Talk:Hospitality service

Article title (move?)

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)

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)

answering the back topic

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)

-- it's incredibly clear that you are merely trying to get some free promotion. Googling your site name with wiki shows how it has spammed hundreds of wikis on the internet with your URL. While you are only concerned with adding your own website here, others are concerned about the idea and providing a balanced sample of established networks selecting from all the ones out there; all you do is come here and advertise your one website. I think any bias present here is very clear. YOu call http://www.comitasintergentes.org/ a dying project, but it started after yours and has more people online right now! You have a very attacking and hostile approach.

The guidelines have been pointed out to you numerous times but completely ignore those points. There are literally dozens of websites which address this concept. Yours is very low on that list. As said before, any person who runs a website can come along and try to say how theirs is more special, but this is not a directory and you are nowhere near the size or age of the few chosen for examples. --

I have the feeling that you are speaking alone and in the void ;-)

You just have a problem with BW, and you are not enough honest to sign your post with a real name

Jyhegron (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

--

I don't see the reason for this discussion, why not include all active web site references here ? They are no other better area than wikipedia for this since each of these web sites considers each others as competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.167.120.64 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, wikipedia is the best place for websites to advertise on any page that relates to the service they offer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.232.2 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

--

I have read the history and the previous version of the page Hospitality service, I really dont see why the reference to BeWelcome have been considerated as Spam. I am member of HospitalityClub and have attended here in Brussel to one BeWelcome meeting, I would say that people in BeWelcome are quite active and seems really serious. It can be a small network considering the number of people in it, but, at least here in Belgium it really seems an important actor of the Hospitality Exchange, I will probably join it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.248.88 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

--

The reason is because of the wikipedia guidelines. There are dozens of websites that facilitate hospitality exchange. New ones keep cropping up. The list is included to give an example only, and is selected from the very top of those sites: age, membership base, presence in wikipedia, presence in popular news etc. Most of them so established they they were the initial cause for this concept to be documented here in the first place. There is no doubt that the people running this specific website are quite active about it. But that is not the issue in question. The point was made most clear when Jyhegron chose to defame a similarly new network, http://www.comitasintergentes.org/, as a dying project. He is not interested in getting a balanced list here, he is interested in attacking others' and getting his own website listed for the promotion it gives. There are new projects around and many other projects which are trying to promote themselves in various ways. But wikipedia is not a place for promotion.

--

@203.31.232.2 (or whatever Australian IP you use, please answer this easy question are you "babso" the HC forum moderator or not ? personally I sign my contributions).

I wrote that I believe that comitasintergentes was a dying Network because I didn't see its activity, I did not mean to defame it at all, this is your interpretation. I just remind that it was existing and try to find some agreement with you that they are networks with non obvious activity. Comitasintergentes was a bad sample ? ok, I apologize for my words, I have absolutely no problem to quote comitasintegentes here, and it is very possible that I miss statistic about it, event about meetings, etc...

What I say since the beginning is that they are not "countless" hospitality networks networks, they are only few ones really active. If one of them is active enough to be quoted by people in this talk, it means that it is active enough to be enlisted in the Hospitality Service page. I don't agree with the logic of size as the criteria to decide which to exclude and which one to keep. If size is a problem, just give it as additional information. I suggest to refer to the well known hospitalityguide who is existing since a while and did a lot of work collecting informations and facts about Hopsitality Service and what is going on/happening in them. This is a real independent information source. About promotion : the problem is to define what is promotion and what is not. Quoting the existence of something with one sentence is not promotion. This especially if the references are verifiable. Jyhegron (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--

There are far more than "a few ones". A simple google search reveals dozens. And frankly, I find it quite hypocritical for you to imply many others are "not active" when yours is so small, new, and inactive itself.

"About promotion : the problem is to define what is promotion and what is not. Quoting the existence of something with one sentence is not promotion" Unfortunately it is. Please read the guidelines. It specifically relates to people who try to "link spam" in external links sections, to give their site promotion on wikipedia. And the fact remains that your website does not have a wikipedia presence. One was started, and quickly removed by a wikipedia admin. Perhaps work on that first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.202.103 (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

For it to appear to overtake HC it would need growth that indicates that. Your URL shows BW at rock-bottom compared to the traffic generated through HC and CS. It barely shows up on the graph. Add to that the complete unreliability of alexadata as statistics since their methods of gathering data rely on users installing plugins and the like and then extrapolating across a broader population. Their numbers are, in all reality, made up. I searched through the wikipedia guidelines and saw no mention of wikipedia philosophy favouring open source or democracy. Wikipedia isn't even democratic so I'm amazed you would suggest that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.232.2 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

-- @203.31.232.2 (who is Babso the forum HC forum moderator who spend his energy trying not to have any BeWelcome reference quoted in the HC Forum, so definitively not a neutral person).

I don't think we can rely on the Alexa statistics even if they show the activity of BeWelcome, but for sure, if we compare the activity in the public BW volunteer wiki ([1]) vs the HC one ([2]) , or the activity of the BW volunteer forum vs the Hospitality club forum, or the recent changes on these web sites, we can have a good measurement of the BeWelcome activity.

Since I am the 711th Hospitality Club member (in July 2001) , since I have done a lot in the area of HC programming and in helping the HC growth in its the early days, I can say I have some experience with this subject. It is clear for me that HC has had more than 400 000 subscribed members (the current displays numbers beeing outdated since month, and this don't mean they are 400 000 members active).

What I can see is :

• that in 2006 HC sometime had very often 400 peoples online, where today, in the recent months, it is no more than 300 generally 200

• it is also an evidence that there is no programming activity in HC, no new significant things in the HC website since beginning of 2006. This it is a pity, I am still willing to help here, providing some of my answer to HC founder can be answered, but thats not the point.
• I remember I programmed the Hospitality Club groups in 2004-2005 and they are still announced as a new feature, the same stands for the "NEW! Invite friendly people!" still anounced as new but which I programmed in 2003. The HC preferences are announce as a new thing but I remember I made them in 2003 or 2004. The HC meetings features is a bit recent, but it is just some basic use of a google feature which doesn't work very well (don't misunderstand me, the work Nagzyl did is good, but I think a network of HC size should have a feature at least at the level of the Couchsurfing meeting feature)
• In other hand Couchsurfing is really today several step before HC, and BeWelcome, even if it has still a small number of members is weekly having new features, new improvment.

Currently HC is slowly going down (this might change and I would like it to change), CS is at the top and increasing/improving daily, BW is really active (number of members constantly increasing, volunteer activity, brainstorm of idea, work meetings, transparency, clear legal statute) but has of course not reach the activity of CS founded 7 years before it. The total amount of members is not the proper indicator of a network activity, to see what is alive and what is not just look to the change on the web page.

@Babso, it is also clear by this discussion than many people think BeWelcome has its place in the Hospitality Service web page

If someone feels like to restore a reference about BeWelcome (Which differ from HC and CS because it is not owned by a single person, but by its volunteer and manage in a democratic way), I think he will help the community of wikipedians.

As Babso stated it I am very involved in BeWelcome, after having made very big contribution to Hospitality Club, so I might be consider as a not completely neutral perso, so I will not restore this link myself this time. If someone wants additional information about Hospitality Club, or about BeWelcome, just ask me, I will be pleased to answer.

Jyhegron (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

13:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC) --

Wow, how funny to see the effort of the HospitalityClub new volunteers for hiding the existence of BeWelcome. Is this what you call bringing the people together ?

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.131.192 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BeWelcome as 'split-up' of Hospitality Club (and other networks)

I added the note again with a recent newspaper article as additional reference 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)

A volunteer deciding to start their own website does not make a split. heck 6 volunteers do not when there are hundreds of volunteers working towards putting back in what they personally get out. It's clear that you want to position this new website next to the established ones like HC, CS, Servas etc, by making any attempt to draw connections that you can. None of the networks have split. Your website is not connected to them other than the people who started it had volunteered some time along with hundreds of others. As for natural evolution, what you say sounds like marketing material: it's meaningless. This aggressive single-minded push of multiple members of your organisation is what makes wikipedia sometimes an unwelcome place to be. But luckily there are many members here ready to clean up such acts, as has happened with your posts. I'm not going to rehash great arguments that have been put forward to you again, other than to say look at the difference between people putting a balanced page together here and your aggressive push to overrepresent just one single website without any care for the dozens of others out there. Interesting isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.155.3 (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

You clearly are presenting a biased view. For a start, you are only concerned with adding one new barely known website. Your bias is clear; you are not interested in updating this page to be reflective of the hospitality service concept, but to jump in and add promotion of a website over dozens of others which are more established. Your own website ( hospitalityguide, yes? ) clearly presents an extremely biased view towards websites which are centrally run, and in fact focuses much of it's attention on this point in an overly negative fasion. In addition, your bias is further exposed by your claim of it being a "natural evolution" -- words that really have no meaning, no scientific or factual basis, other than to emote your idealogical preference for organisations which are democratic rather than centrally structured. Your statement of not caring about networks disputes seems somewhat nullified by your edit making unreferenced and seemingly gossip driven attacks at just one individual in one organisation. I strongly suggest you do the following: have a good, solid, comprehensive read through the wikipedia guidelines. And then keep them in mind when making your edits, which have been poorly worded, unreferenced, biased, emotionally worded and everything that wikipedia tries not to be. Re logging in. I have read wikipedia guidelines quite clearly and this is not a requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.169.2 (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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) PS: I would prefer if could log in and use a registered User for the changes and discussion. Therewith, I know that I do discuss with the same person and do not waste my time with some random clown. Thanks.

Your points are unsuitable for many reasons, including being original research, unreferenced claims, inappropriate detail for a generic article about Hospitality Service, and an attemt to drag your obvious personal political motivations into this page. The section you are editing is a little summary of history of the origins of hospitality and it's popularisation on the internet, far from what you are adding. In addition, of the numerous organisations out there that are involved in the history of this phenomenon, this new website you seem very keen to promote is the newest and one of the smallest. To include that in a history page along side sites that have been established for years, have around 400,000 users each and are the clear leaders of this movement is extremely inappropriate. As for your claims that HC thinks BW took money, i hardly see how that is a relevant point to make on this page. It is immaterial to the Hospitality Service concept. And as pointed out already, your late entrance to this debate about who to include in examples should make it obvious that you don't just come in and reapply those edits: there are numerous other organisations that have been around longer but have not been included, as this isn't a directory. Perhaps leave this "journalistic style reporting" to your own wiki website where you have your own rules you can make up and follow. But please do follow wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.169.2 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 issues as you think it is inappropriate in this section. --Aaida (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia supports anonymous edits. In fact, over 70% of wikipedia content comes from them. There is no hiding. I find it odd that you would think i have an HC bias when I was the one that made the edit to show that CS is the largest network, and also the edit to put CS in the top of the list of the 3 example networks. ( that is, after the little tit-for-tat where JY repeatedly put his new website #1 in the list, much like you are now repeatedly putting the same website along the historical notes ). Where the biases and motivations become clear is when users start to focus their efforts on a single facet, such as picking this new and relatively infinitesimal site among them all to list up the top of the page. It's really simple. The history covers origins. And the sits mentioned are established, have been around for years and have 400,000 - 500,000 members each. The site you are trying to promote has less than 1% of that userbase. As mentioned previously, this isn't a place to create a directory. And to be frank, JoeBob Computers doesn't get to go to the Microsoft wiki page and say he is the latest company to run microsoft software (g) which is exactly what you are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.169.2 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

lost deleted discussion

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)

history and future development

"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. 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."

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)

--

So you are proposing to list all historic events of any website that has something to do with social hospitality exchange? If it starts with Servas, and goes through the dozens of exchanges that address the concept now that could become a very long list. Why do you skip the dozens of "hospitality service" or hospitality exchange events that have happened and skip straight to the newest and incredibly small website? Are you really interested in elaborating the history section or just adding this one small website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.169.2 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)--Aaida (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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)

References

Another opinion

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)

number of users

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 [3]
   * Hospitality Club --   386,550 [4] (April 2008)
   * GlobalFreeLoaders --   56,961 [5] (April 2008)
   * Servas Intl --       > 13,000 [6] (April 2008)
   * Warm Showers List- over 8,000 [7]
   * BeWelcome --            7,236 [8]
   * TravelHoo --            6,954 (March 29)  ...shut down? [9]
   * Pasporta Servo --       1,350 [10] 
   * 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitzl (talk • contribs)

"very active"

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)

Scouting

Without questioning the value of children participating in exchange programs, it seems to me that the scouting program - limited to members who come together for another purpose - is based on an entirely different principle than that considered in this article. Furthermore, hundreds of youth and religious organizations feature this sort of exchange, fundamentally different from open Hospitality networks.

I propose erasing the scout mention, and will do so if there are no reasoned objections here.

Missing entries in the "Notable hospitality networks" section - what about a table with all services for comparison

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)