|This page is a proposal for a new Wikimedia Foundation Sister Project.|
|What is the proposed name for the project?||Wikiwisdom|
|Proposed project tagline||A collection of anecdotes, proverbs, quotations, lyrics, poetry, narratives and humor.|
What is the project purpose? What will be its scope? How would it benefit to be part of Wikimedia?
|This project intends to provide a large-scale, crowdsourced collection of wisdom materials (anecdotes, proverbs, quotations, lyrics, poetry, narratives and humor). This project intends to increase the ease with which people can search for, discover and share wisdom materials. This project intends to advance scholarly and scientific research into wisdom, folklore, heritage, tradition, history and culture.|
|How many wikis?
Will there be many language versions or just on one multilingual wiki?
|To be determined.|
|How many languages?
Is the project going to be in one language or in many?
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?
|To be determined.|
This is a proposal for a large-scale, crowdsourced collection of wisdom materials (anecdotes, proverbs, quotations, lyrics, poetry, narratives and humor).
- 1 Proposed by
- 2 Alternative names
- 3 Related projects/proposals
- 4 Domain names
- 5 Mailing list links
- 6 Demos
- 7 Technical discussion topics
- 8 People interested
- 9 Discussion
To be determined.
The domain wikiwisdom.org is presently parked.
Technical discussion topics
Wisdom materials can be secular or non-secular, contemporary or historical. Wisdom materials provide value by educating, inspiring, uplifting, invigorating and motivating.
Modeling, metadata and ontology
With respect to modeling, a wisdom material can be described as having one or more interpretations. Wisdom materials and their interpretations can be modeled as having: text content for indexing, keywords, categories, metadata and so forth.
With respect to metadata, precise descriptions of wisdom materials and of their interpretations include the components of: authorship, region of origin, date of origin, original language, original culture, philosophical tradition, and so forth.
With respect to ontology, wisdom materials and their interpretations can be interrelated in a number of ways. For instance, two wisdom materials or interpretations could be described as being similar or being paraphrases of one another.
The proposed project intends to include Wikidata integration. In this way, this proposal resembles the Structured Wikiquote proposal.
Search and discovery
In addition to keyword-based search, envisioned are: keyword-based search into interpretations, metadata-based search capabilities, and contextual, situational or case-based search capabilities.
Certain varieties of wisdom materials make use of language figuratively and, thus, their indexing should not merely make use of their literal text. For instance, the proverb “a rolling stone gathers no moss” is not always best searched for by its literal text. For reasons including content discovery, it is desirable to be able to search into the interpretations of wisdom materials.
Metadata-based search can involve the use of forms with form elements corresponding to elements of metadata models of wisdom materials.
Contextual, situational or case-based search is the description of real-life contexts, situations or cases to obtain responsive, paginated sequences of search results. Means of describing contexts, situations or cases could be natural-language-based, making use of text input areas, or could make use of other user interface elements such as dynamic sequences of data-driven menus.
Social media integration
The proposed project intends to include social media integration. Social media integration would increase the ease with which people could search for, discover and share wisdom materials.
The proposed project intends to, by amassing materials and structured data from contributors, advance scholarly and scientific research into wisdom, folklore, heritage, tradition, history and culture.
- will post some ideas on the TP later RhinosF1 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- FULBERT (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I support everything but I wish on the long term we could have an integrated wikisource-wikiquote-commons platform to host directly all these things like a real library without creating new projects.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Peterjh2cm Interested in how a generic conceptual framework (Hodges' model) might facilitate critical thinking, problem solving and 'wisdom'.
- Zeroexp Interested in this idea of narrative and how to link the concepts and context of these kinds of narratives with wikidata or other linked data entities.
- Wisdom Treasure, Taiwan Wisdom is my Realm - NOt sure how to contribute but generally interested in wisdom stuff and data
- Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose this proposal is an 'OK idea, but has it's similarities with existing (approved) Wikimedia projects (Wikiquote). Although this would be great for another type of website, i dont think this qualifies mainly as a 'Wiki' Arep Ticous 17:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think this would very quickly turn into a spam-fest. Vermont (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- We are not an advice website. This isn't a horrible idea, but it's not great either. We already have Wikiquote. SelfieCity (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed that this is in the scope of Wikiquote. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is basically Wikiquote. — (talk | contribs) 21:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose This is included in the Wikiquote scope. See here. Josephine W. (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This doesn't need to be a sepeate project from Wikiquote. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Skeptical. As in, I'm not really opposed, but I'm skeptical about the value of this. Wikipedia is valuable to the public because its community is good at allowing only notable and well-referenced material. Wikisource is valuable to the public because its community is good at transcribing important books meticulously (and also less important books; that is valuable, too). Wikiquote is valuable to the public because it not only collects quotes from famous people and books, but also shows their source and context. And I have to disagree with the other people on this page: This proposed wiki is very different from Wikiquote. One of Wikiquote's best features is that it discusses dubious and misattributed quotes. Just as one recent example, a few weeks ago I saw a quote on a public art installation in Moscow: "Art is not a mirror to hold up to society, but a hammer with which to shape it." When I googled for it, other sites attributed it to Brecht or Mayakovsky, but it all seemed dubious, and only thanks to Wikiquote I found that it's likelier that it's by Trotsky. So this is Wikiquote's value.
And what will this project's value be? Will there be a referencing policy? Or can anyone just write whatever they want? If there is a referencing policy, then I'd say that it's closer to Wikisource than to Wikiquote (or perhaps it's close to Wikiversity, but to be honest, I never quite understood what is Wikiversity for). If there is no referencing policy, then how is it different from h2g2 and Everything2? And how is it different from, you know, the World Wide Web, where anyone these days can write stuff at Facebook, Quora, Wordpress.com and lots of other websites for free? Only by the licensing and a backing of an organization that commits to keep doing this is perpetuity?
So, I'm skeptical. I'm not saying "don't do it"; I am saying: think what the unique value will be before you start a project that will add a lot of entries to the already-overloaded server configuration files, and force the volunteer and staff operations engineers to do even more deployment work for projects that probably won't have a lot of readers. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose For one thing, I can't really see this taking off. It treads heavily on the toes of Wikiquote, & imo the area is best left to them. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support It’s a really good idea to have a collection of heritage, poetry, quotes, etc. I’m surprised this idea doesn’t get any support. Above my comment, all the comments are by people that either oppose or are sceptical. Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose This is included in the Wikiquote / Wikisource scope. ChristianSW (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)