User talk:Drmaxbrown

kohrong.guide

If you wish to promote your website, you better go to Wikivoyage: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Koh_Rung_Sanloem Wikipedia is for encyclopedic edits.
Wikirictor (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. We understand that Wikipedia is for encyclopedic edits. As a part of this it requires reliable sources for specific 'non-general' information. Currently, we are a (rare) credible informational source on Koh Rong and Koh Rong Samloem. As such, we wish to provide accurate up-to-date information for Wikipedia and other 'secondary' users so that their 'facts' are based on verified information.

For example, in this paragraph:

"As of 2016, Saracen Bay has established itself as the main tourist area on Koh Rong Sanloem, with more than a dozen bungalow and villa resorts.[11] Accommodation and prices range from cheap dorm beds to modern villas with air-conditioning, wide-screen TV’s, comfortable beds, and en-suite bathrooms with a hot shower and a western toilet.[12] Other notable tourist destinations include ‘Lazy Beach’ and ‘Sunset Beach’ (located on the western side of the island), and Ma-Pay Bay (located on the northern side of the island).

There are 2 main ferry services between Sihanoukville and Koh Rong Sanloem: TBC (45-75 min) and Speed Ferry (40 min).[13] Both services leave from the Ochheuteal (AKA ‘Serendipity’) pier in Sihanoukville. There are also a couple of ‘Slow Boat’ services that take 1.5 – 2.5 hours. These services depart from the local port of Sihanoukville and the piers at Serendipity beach and Victory beach."

11) We have personally counted the number of resorts on Koh Rong Sanloem in every location, and are the ONLY website to have done so. 'More than a dozen' is a specific claim and not general - It requires a reliable source as justification for the claim. As such, the page referenced provides a reliable source for a non-general claim (the number of resorts on Saracen Bay), and is the only page to currently do so.

12) We have personally visited every single resort on Koh Rong Sanloem, and are the ONLY website to have done so. The range of accommodation mentioned provides specific details and is not general. As such, the page referenced provides reliable information to justify a non-general claim regarding the range of accommodation on Saracen Bay, and is the only page to currently do so.

13) We are Official Partners of the ferry services between Sihanoukville and Koh Rong Sanloem, and are the ONLY website with this status. The number of ferry services and the time they take is a specific non-general claim. As such, the page referenced provides reliable information for a non-general claim regarding the time the ferries take and how many services there are, and is the only page to currently do so.

To back up the above arguments, KohRong.Guide is currently the ONLY website officially endorsed by Cambodia's ministry of tourism, and as such is currently the most reliable source in the sector. Many thanks. Drmaxbrown (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your site is five months old and contains apart from trivia mostly unsourced tourist information, which can be obtained from dozens of Cambodian sites in much greater detail.

It is of no concern whose business partner you are - this is not relevant for WP.

You are new to WP and all your edits refer to your own commercial site, which is "self promotion" and "original research". Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Your "updates" belong in Wikivoyage. Please see WP editing guidelines: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_Simple_Rules_for_Editing_Wikipedia

Thank you for your attentionWikirictor (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

1) How old a website is is irrelevant with regard to the verifiability of the information it provides. In our case, for instance, although the website is just 5 months old, it is a reflection of several years of experience in the sector.

2) Please provide valid examples of the 'dozens of Cambodian sites' you claim provide the same information as on our site but in much greater detail. I think you will find, for instance, that the information we provide on ferry transport is currently the least misleading, given the CURRENT state of affairs. This might explain why the 'tourism section' on Koh Rong Sanloem was so out dated and misleading. Perhaps you could also explain why so many references on these pages are for self-promotion of spam websites, and these have not been monitored (I can provide examples if you so wish).

3) We are new to wikipedia yes, and so we started to edit the sector that we are most familiar with, which are the Koh Rong and Koh Rong Sanloem islands. This does not imply that future edits would not extend to other areas also, and as such your point cannot be used to discredit our contribution.

4) "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You are hereby implying that we are not a reliable source, or that the pages referenced are not directly related to the topic of the article. Please clarify your position on this matter, as to regard us as an unreliable source from a very weak epistemic situation suggests a biased approach from your part. Many thanksDrmaxbrown (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to pre-empt some potential replies...

Sihanoukville is a rapidly expanding city, but it is not yet at a technologically advanced stage (as is the case with Cambodia in general).

As such, there is no ‘universal’ online agreement over even some of the most basic things, largely because there is a lack of reliable online-based sources.

To give you an example, take the TravelFish entry on Koh Rong – No doubt one of the websites you have in mind that is ‘reliable’ and provides a more ‘extensive’ version of the information on our website.

TravelFish explicitly recommend visitors to take 'slow boats': “A handful of other one-off resorts are set around the island at the northeast and southwest and these arrange their own slow boats from Sihanoukville; it's a two-three hour journey that's absolutely worth it if you're looking for real peace and isolation.”

Now, a reliable trustworthy source, who knows the sector and is actively involved in it, would not recommend visitors to take slow boats. Slow boats here (even the larger services) are not professionally run and are not equipped for the various weather conditions. As an example, see this recent article in Phnom Penh post: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/eight-rescued-boat-sinks-sihanoukville

Compare our website: “There are also a couple of $5-$10 ‘Slow Boat’ services that take 1.5 – 2.5 hours – These services are not professionally run and are not recommended”

We would go so far as to argue that ANY source that recommends slow boats is thereby unreliable, given the potential seriousness of the implications of such a recommendation, and the clear lack of understanding of the sector that such a recommendation entails. Indeed, ANY source that does not explicitly mention the dangers involved with slow boats can be deemed unreliable, as it is arguably the moral duty of an expert to make such matters explicit.

Thus, when you provide the examples of the 'dozens of Cambodian sites' you claim present the same information as on our website but in much greater detail, bare this argument in mind.

In reality, most websites on Koh Rong / Samloem are old static sites, created for financial reasons, with no motivation to be an accurate reliable source, and no expertise in the area. Many of them are based on single visits to the islands and are very poorly researched. For instance, the information they have on hotels is largely based on booking.com entries and the like. It is quite easy to see why this information is not reliable – Hotels open and close regularly, and these changes are not monitored by booking.com.

Compare our website, where we regularly go to the islands to check the status of each hotel. E.g. we have a page on The Royal Resort on Koh Rong Samloem – This resort does not take online bookings and so is not mentioned on the majority of other travel guides.

Compare also our approach – We are an independent, not-for-profit organisation that was created with the aim of providing accurate up-to-date information for visiting tourists, and as a way to help keep the islands clean and help the local fishing communities. As you can see, it can be quite easily argued that we are the leading source of information on Koh Rong and Koh Rong Samloem.

Now, the question is, does Wikipedia wish to have unreliable and misleading information on Koh Rong and Koh Rong Samloem (as was the case prior to our edits), based on the out dated online entries of a (largely) non-expert community, or would it prefer to have accurate up-to-date information based on our expertise, given the clear lack of reliable internet-based sources in the sector.

The approach Wikipedia takes to reports of facts in a more developed society, with often many reliable sources, can be different in situations where these sources are simply lacking, yet states of affairs are developing at rapid rates.

We would thus conclude that, given the above, we ought to be a perceived as a trustworthy source for the non-general claims about Koh Rong and Koh Rong Samloem that we have provided for the relevant Wikipedia articles.

Thanks for your time and careful consideration of our arguments.Drmaxbrown (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

you sent me an email

The wikipedia software has notified me that you have sent me an email. My wikipedia email doesn't work, so if the matter is important, try my Talk page. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)