維基文化

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Wikikultur and the translation is 81% complete.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Esperanto • ‎Lëtzebuergesch • ‎Nederlands • ‎Türkçe • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎euskara • ‎français • ‎italiano • ‎lietuvių • ‎occitan • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎suomi • ‎svenska • ‎български • ‎русский • ‎ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche • ‎فارسی • ‎پښتو • ‎中文(简体) • ‎中文(繁體) • ‎日本語

目前,仍然有一些數位作品不能上傳至任何維基媒體專案,因為它們不符合任何專案的收錄標準,例如原創的詩歌、音樂、散文、論文、小說,無論這些作品是否在別處發表過。

如果能建立一個收錄這些作品的維基專案,那將會是一個很大的進步。

維基百科不收錄原創研究,這是可以理解且必要政策。然而不同的計劃需要不同的政策指引,早期為維基百科設定的政策頁面在現在可能已經不適用於其它維基計劃。現有的相關計劃中,維基教科書的教育性太強,而維基文庫不接受未以紙質形式發表過的作品。

不過,也許有人說,若該專案建立,將為把原創作品從維基百科移除提供很好的理由:「您的作品包含原創研究,維基百科不是發表原創研究的地方,但您可以將原創作品發表至維基文化」。最後,維基百科的條目也許可以使用維基文化作為引用源,允許使用原創信息(可能是來自匿名用戶的主張),發揮其自由創作的優勢。例如,論文中可能有統計數據,而我們可以看看它能否作為維基百科條目中某種觀點的引證。

在藝術方面,該計劃將有助於促進文化自由發展,它將提供一個場所,讓每個藝術家都能實踐他們希望分享、創作的東西,並與來自各維基計劃的讀者保持交流。

概述

This is a proposal for a new Wikimedia sister project.
Wikikultur
未定,歡迎創作
Status of the proposal
Statusstalled
Details of the proposal
Project description發布諸如詩歌、音樂、散文、論文、小說的原創作品,無論它們是否被發表過。
Is it a multilingual wiki?將有多個語言版本。
Potential number of languages該計劃是多語言的。
Proposed tagline自由的文化舞台(原文:The Free Culture Scene;The Libre Culture Scene)
Proposed URL待定
Technical requirements
New features to require不需要開發MediaWiki軟體的新功能。歡迎加入類似 Extension:Duplicator的擴展,以便創建分支(例如寫小說的分支結尾)。Extension:LilyPond可用來提供分享樂譜的途徑。Possibly, novels interfaces may be developed (or integrated) to ease musical and graphical contributions and collaborations.
Development wiki暫未開始孵化
Interested participants
See below

發起人

Psychoslave (talk)

替代名

wikiculture wikicultur wikikulturo wikikultura wikicultura wikikult wikisevenadur wikimentan wikicultural…

相關計劃

  • 維基文庫(不同之處在於要求作品已發表)
  • 維基教科書(相對維基文化而言教育性較強)
  • 維基論文的著重點比較小,可被維基文化覆蓋,可以在維基文化中創建其分類和專題
  • 維基樂譜、維基音樂II等亦可包含於維基文化,它們也會有自己的分類和專題頁,以便讀者尋找
  • Sexta poética,一個巴西的維基詩歌發佈網站,附屬于巴西維基媒體
  • WikiCulture - the same unofficial proposal (written unaware of this). May have good points.
  • Ourproject.org

網域

頂級域名為.org,網址待定。

郵件列表連結

相似網站

對此計劃感興趣的人

如果您對該計劃感興趣,請在列表末尾以#~~~~簽名。

  1. Psychoslave (talk)
  2. Nevinho (talk)
  3. Raylton P. Sousa (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  4.  Raoli 
  5. H2NCH2COOH (talk)
  6. Ordre Nativel (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  7. David1010 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  8. Varnent (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  9. Leucosticte (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. Theopolisme talk! 23:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  12. VIGNERON * discut. 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  13. --Claritas (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  14. Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions )18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  15. Halley Pacheco de Oliveira (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  16. 68.173.113.106 19:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  17. ABC 15:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  18. ClementD (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  19. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  20. Startracker 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  21. --Iste (D) 17:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  22. Solstag (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  23. Eduardofeld (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  24. Ricordisamoa 07:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  25. Lionel Allorge (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  26. Mirrorhai (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  27. Micru (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  28. --TheChampionMan1234talken-wiki 02:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  29. Jmfayard (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  30. --Blizinsk (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  31. --Dixtosa (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  32. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. --Wikipiki 00:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  34. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 11:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

常見問題

該計劃是否和已有的重複?
否,它與現有計劃的方針不同,除非維基教科書放棄教育性的方針,或維基文庫修改方針,接受未曾以紙質形式發表的作品。
它會不會影響現有計劃?
維基文化可能會分流一些喜歡寫原創性論文、發表個人觀點的維基百科用戶,儘管如此,維基文化也有其積極作用:減少維基百科的中立性破壞。此外,維基百科或許可以將維基文化上的文章作為引用源,為人們提供帶維基格式的資源,它具有歷史記錄、統計功能等優勢,將有助於提高主題知名度。
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.

Discussion