Attualmente ci sono ancora diverse opere digitali che non possono essere pubblicate su un progetto Wikimedia, perché nessuna di loro possiede una linea editoriale idonea. Opere originali come poesie, canzoni, saggi, tesi, romanzi, ecc., che siano o meno già state in precedenza pubblicate su carta.
Sarebbe davvero bello vedere Wikimedia lanciare un progetto per ospitare questo tipo di opere.
Rifiutare le ricerche originali su Wikipedia è comprensibile ed evidentemente troppo importante. Tuttavia ciò che è pertinente per un'enciclopedia non è necessariamente appropriato per altri progetti che hanno bisogno di altre linee editoriali. Tra i progetti esistenti, Wikibooks è troppo pedagogicamente orientato e Wikisource rifiuta le opere che non siano già state pubblicate in formato cartaceo.
Inoltre, si potrebbe aggiungere che un simile progetto permetterebbe di rimuovere con delicatezza una ricerca originale da Wikipedia con un messaggio tipo «le tue modifiche contengono ricerche originali, Wikipedia non è il posto giusto per pubblicare questo tipo di contenuti, ma puoi condividere la tua ricerca originale su Wikikultur». Ed eventualmente la voce di Wikipedia potrebbe usare le voci di Wikikultur come fonte. Ciò darebbe accesso a informazioni sull'autore (eventuali rivendicazioni di anonimi o IP), con tutti i consueti vantaggi dell'edizione libera su un wiki. Per esempio, potremmo avere statistiche sugli articoli, così da verificare eventuali fonti male usate per sovra-rappresentazioni di punti di vista nelle voci di Wikipedia.
Per argomenti artistici, questo aiuterebbe a rilanciare la cultura libera del movimento, disponendo di un luogo dove ogni artista può direttamente sperimentare cosa significa condividere e costruire insieme, con un pubblico gemellato fra i vari progetti Wikimedia.
|Nessuna proposta per il momento. I contributi sono i benvenuti.|
|Status of the proposal|
|Details of the proposal|
|Project description||Creare e pubblicare opere originali, come poesie, canzoni, saggi, tesi, romanzi, ecc., che sono o no già state precedentemente pubblicato su carta.|
|Is it a multilingual wiki?||Ci sarà una versione linguistica per ogni lingua supportata.|
|Potential number of languages||Il progetto esisterà in numerose lingue.|
|Proposed tagline||La scena culturale libera|
|Proposed URL||Da determinare|
|New features to require||Il progetto non richiede necessariamente nuove funzionalità di MediaWiki. Alcune estensioni potrebbero essere utili, come Extension:Duplicator per creare facilmente delle ramificazioni (per esempio, se si vuole scrivere un finale alternativo per un romanzo). Extension:LilyPond potrebbe essere utilizzata per fornire un modo per condividere partiture musicali. Eventualmente, possono essere sviluppate (o integrate) interfacce innovative per facilitare la contribuzione e le collaborazioni con la musica e la grafica.|
|Development wiki||Non ancora in incubazione.|
wikiculture wikicultur wikikulturo wikikultura wikicultura wikikult wikisevenadur wikimentan wikicultural…
- Wikisource se non si tiene conto del requisito "no prima pubblicazione"
- Wikibooks se non si tiene conto dell'"interesse prettamente pedagogico"
- Wikiessay ha un piccolo punto per cui potrebbe essere incluso in un progetto come Wikikultur: una categoria di saggi e un portale per un particolare soggetto o altro
- WikiScores, Wikimusic II, e così via, potrebbe anche essere coperto in un Wikikultur, ancora una volta con categorie e portale per guidare le persone
- Sexta poética una wiki brasiliana che pubblica poesie in associazione con Wikimedia Brasile
- WikiCulture - the same unofficial proposal (written unaware of this). May have good points.
Nome del dominio
Un qualunque .org con il nome del progetto preposto.
Link verso liste di distribuzione
- http://www.culture-libre.org/wiki/Accueil (francese)
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)
- 22.214.171.124 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)
- --Dixtosa (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- --Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- --Wikipiki 00:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 11:13, 10 November 2017 (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.