Talk:WWOOF

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Travel and Tourism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It would be good to have the full list of countries listed out with links to their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisbeth498 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wwoof.org link is down or out of commission. http://www.wwoofusa.org is working 7/15/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.157.222 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to view the diversity of viewpoints expressed in the recent history record for this file. What is WWOOF? Is it a philosophy? Is it an organization in England? Is it the experience that thousands and thousands of people have had at thousands of farms around the world? Is it whatever is held in common by farmers who say they have WWOOF programs, or is it what is dictated by an office worker in England whose paycheck relies on trying to monopolize and in fact make a profit off of farmers and volunteers, claiming to represent them?

Wwoof (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what I have seen over the last few days re viewpoints:

- one persons view is that WWOOF is a philosophy, belongs to no one so anyone can use the term.

- The other view is that WWOOF is a philosophy, belongs to no one but the basic definitions of WWOOF need to be respected. The suggestion is that the 'guardian of those definitions' is a coherent set of organisation that use the name WWOOF.

What is WWOOF? - it is a simple idea - facilitating dialogue between organic farmers that want to host volunteers and people interested in volunteering on organic farms. WWOOF organisations have been created to promote and develop the idea of WWOOF. Some of them have spent 30 years working on this. It is not just publishing a list, it is developing and maintaining it. There is a personal contact point (a real human being in the country) and also information to support successful dialogues between volunteers and hosts. These services are provided and have developed along the history of the development of the WWOOF concept by WWOOF organisations.

WWOOF organisation exclusively focus on organic agriculture, as the name says WORLD WIDE OPPORTUNITES ON ORGANIC FARMS would suggest. WWOOF organisations only list organic farms and do not list other types of hosts. Other recent groups like HelpX, couchsurfing, hospitaltiy club, workaway (the list goes on...) offer similar services and some of their hosts are organic farms. In fact some of these groups started by using a WWOOF list to contact and attract hosts to their services. While the services they offer are like WWOOF, the contact between the host and volunteer is not set within the main aims of WWOOF here:

• To enable people to learn about organic growing techniques first hand
• To enable people to learn about sustainable living, healthier life styles and alternative ways of life
• To provide an opportunity to learn about rural life in the Irish countryside by living and working together
• To give practical assistance to producers of organic food
• To give people a chance to meet, talk, learn and exchange views with others in the organic movement

(taken from the site http://www.wwoof.ie)

It is clear that many new online 'WWOOF like' services would benifit of the sucess that the name WWOOF brings with it. But in turn the diversification of the services and the framework that they work in will only weaken the focus of the WWOOF concept.

You can see that the main objective of any WWOOF organisation is to exclusivley help the organic movement. WWOOF organisation are a clearly defined set of organisation that promote the orignal idea of WWOOF along certain agreed principles. They meet and work together on defining WWOOF. See the documents section on this page for more details: http://www.wwoofinternational.org/media.php

One point - You say: 'is [WWOOF] what is dictated by an office worker in England whose paycheck relies on trying to monopolize and in fact make a profit off of farmers and volunteers, claiming to represent them?'

I am interested to read your views - I am also interested in where you get the information that shapes your views. If you research all WWOOF organisations adhere to the priciples and define WWOOF in a very clear and unified way. Look at other 'WWOOF like' online services mentioned and they do not follow these guidelines.

In reality most WWOOF organisations make no profit at all. WWOOF Co-ordinators often use their own money to support WWOOF in their own countries. Where profit is made that profit is used to develop WWOOF, support WWOOFing incountries where there is not a national WWOOF group and also start up new WWOOF organisation in new countries. By supporting WWOOF you are signing up to the same set of objectives and your money supports the development of WWOOF. It does not line the pockets of people who want to 'monopolize and in fact make a profit off of farmers and volunteers'

78.159.28.216 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You state the two views as:

- one persons view is that WWOOF is a philosophy, belongs to no one so anyone can use the term.

- The other view is that WWOOF is a philosophy, belongs to no one but the basic definitions of WWOOF need to be respected. The suggestion is that the 'guardian of those definitions' is a coherent set of organisation that use the name WWOOF.

So then we clearly have consensus that WWOOF is a philosophy that belongs to no one. Let's change the article to reflect that this wikipedia WWOOF page is either ONLY about one organization / agreed subset of organizations, OR the WWOOF philosophy - which all parties agree on - "WWOOF is a philosophy, belongs to no one" - Then we can create a separate page for the other. I'm not sure where exactly, but somewhere we can indicate the relationship among the farms, wwoofers, national/international organizations, and philosophy.

Later we can talk about whether links to http://www.wwoof.org/ or helpx.net or organicvolunteers belong on one or the other page or not at all. Wwoof (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this nonsense going on, with this link being posted on the WWOOF page and then removed, and then posted again, and then removed again...

It seems to me that someone wants to use Wikipedia to promote his own webpage, even though he is not connected to any recognised WWOOF organisation.

You say that there is consensus that WWOOF belongs to no one, but you ignore the clear difference of opinion between you and the other person who posted. You seem to feel that anyone at all can use the name WWOOF, whereas in fact the 'right' to use the name is granted informally by the community of WWOOF organisations around the world. This 'right' is granted to people who want to start new national WWOOF organisations, provided they respect certain basic groundrules. Those groundrules include agreements not to list hosts in countries that already have their own national WWOOF organisations, agreements that WWOOF is a non-monetary exchange, and a lot more things that were agreed at two international WWOOF conferences (2000 and 2006). It seems to me that your list of hosts does not respect these groundrules and therefore cannot claim to be 'WWOOF'.

Of course, there is nothing in the world to stop you from forming such a list of hosts that are open to receiving volunteers. But to use the name 'WWOOF' you need to be accepted into the wider community of WWOOF organisations, which will not happen when you don't respect the groundrules that all other WWOOF organisations have agreed to be bound by. The Diggerman Cometh (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, we're all editors here, and bold changes followed by discussion are welcomed before calling one another's contributions nonsense.

There are clearly a variety of organizations that have a certain definition of WWOOF that allows them to make money but does not allow the farmers to even break even. Due to that, many farmers resent the organizations, which do not represent them. Why make the claim that the organzations own the name WWOOF? Another poster here just wrote that WWOOF is a philosophy, owned by no-one - indeed, thousands of farmers have contributed hundreds of thousands of hours for the betterment of humanity through their identification with the philosophy and the practice. They aren't happy that the organizations have coopted the philosophy - the typical government situation where those in charge in offices know very little about what is going on in the ground floor and don't even listen to what they're being told.

As both myself and the other poster suggested, let's be clear that WWOOF is a philosophy owned by no-one, and then later we can address the issue of the relationship between the philosophy and the organizations (which you claim deserve a wikipedia link since they own the domain name). Are we agreed on that WWOOF is a philosophy owned by no-one?

Wwoof (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "nonsense" I was referring to was the 'edit war' going on between you and another user, with each undoing the other person's revisions. There are clear rules and guidelines for editing articles on Wikipedia, which help to avoid such edit wars. Where something is not covered by the rules / guidelines (or the rules / guidelines are open to interpretation), there is the possibility to discuss and reach agreement. Sadly, your edit war has led to the article on WWOOF being protected, which means that now no one can add their contributions. The rules in this case are clear - links to external webpages where copyright material is being reproduced without permission are not allowed. There are no exceptions to this rule. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNEVER#Restrictions_on_linking

The Diggerman Cometh (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you modified my contribution in this talk page without my permission. The link that you are talking about is to a page that contains public information that is not copyrighted in any way. But that's a distraction in any case. What we need to resolve is first whether we agree on the person quoted above that wwoof is a philosophy owned by no-one, and what is the general idea of it. In the specifics - *what is wwoof* - who gets to decide? The reality is that wwoof is a philosophy and also a set of relationships among groups of people - hosting farms, volunteers, and listing organizations. Do we have any consensus at all here, or is this simply a case of you and some others who gain a profit by hoarding information and attempting to micromanage relations between others, attempting to make any consensus impossible because you know it goes against your financial interest to do so? Is your opinion that the hosting farms and volunteers don't get to have their voice heard on wikipedia because they don't have a domain name? If the wwoof organizations want to manage their domains and businesses governing with an iron fist, they'll continue to lose popularity and business, but they have a right to destroy themselves if they wish. However, wikipedia seeks to represent the diversity of views, the net sum of our knowledge, not just the people with domain names but also those who are participants in other ways.

120.28.233.42 (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in getting into general discussion about "what is WWOOF". I have no particular views on this matter of WWOOF being "a philosophy owned by no one".

My interest here is in Wikipedia – that is, in making my (small) contribution to creating an encyclopedia. There are clear rules / guidelines about contributions to Wikipedia, and in this specific case the external link you posed was problematic.

To start with, the webpage being linked to is one of your own personal pages. Adding this link is therefore not in accordance with the neutral viewpoint that is one of Wikipedia's 'five pillars':

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion

(From: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)

Including "personal website links" is one way that conflict of interest is said to present itself. This is distinctly frowned on, to say the least:

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. [...] Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed, because Wikipedia uses nofollow on all external links, thereby causing search engines to effectively ignore them.

(From: Wikipedia:Spam)

In addition, I believe the page you're linking to violates copyright. WWOOF organisations compile and publish lists of hosts. This published material is their copyright. Your page reproduces some of this work, which would not be considered to be in the public domain. (A useful similar example would be a guidebook that listed hotels: this would be considered a copyright work, even though the names and addresses of the hotels may be available from other sources, and the descriptions of the hotels may be self-written by the hotels' owners. The fact that the publisher has done the work of soliciting, compiling and publishing this information – whether in a book or online – makes it their copyright.) Of course, it's possible that you may have asked for and been granted permission to reproduce this material, but that seems extremely unlikely. See my previous posting for details of where the guidelines can be found - they make it clear that the "no exceptions" includes on talk pages.

For several reasons, then, I saw fit to remove the link.

It is also clear (from the edits you have made, and from the comments you have made on the WWOOF article edit history, this talk page and your user talk page) that you have something of 'an axe to grind' with WWOOF organisations. This 'beef' further places you in a non-neutral position. Your comments have been forceful and may have crossed the line into personal attacks (including on me). This is very unfortunate. I would ask you to review your motives in being here and making these postings. Wikipedia editors should be motivated by a genuine desire to make their contribution to an encyclopedia, not a desire to pursue their own agendas or personal interests.

I am sure it would be helpful for you to enter into a discussion of "what is WWOOF" with people from WWOOF organisations. However, I don't think it's helpful or appropriate for that to take place here. Please note these guidelines about what Wikipedia is not:

[B]ear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article

Wikipedia is not a place to [...] import personal conflicts

from Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not

The Diggerman Cometh (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references I found which I will incorporate when I get time. If anyone else wants to do so, go ahead. Manning (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• London Guardian article
• Melbourne Age article
• UK Independent article
• Arizona Central article

Hi All: I have never edited anything on Wikipedia... I am the President of the Board of Director's of WWOOF-USA... and wanted to add a line to some of the text. But I don't know how...can someone help? It currently says:

"United States of America as an example WWOOF organization

After signing up and paying the $20 membership fee, a new member will receive a booklet. Currently, the booklet is about 200 pages. The booklet is split into four sections: Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West areas of the United States. In each section, the states are listed in alphabetical order. Beyond the organization just mentioned, trying to find a farm to work on can be difficult. Listings are outdated meaning, for example, farms are no longer looking for workers. Also, the listings consist of a paragraph describing the situation. There is little consistency between each listings' paragraphs and one must read the entire paragraph to find the necessary information (e.g. length of stay, pets allowed, children allowed, etc.)."

I wanted to change it to: "...Beyond the organization just mentioned, trying to find a farm to work on can be difficult. Listings are outdated meaning, for example, farms are no longer looking for workers. [Please note: WWOOF-USA is currently addressing this issue by contacting all the hosts in the farm individually. As a non-profit, WWOOF-USA hasn't had the funds or volunteer capacity to do this prior to now. I'll announce when this effort is complete...-note added 5/7/09 by WWOOF-USA Board of Directors]. Also, the listings consist of a paragraph describing the situation. There is little consistency between each listings' paragraphs and one must read the entire paragraph to find the necessary information (e.g. length of stay, pets allowed, children allowed, etc.). [Please Note: We have upgraded our system to have an online directory searchable by keywords and location. The system is not perfect but much improved. note added 5/7/09 by WWOOF-USA Board of Directors]"

WOULD SOMEONE WITH EDITING CAPACITY ON THE WWOOF SITE MAKE THESE CHANGES OR SOME VARIATION OF THESE CHANGES...? OR TELL ME HOW I CAN... Thank you, Sherin Larijani —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherinl (talk • contribs) 09:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs a template warning about the overly promotional tone until it's corrected. There's also a lack of third-party sources here. And there are some sentences here which are problematic and read like a news release:

"Sue Coppard, a woman working as a secretary in London, wanted to provide city folks with access to the countryside, while supporting the organic movement."

^ This isn't cited, nor is the rest of the text in this section, and "city folks" is way too colloquial.

"A large variety of people volunteer through WWOOF, from vacationing students to those who are interested in starting organic farming or organic gardening for themselves. WWOOFers range in age from teenagers (or children with their parents) through to pensioners."

^ That reads like a promotional pamphlet. The language isn't factual or cited. "Pensioners"? Is there even any point in mentioning that a variety of people volunteer?

"These are collated and published in a booklet or on a secure internet site. Interested volunteers pay a small annual membership fee to receive internet access or a copy of this booklet and a membership card. They can then contact the farms directly to arrange a visit."

^ That reads like a "Howto", which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the appropriate site to detail steps one can take to become involved, and this information is overly pedantic. "Secure" internet site? A "small" membership fee? Receiving a booklet and membership card? This isn't important or factual material.

"They respond to complaints if there are any problems. If an issue should arise between a host and WWOOFer then the local organizer will be able to mediate to find a resolution. Hosts are expected to offer a friendly and welcoming environment and experience in organic growing methods. The WWOOFers should be willing to learn by pitching in with the daily chores."

^ Again, this is written like copy from a WWOOF site. It's completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to advise on what people "should" do, including WWOOF volunteers. "Pitching in" is colloquial. And the part about mediation again is overly promotional; it's something that should be on a WWOOF site and not in Wikipedia unless there's a third-party source.

I think this article has potential, but huge swathes of it haven't been written for Wikipedia, they've been written for interested potential volunteers. Which is not okay. --Undobutton (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a an avid user of Wikipedia, a PhD, and now a first time commenter, I just wanted to say that the criticisms of this article sound biased against the subject matter itself. To call it "promotional" struck me as ridiculous. What makes describing a project and some of its components and its people promotional? As an (academic) person interested in the subject, I found nothing wrong with the content. I bumped into the WWOOF acronym while researching organic farming in Costa Rica, and wondered what it meant. This article addressed much of what I wanted to know. Having said that, there is obviously much more to tell about this subject. Add to the volume of the content by making a full list of WWOOF countries and links to their websites. I would encourage that kind of editing. Treating this article as if it is a political project that needs to be toned down is unfair. IMHO. Gcolello (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gcolello: Thanks for letting us have your thoughts. I've taken the liberty of moving your post to the conventional place for a reply to a post on a talk page.

You will see that much of the promotional phrasing referred to in the above post from 2009 has since been removed or modified. So the concerns appear to have been largely addressed. I'd question now whether the "written like an advertisement" tag at the top of the article is still called for. Undobutton, who made the post above, has not edited since 2010 but any other follower of this page is welcome to add a comment here: Noyster (talk), 16:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okaydoke, I've gone in and cleaned this up. Removed pedantic "how-to" information and informal language, added citation needed tags and banners. Let me know what you guys think! --Undobutton (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please alter this paragraph

The duration of the visit can range from a few days to years. Workdays average 5–6 hours and participants interact with other WWOOFers from various countries.^[1] WWOOF farms include private gardens through smallholdings, allotments, and commercial farms. Farms become WWOOF hosts by enlisting with their national organisation. In countries with no WWOOF organisation, farms enlist with WWOOF UK and WWOOF Australia.

With this The duration of the visit can range from a few days to years. Workdays average 5–6 hours and participants interact with other WWOOFers from various countries.^[1] WWOOF farms include private gardens through smallholdings, allotments, and commercial farms. Farms become WWOOF hosts by enlisting with their national organisation. In countries with no WWOOF organisation, farms enlist with WWOOF UK.

Thank you www.wwoof.com.au TracWB (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, where can we find information that WWOOF Australia does not want to help farms outside Australia? Thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In countries with no WWOOF organisation, farms enlist with WWOOF Independents! --Noyster (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WWOOF. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100101232239/http://www.emerson.org.uk:80/biodynamic-agriculture-articles/bid/14671/Many-Hands-Make-Light-Work to http://www.emerson.org.uk/biodynamic-agriculture-articles/bid/14671/Many-Hands-Make-Light-Work

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juliad333 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Appo.20, Jmcintyre21, DanielleMargarite.

— Assignment last updated by Juliad333 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask how its possible for WWOOF to have organizations in 210 countries as i cant see a way how there are 210 countries on the planet. Would appreciate someone educating me on this. 146.0.114.237 (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]