principle, a bad idea to have rules that you cannot enforce. (You can have unenforceable non-rules, such as "We're in favor of peace and love and harmony" or Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first or even Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun, but you shouldn't have unenforceable rules.)
• A rule against AI will result in false accusations. False accusations will harm the accused person and, to a lesser extent, the bystanders who see acrimonious accusations. There is no effective way to defend yourself against false accusations. If you write personally something that someone says 'sounds like' AI, or that gets flagged by 'AI detectors', then there's nothing you can do except tell the truth, which your accuser is unlikely to believe. And if you did use AI, then you could lie about that and say you didn't, and there's nothing that anyone else can do to prove your lie wrong. I've seen AI "detectors" that flag some of my Wikipedia articles as probably being AI generated. I know that's not true. Also, most of them require a minimum amount of text (e.g., 100 words), and most individual listings are shorter than that.

Instead of trying to ban a "method", I think we should focus on the outcomes we want, which are:

• unique content
• accurate content
• from your own personal experiences (whenever possible) or from multiple trustworthy sources
• posted in a volume/at a speed that gives the rest of the community plenty of time to take a look at your work

and so forth. Then we sidestep the "you horrible user of horrible AI" and instead say: It doesn't matter whether AI hallucinated the detail about the old church being blue vs you got it confused with a different place. Errors aren't wanted, and if you make enough errors, then we'll block you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you are right. There may still be a need for advice and rules prompted by the availability of LLM and similar technologies. A fast rule on keeping volume down to a human speed could be helpful, and we certainly want advice directed at good-faith users. The discussion SHB referred to made clear that some valuable contributors want to be able to use AI, and used in good ways those uses won't harm. The advice needs to identify ways to use AI that can be tempting but that we don't want – sv-wp had a lot of that discussion about bot-writing (without AI). –LPfi (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to creating an infomation-style page of the use of AI, explicitly stating that there is no official policy on the use of AI. There are reasonable use-cases of AI and I wouldn't want the lack of a page to imply that such use cases aren't permitted. //shb (t | c | m) 03:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Folk are rightly concerned about veracity and copyright, I'd like to focus on time input. Anything that boosts contributors' work per given time is welcome, because pages look to be going out of date faster than they're maintained. For instance I'm embarked on an upgrade of parts of Spain that on present progress will take until Sept 2027, and that will be just one portion of a single large country. Thus for restaurants in Santiago de Compostela:

- the refresh of an existing WV-EN entry (considering customer reviews etc) took me 5 minutes.

- a new entry suggested by Lonely Planet took 7 minutes.

- the first suggestion by Chatbot was blatant cut & paste from publicity blurb so I barge-poled it. The second looked like a genuine quality find, so after due checking yadda yah the new entry took 7 minutes.

Other contributors no doubt work faster but might find that their time-saving is minimal. Grahamsands (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Name-only listings

In some of our articles, contributors will add a list of names of restaurants, bars, shops and hotels with no additional information. These really are of no use to travellers. If I am visiting Cityville, how does it help me to know that, at one time in Wikivoyage's history, there was a bar called "Nightlife"?

This template page, however, advises that:

"The following template parameters are used with the listing templates. No parameter is required, but some are recommended to make a listing at all useful."

I think that for Eat, Drink, Buy, and Sleep listings, we should set the bar higher. At a minimum, the listings should include an address or directions on how to find the place. Otherwise, editors should remove the names. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but map co-ordinates should also be enough to keep. Pashley (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Listings with just the name are usually useless. However, in the case of small villages, a restaurant is easily findable by asking for directions locally. There may be no street names and you may not have a GPS. However, even in that case, there needs to be some information about why one would like to visit the place. If it is the only restaurant in town, one doesn't need the name to ask for directions.

I think there needs to be some piece of information in addition to the name. This may be the address or coordinates, a phone number, email address or web address, or a description (the content parameter). The section intro should in most cases explain why the section has such rudimentary listings, unless it is told in the individual listings.

If there are many listings in any section, I'd remove those that don't have adequate information (and don't seem especially interesting based on what there is).

–LPfi (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

There are also Philippine destinations (Dumaguete, Alona Beach) where we just say something like "There are about twenty restaurants and bars along the sea front" then give a list. Elsewhere it might be "around the cathedral square" or along some street. I do not think entries on such a list need an address or directions, but am not certain what this policy ought to say about that. Pashley (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that coordinates should be sufficient as well. "Along the sea front" or "around the cathedral square" would be the sort of directions that help a traveller, if the town is small enough for that to make sense. (For Rio de Janeiro, it wouldn't be helpful.) Ground Zero (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Such statements are useful, but I don't think a list of names of restaurants at that place help. Just state it in the section lead. If you want to recommend some of the restaurants, add listings for them, with more info than just the name. –LPfi (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It is better to add listings giving the just the name of cafes that are introduced as being on Main Square, as then we know when it was added/updated (we have the location, but not strictly in the listing). In Leicestershire#Eat an Eat listing is used for types of food in the county, enabling a Wikipedia link in addition to a description of the type of cheese etc. Maybe this is abusing an eat listing, but I think it is useful in this case, and we know when it was updated. However this is very much an exception, and normally location information is required. AlasdairW (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed wording

The following template parameters are used with the listing templates. No parameter is required, but some are recommended to make a listing at all useful. In the case of Eat, Drink, Buy, and Sleep listings, some information must be provided to help the reader find the business, e.g., address, directions, or coordinates.

Ground Zero (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I support this. I'd add a phone number. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I too support; in addition to phone number, I'd also add website/FB page. //shb (t | c | m) 23:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Some places have neither. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe "e.g., address, directions, or coordinates – and if possible, phone number and website/Facebook page". (maybe it's just me or my generation...but calling I find has become a bit old fashioned) //shb (t | c | m) 09:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

"No specific parameter is required, but for the listing to be useful, there needs to be some information. In the case of Eat, Drink, Buy, and Sleep listings, address, coordinates, or directions must be given, to allow finding the business. If possible, also give at least a short description, phone number and web address."

A phone call is the only way to quickly find out that the place really is there and is open, while a web address – be it their own site or Facebook – often gives valuable additional information. However, in destinations with more than one restaurant (or whatever), the most important information, in addition to the location, is the description.

–LPfi (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that a travel guide should tell a reader how to find a restaurant, bar or hotel, rather than just tell them how they can go somewhere else to find information. A phone or website doesn't get you to the business; it takes you out of Wikivoyage. I don't think that asking contributors to provide an address or general directions or coordinates is too much. I think that is the minimum of information that a travel guide should provide. Ground Zero (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Contact information is a bonus, but not needed for a listing to be useful. Requiring one of the three parameters as in the suggested wording allows for "to find the place, ask any local", which may be OK, e.g., for some places in Greenland, and shows, unless inserted en masse, that the user adding the listing has at least considered the issue.

The problem that sparked this discussion, I suppose, was some users adding lots of places with no info. If somebody adds ten listings to an article, each with "ask any local", I'd still revert with "please provide some useful information on the places".

–LPfi (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)