Currently there are still some digital works which can not be published on a Wikimedia projects, because none of them have the right editorial guideline to host them. Things like original poetry, songs, essays, theses, novels, etc., whether they were already previously published or not.
It would be great to see Wikimedia launch a project to host this kind of works.
The no original research for Wikipedia is understandable and very important of course. Now as it's said in the previous linked page, what's relevant for an encyclopedia may not fit others projects which need different editorial guidelines. In existing projects Wikibooks is too pedagogic works oriented, and wikisource won't accept works which were not previously published on a paper format.
Moreover, one may argue that it would be a good way to softly remove originals works from Wikipedia, with a message like "your contribution contains original claims, Wikipedia is not the place to publish this kind of content, but you could share your original work on Wikikultur". Then eventually, the Wikipedia article could use Wikikultur articles as references. This would give access to authoring information (eventually anonymous/IP claims), and all advantages of a free/libre work on a wiki. For example, we may have statistics on articles, so we can check if it's not used as a reference of an over represented point of view in an Wikipedia article.
On artistic topics, this would really help to boost the free-libre culture movement to have a place where every artists can directly experiment what it means to share and build together, with an audience intertwined with other MediaWiki projects.
|This page is a proposal for a new Wikimedia Foundation Sister Project.|
|What is the proposed name for the project?||Wikikultur|
|Proposed project tagline (if available)||The Free Culture Scene or The Libre Culture Scene|
What is the project purpose? What will be its scope? How would it benefit to be part of Wikimedia?
|Build and publish original works like poetry, songs, essays, theses, novels, etc., whether they were already previously published or not.|
|How many wikis?
Will there be many language versions or just on one multilingual wiki?
|There will be many language versions.|
|How many languages?
Is the project going to be in one language or in many?
|The project is going to be in many languages.|
|Proposed project website address||To determine|
|Proposed logo for the project (if available)||No proposition yet. Contributions welcome.|
If the project requires any new features that the MediaWiki software currently doesn't have, please describe in detail. Are additional MediaWiki extensions needed for the project?
|The project doesn't necessarily requires new features that the MediaWiki software currently doesn't have. Some extensions may be welcome like Extension:Duplicator to easily create forks (for example, if you want to write an alternative end to a novel). Extension:LilyPond could be used to provide a way to sharing music scores. Possibly, novels interfaces may be developed (or integrated) to ease musical and graphical contributions and collaborations.|
|Not yet in incubation.|
wikiculture wikicultur wikikulturo wikikultura wikicultura wikikult wikisevenadur wikimentan wikicultural…
- wikisource if you drop the "no first publication" requirement
- wikibooks if you drop the pedagogic focus
- Wikiessay have a smaller focus, which would be included in a project like wikikultur, a category essay and a portal could be created for this particular subject, and others
- WikiScores, Wikimusic II, and so on, could also be covered in a wikikultur, once again with categories and portal to guide people
- Sexta poética a brazilian wiki publishing poems affiliated to the Wikimedia Brazil
any .org of the previous names
Add your name to the end of the list with #~~~~ if you are interested in this project.
- Psychoslave (talk)
- Nevinho (talk)
- Raylton P. Sousa (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- H2NCH2COOH (talk)
- Ordre Nativel (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- David1010 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Varnent (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Leucosticte (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Theopolisme talk! 23:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- VIGNERON * discut. 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- --Claritas (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions )18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Halley Pacheco de Oliveira (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- 18.104.22.168 19:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- ABC 15:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- ClementD (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Startracker 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- --Iste (D) 17:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Solstag (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Eduardofeld (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ricordisamoa 07:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Lionel Allorge (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Mirrorhai (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Micru (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- --TheChampionMan1234talken-wiki 02:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jmfayard (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- --Blizinsk (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Does the proposal fit into one of the existing projects?
- Not with current guidelines. Wikibook could be used if the guideline would be redefined without pedagogical requirements. Wikisource could be used if the guideline would be redefined without previous paper publication.
- Would there be side-effects on existing projects?
- It would be possible to redirect, from Wikipedia, people interested to write free (eventually collaborative) essays, or other works exposing a point of view or originals theses. Thus, the free/libre culture would not miss possible contributions, and it may reduce the amount of POV tainted articles. Moreover, Wikipedia may use some Wikikultur articles as references, giving people a primary source with many wiki-format advantages : history , statistics, etc. This may help establishing the topic's notability.
- Doesn't Wikipedia, and others Wikimedia projects, have a no novel works guideline ? Isn't an encyclopedia a project which sum up existing knowledge, rather an original works collection ?
- It's important and right that Wikipedia continues to keep a guideline which exclude novels works, it's an important principle which tend to make it an improving encyclopedia. However, all projects of the foundation does not exclude novels works, or at least are committed to the necessary acceptance of original works pertinent for their general guidelines. Thus, Wikiversity established a guideline for original researches and Wikinews explains the steps one may follow to contribute on first hand journalism actions. A project like wikikultur have its place among other Wikimedia projects because it would well interconnect with them. A Wikiversity course exposing structuring narratives (or musical if you prefer) woks may end with an invitation to share works wrote after studying the course on Wikikultur, and to add interlinks at the end of the course. And retroactively, the study of produced works could be as used as material for Wiktionary research studies on the impact and effectiveness of the course. The possibilities of publishing essays which can serve as primary source for Wikipedia, and benefits that could be bring, have already been mentioned several times on this page. A page as The no original research policy have would completely fit the guideline of a project like Wikikultur, while its publication on Meta-Wiki is more questionable.
- Isn't other collaborative media available which would me more suited for this kind of project, like launching a dedicated wiki, on Wikia for example? Isn't this project out scope of the Wikimedia goals ?
- As explained in the previous point, Wikikultur has an ambition of symbiosis with the other Wikimedia projects, an objective which can only be achieved by becoming itself a Wikimedia project. Wikikultur will not only intend to encourage interconnections with other Wikimedia projects, it will participate in strengthening links between other projects. For covering a guideline that is out of scope of other projects, it will fill a gap of potential inter-relationships.
- Who are the volunteers who will judge the artistic quality of what is provided? Isn't art the most subjective of all human activities that can not be judged objectively.
- First, one could argue first that all judgment is necessarily subjective, but this is a topic that deserves a highly developed essay alone, and that would of course have its place on Wikikultur. More simply, concerns on art works qualities or philosophical works virtues, are decisions that should be left to the discretion of each person who will consult those works. Obviously, anyone can inquire about other contributors opinions through discussion pages. Possibly, if the community perceive the interest, it would be possible to implement systems to allow rapid feedback like it's done on Wikipedia, obviously with questions adapted the original works.
- Doesn't this project require too much resources for Wikimedia which has limited space and time and extremely limited financial and volunteers resources, with only small potential benefits?
- This project have probably not a disproportionate size relative to other goals set by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia does not hide and is sparing no efforts to attract new contributors and retain those already involved. Certainly a project like Wikikultur will bring many new contributors, some of which would also extend community of other Wikimedia projects. It would also provide means of expression to all Wikimedians who would like to broaden the scope of their contributions to areas covered by Wikikultur without having to look elsewhere for their happiness, with the risk that they would completely stop to contribute to Wikimedia projects. Such a contributors inheritance dynamic would probably become anecdotic for a project with similar objectives to those of Wikikultur but not affiliated with Wikimedia.
- Would Wikikultur articles really be appropriate as references in Wikipedia articles ? Shouldn't references results from sources already checked by professional-level fact checkers?
- What's reliable is mainly a matter of who do you trust. What's a "professional-level fact checkers" ? Just because people are labeled "professional", that doesn't make their opinions some absolute true you can blindly trust. Professionals may have economic interest in lie, or bullshit for example. What's important for an encyclopaedia is to inform readers who claims what, and when possible giving references to check further that one person or an other really claimed that. With wikikultur, people will just have easy access to free/libre sources, and with the article history, will be able to see who published it on the wiki, possibly which contributors wrote what exactly, and even easily find other contributions from this users what could give a better background on their thought system. So it would just bring more transparent sources. Wikipedia is already full of web pages references that doesn't offer as much transparency. Anyway, whether this would be a good idea or not to use Wikikultur as Wikipedia references source could be debated along the way, independently from the project launching.