Wikilore

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Regional folklores are dying in today's world and we need to save it. I have been trying to figure out which would be the perfect project for Punjabi folk songs as one of our editors has been collecting a lot of folk songs as a Wikipedia entry. I started reading about Wikisource and Wikiquote and at the end i came to the conclusion that we need a separate project for collecting the folklore. The sum of all human knowledge definitely include folk songs, folk narratives, folk wisdom, folk medicine, folk customs, folk music, child lore, folk art, folk foodways and a lot more. If we start this project we can gather a lot of knowledge about folkways of different tribes, regions and even nations.

I think this will be an interesting project as practically every person will be able to easily contribute to this as references will not be mandatory on this project. Folklore needs to reference and it keeps of changing just like wiki.

Although folklore is supposed to be passed on from generation to generation but with Wikilore we can help in saving the folklore and giving it an opportunity for rebirth. Moreover it will be a unique project where it will happen for the first time that people will have access to World folklore in their own languages in a large amount.

Proposed by[edit]

  1. Satdeep Gill (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative names[edit]

  • WikiCult
  • WikiFolk
  • WikiHist
  • WikiMyth
     Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikifirst
  • Wikistories
  • Wikithere
     Gnangarra (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Related projects/proposals[edit]

  • Why can't we do this on Wikisource or Wikibooks? Wikisource is a good place for folk songs, and Wikibooks is great for describing folk customs, for example — NickK (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with NickK. This proposal can fit well into Wikisource and Wikibooks. I dont think, another new domain is needed for this purpose. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @NickK and Bodhisattwa: I agree : pusblished lore can fit in Wikisource (and already did, eg. nearly half of texts on brws is breton lore), oral lore can go to wikibooks (plus, the sound files can go to Commons and some articles can be wrote on Wikipedia too). I see at least one (minor?) disavantage : the contents are split between two (or more) projects. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
      • If we a dedicated project for all the folklore then we can work together to translate lore from all around the world. We can create a database of everything and all at one place. Sure, we can use some content on other wiki projects but not everything is going to fit on other projects. Have a look at this page ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਲੋਕ ਬੋਲੀਆਂ on Punjabi Wikipedia. This is actually a list of some folk song listed alphabetically. Now, according to me this can neither go on Wikisource because it is not published nor can all of it go on Wikibooks because all this will not be textbook content.--Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
        • @Satdeep Gill: Wikibooks (at least, English Wikibooks) is more than just textbooks. If you're interested in discussing this with English Wikibooks, I suggest using their projects reading room. (I'm an admin on English Wikibooks, myself.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • lookinging at Wikibooks https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks and what it is page this suggestion doesnt fit within its scope, Wikilore has potential for not just Folklore but for all traditional oral stories both factual and fiction(Wikibooks excludes fiction), even beyond that it could include within its scope verbal/video first hand accounts of all events from those involved. Firsthand accounts are a missing piece of the puzzle to the sum of all knowledge. For it fit within WikiBook not only they need to change scope but all of their policies would need to be rewritten, it actually looks like Wikibooks needs to update itself and remove "text books" from its current policies and guides. Gnangarra (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Satdeep Gill, VIGNERON, and Gnangarra:The major drawback, as I see in Wikilore project, is lack of standard reference system. Who will determine that a lore collected (text or audio or video file) is actually a genuine lore? There is every chance that people will write or record anything from their mind and tag them as lore. There will be no way to prevent this and thus it will not serve the purpose of the project. There is a good reason, why we don't deal with fictions. We have no problem in published lore, they can easily be accommodated in Wikisource. Recorded video or audio files, lore or not, can easily be stored in Commons. I still think, may be, simple categorization in different Wikimedia projects and linking them via Wikidata is enough, than to start a new domain. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Oral lore stories, are a combination of fact and fiction, they like all religious stories have requirement for faith in the story being told. As for the Authority that would come from the person being recorded a recognised edlder, or leader within a community would be what gives a lore its credibility(ie Aunty Rose, Whadjak Noongar & Ballardong Noongar Elder). Rather than just some random person off the street it would require some form of authentication even relaying a first hand account would require the person uploading to demonstrate the authenticity of the person speaking. Gnangarra (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Although it's possible there could be a problem with the scope of Wikibooks, it would not be because of the fictional status of folklore. Wikibooks can host books about works of fiction; it just doesn't host books that are works of fiction. For example, English Wikibooks has a book — in fact, a Featured Book — Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. That's about a work of fiction.

    I do agree that some form/degree of authentication would be called for, regardless of whether it's hosted on Wikibooks or not. This is the point I see on which there could be a concern over the scope of Wikibooks; but it's unclear to me whether or not it would be a problem. Wikibooks has a "no original research" policy, but there's a matter of interpretation here. If somebody is doing research about folklore that is actually "out there" independent of the researcher, then I'm not sure whether that would be a problem; the Wikibooks community might choose to accept some sort of authentication procedure as part of documenting facts rather than classifying those facts as "original research". It would depend on quite what you want to do and how the Wikibooks community chooses to interpret the policy. I'm going to ask at the reading room and see what my Wikibooks colleagues think about this, in order to clarify this point about Wikibooks scope. --Pi zero (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

    • this has the very potential to result in the "pseudoscience" debate and policies on en.Wikipedia where despite being notable a lot of content gets deleted rather than changing a projects scope to allow something it hasnt previously creating disputes and accusations of usurping a project combined with the resultant insults to and deleting of content that minorities creation of a new project is a better outcome for all. The creation of such a project would be a step towards diversifying the wider community and sharing a greater sum of knowledge than currently exists. Indigenous folklore is one of the places where science draws it idea for exploration, historians get a greater understanding of the past and medicine is looking for its next great break through to me creating this base of knowledge opens up a whole new world of knowledge to be explored. Gnangarra (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Wikibooks isn't as stuffy and bureaucratic as Wikipedia. --Pi zero (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Discussion at en.wb here. I continue in my belief that this could fit quite comfortably on Wikibooks. --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A side thought, a second aspect here is that Wikilore would be better served as a multi-lingual project with a minimal bi-lingual policy requiring that lore be first recorded in its original language but also translated to major regional language for example in India local language & Hindu, Australia local language & English, Central America local language & Spanish or Portuguese. As lore is always best served by being in its language of origin and being also available in a more common language so it can be shared effectively. That would also create the opportunity for stories in differing languages about the same subject to be categorised together imagine the possibilities that could then open up for researchers in understanding events through collective oral recordings Gnangarra (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • How to handle the obvious multilingual nature of the undertaking is an interesting challenge. I can think of two approaches that are used in wikimedia projects.
  • On Wikisource, original-language source texts are hosted by the language in which they were written, and translations are hosted by the language they're translated into. Thus, on English Wikisource you may find an English translation of Goethe's Faust, while the original German version is hosted on German Wikisource.
  • On Wiktionary, afaik, each language edition of the project aspires to host words from all languages — but the definitions and other information about each word are in the hosting project's language. Thus, on English Wiktionary you can look up stylo and be told that in French it means "pen (for writing)", while on French Wiktionnaire you can look up pen and be told that en français it means "stylo".
Annotated texts are an area of overlap between Wikisource and Wikibooks. The more heavily annotated it is, the more likely to belong on Wikibooks; the more lightly annotated, the more likely to belong on Wikisource; but there's definitely a grey area where it could go on either sister.
  • I really do recommend finding an existing sister to host this very interesting idea, because frankly, running a project is a lot of work and it's a good idea to share the burden with an existing community and infrastructure. Plus, all the different subprojects hosted on a project benefit from each other's traffic. I've been trying to help out a bit, here, with investigating the idea's compatibility with Wikibooks, because I know Wikibooks pretty well (having been an admin on English Wikibooks for over five years). You might benefit by opening a dialog with somebody who knows Wikisource well. Part of the challenge here is, surely, to work out how this collection of lore should work and thus understand better what its needs are and what Wikisource and/or Wikibooks can offer to help meet those needs. --Pi zero (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Many folklore sources are spoken (e.g. transcribed text) not written. Wikisource assumes a scan of a written text, but we have many oral stories gathered as part of linguistic field work that we would like to add. So I think there is an unfilled niche that wikilore could fill. Ffbond (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That might not be a problem for Wikibooks or even Wikisource; a transcription can be made from an audio recording, just as it can from a scan of a written text. It's an interesting question, whether folks at Wikisource would consider their transcription-of-scan workflow as fundamental to the definition of their project, or merely a tool. --Pi zero (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm the little "Wikiversity Ambassador". How about Wikiversity? I can tell you it's perfectly acceptable to post content like this over there. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there an advantage to using Wikiversity rather than one of the other two sisters mentioned here? As I see it, a resource like this would benefit from sharing a project with other materials of its kind (on that ground I could see a strong affinity with Wikisource or Wikibooks; and honestly couldn't speak one way or another to affinity with Wikiversity, about which you know far, far more than I). --Pi zero (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe that Wikiversity can be a third option, if the two other sister projects don't seemed to be appropriate options. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems a valid point. --Pi zero (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

this could fit in antropology wikipriject of wikipapers once it is approved.--Neurorebel (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Domain names[edit]

www.wikilore.org

Mailing list links[edit]

Demos[edit]

  • Wikiquote (only Proverbs)

Related projects[edit]

People interested[edit]

  1. -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC) (as proposer)
  2. -- Baljeet Bilaspur (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. -- Nrgullapalli (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. -- Abhinavgarule (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. -- DGG (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  6. -- Fuzheado (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  7. -- SarahSV talk 21:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  8. -- Gnangarra (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  9. -- BengaliHindu (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  10. -- Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  11. -- Ffbond (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)