Talk:Wikikultur

Wikibook

You say Wikibooks is too pedagogics-oriented, but I don’t think they would mind if you create more artistic, cultural, literary or philosophical pages there, though I am not acquainted with their rules (being mostly active on fr:wt). Otherwise, I think the idea is worth discussing. --Eiku (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they care. So, was created an alternative, described below.--Nevinho (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Si le projet t’intéresse, n’hésite pas à t’ajouter dans la liste des "People interested". --Psychoslave (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Pour vous aider à défendre ce nouveau projet, je vais vous donner quelques arguments qu'on risque de vous retourner en opposition : A. Wikipédia, comme aucun projet Wikimédia par ailleurs, n'a la création comme ligne de conduite éditoriale, une encyclopédie est un projet de compilation de données préalablement existantes, il ne s'agit pas d'un recueil (Cet argument a déjà été vu plusieurs fois dans des débats sur la suppression d'articles). B. Ce type de projet a un autre média collaboratif à disposition pour qui souhaite s'en servir : Internet lui-même, rien n'empêche qui que ce soit de monter un blog ou de se publier lui-même. Voir même de monter un wiki dédié (Wikia, par exemple, a été conçu pour ça et il s'agit d'un autre projet Libre reconnu) ; mais la ligne éditoriale de Wikimédia est très claire et radicale sur ce point précis. C. Qui seront les bénévoles qui jugeront de la qualité artistique de ce qui sera fournit ? L'art est par essence la plus subjective de toutes les activités humaines, on ne peut objectivement juger de l'art. Wikimédia dispose d'un espace et d'un temps extrêmement limité par ses ressources financières et ses bénévoles ; la gestion d'un projet de cette taille est un suicide assuré pour un gain trop réduit. Voici les principaux arguments que vous allez rencontrer, rapidement. Si vous voulez avoir la moindre chance, il va falloir trouver une très bonne réponse à chacun. Ordre Nativel (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Merci pour ces conseils, je vais tâcher d’apporter des réponses pertinentes à ces interrogations. --Psychoslave (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Si le projet te paraît intéressant, tu peux t’ajouter à la liste des personnes intéressées. --Psychoslave (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Voilà, j’ai rédigé des réponses, elles ne sont pour le moment que dans la version fr, il me faut encore les traduire. --Psychoslave (talk)

En d'autres circonstances, oui, j'aurais pu m'inscrire. Mais j'ai moi-même une proposition de projet (Wikiprocess) et je ne peux pas me le permettre surtout qu'il risque, lui-aussi, d'être sujet à une très lourde contre-argumentation... Bref, on souhaite tous améliorer Wikipédia par nos propres méthodes, c'est naturel j'imagine. En attendant, tout ce que je peux faire, c'est vous donner quelques pistes pour préparer un bon dossier. Ordre Nativel (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Je ne vois pas le soucis, j’ai vu ce projet ce matin, et je le trouve intéressant et je pense y ajouter ma signature. En quoi être intéressé par un projet empêcherait-il d’être intéressé par un autre ? --Psychoslave (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ce n'est pas vraiment une question d'intérêt ; mais de temps. Je dispose d'un temps terriblement et bien malheureusement limité... Ce projet a son intérêt (surtout en science, les essais scientifiques, avec un Pair Review libre auraient une toute nouvelle chance d'éclore). Mais les problèmes à résoudre pour le faire accepter, sur le plan artistique, vont apparaître rapidement insurmontables aux décideurs. Les critiques ne vont pas tarder : "Pourquoi pas Wikia ?" ; "Pourquoi pas Deviant Art ?" ; "Pourquoi ne pas le faire vous-même avec un autre wiki ?" Ce qui, en fait, est assez normal : On leur demande d'investir de l'argent, alors ils voudront être sur à 100% que ce sera parfaitement justifié. Mais je peux donner un conseil, faute de pouvoir aider plus que ça : Le secret, ce sont les donateurs. Pour fonctionner, ce projet doit attirer des donateurs réguliers, qui permettront au reste de Wikimédia de vivre plus longtemps. Chaque année, c'est loin d'être gagné, si Wikikultur le permet, ils réfléchiront... (Note aussi qu'il existe des départements de recherche, sur Wikiversity, qui autorisent le travail inédit ; ce n'est donc pas totalement incompatible, puisqu'il y a un précédent). Ordre Nativel (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Se signaler comme intéressé par le projet n’engage pas à grand chose, cela sert juste à montrer que des contributeurs jugent le projet pertinent, comme pour une pétition. J’ai déjà pris en compte tes remarques et j’ai répondu (efficacement je ne sais pas) aux critiques possibles dans la FAQ. --Psychoslave (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok ok, je signe. Mais attention, j'ai un emploi du temps plutôt exigeant ces derniers mois. Ordre Nativel (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

J'ai nettoyé un peu l'orthographe et la mise en forme de la FAQ en français ; ça devrait améliorer la clarté. Ordre Nativel (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

something like this

There is a Wikimedia Brasil project like it since march 2009:

• http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sexta_poética/en

Ops, sorry, --Nevinho (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, I added it to the list of related projects. What is your opinion about a "wikikultur" wiki ? --Psychoslave (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link to the list. I think this project fills a large gap in the wikimedia movement. This was the motivation for WMBR create something like that. Based on scientists such as Antonio Damaso, I argue that poetry is a form of knowledge.Hugs --Nevinho (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2012

Hi, I'm a colleague of Nevinho from Wikimedia Brasil, and also a contributor to the SextaPoética project.

Just for fun, as most people reading this probably don't speak Portuguese, here's a link to the category of English language poems in our wiki. It currently has only three poems, but hopefully will grow in time =)

• http://sextapoetica.com.br/wiki/Categoria:Idioma_inglês

(by the way Nevio, we should have a 4 year anniversary party this march!)

I also support the idea of a WMF sponsored multilingual and multimedia Wikikultur. Meanwhile, I think Wikisource and Wikimedia Commons can already be applied to this to some extent (I will develop this in another comment), and as shown above our sextapoetica is open to all languages.

Hugs,

--Solstag (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

RationalWikiWikiWiki

Bellow is a copy of a conversation initiated by Leucosticte on User talk:Psychoslave related with this project.

If you're looking for a place to post miscellaneous content, there's always RationalWikiWikiWiki. It's pretty much anything goes over there; whatever people want to import, unless it's meaningless gibberish, we're willing to host. We can create Poem:, Novel:, etc. namespaces if you plan on posting that kind of content. We already have Essay: and Recipe: namespaces. Leucosticte (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you suggestion. The project announce "rational discourses" as a guideline. I can't see how this would match with poetry, novels and so on. That could do the trick for for some rational essays, but wikikultur is intended with larger focus. --Psychoslave (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"the wikipedia article could use wikikultur articles as references"

I don't think it's appropriate. Wikipedia articles shouldn't reference wikis, they aren't very reliable. (unless it's a wiki with 100% of edits checked by professional-level fact checkers, which is pretty implausible for a Wikimedia project, at least currently). Therefore, should this be removed? πr² (t • c) 01:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "the wikipedia article could use wikikultur articles as references" as "The wikipedia article United States Constitution use wikisource article Constitution of the United States of America as reference." (Wikisource is a wiki.) In this sense Wikipedia article use → Wikikultur articles as reference like a link IMHO.  Raoli  02:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

But Wikisource is himself based in real documents. This kind of documents you can read in a library ; a reconized document used AS A REFERENCE, by himself. Ordre Nativel (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Digital documents are real, even if we have sufficiently accurate virtual descriptions to digitalize them. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What's reliable is mainly a matter of who do you trust. What's a "professional-level fact checkers" ? Just because people are labelled "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. Thank for your question, I will add it to the FAQ. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedias have a quite detailed policy about what are reliable sources. An essay written in a collaborative project without an editorial commission is not a reliable source, just as blogs are not reliable sources.

It depends which kind of statement you want source. If what you want to source is a sentance like "M. Blabla declared that something", on a page dedicated to M. Blabla, and that M. Blabla have a blog, it's perfectly relevant to add it as a source, isn't it? Now collaborative essays are slightly different and use them as sources may be relevant (or not) in other cases. --Psychoslave (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If Wikikultur is expected to get symbiosis with Wikipedia, those symbiosis should be somewhere else, not as references.--Pere prlpz (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Both can coexist. For example on the french wiktionary, I sometime use quotes from wikipedia (or even wikipedia discussion pages) as usage exemple, giving a link to the page as source. Of course on the wiktionary, you sometime also use the "see also" template, which give links to others wikimedia project which have a relevant article on the same topic. --Psychoslave (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Translators FAQ

May I ask a few questions? There are some obscure words which made the whole translating work difficult. What's the meaning of "scene" in the tagline? It makes no sense in Chinese.==H2NCH2COOH (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I will answer by extracting definitions from wikiversity which seems relevant to me for what I'm meaning (text with emphases are comments)

• The location of an event that attracts attention.
• (theater) The structure on which a spectacle or play is exhibited; the part of a theater in which the acting is done, with its adjuncts and decorations; the stage. (so one should understand this one as an allegory)
• The place, time, circumstance, etc., in which anything occurs, or in which the action of a story, play, or the like, is laid; surroundings amid which anything is set before the imagination; place of occurrence, exhibition, or action.
• A social environment consisting of a large informal, vague group of people with a uniting interest; their sphere of activity.

If it may help you grab the underlying concept, I could add that in computer graphics scene is also used to describe the virtual place where you add objects, lights and cameras, what you could see as a particular usage of the following definition : An assemblage of objects presented to the view at once; a series of actions and events exhibited in their connection; a spectacle; a show; an exhibition; a view. I hope it give you enough hint. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any other question, thank you very much for your help. --Psychoslave (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I use "舞台(stage)" instead of "scene"? It's really difficult to translate "Culture Scene / Cultural Scene" into Chinese word for word.--H2NCH2COOH (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't say for 舞台, but stage should do the trick. In my native language (french), you say scène. As far as I know there's no word which you could translate stage with all its meaning, but for the area, in any theatre, generally raised, upon which an audience watches plays or other public ceremonies, certainly you would use scène as a translation. So I would say, yes, go for it. --Psychoslave (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That is to say, you mean "a place in which people can perform their ability" by "scene"? That is exactly what 舞台(stage) mean here! Thank you.--H2NCH2COOH (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is another problem: "The no original research for wikipedia is understable and very important of course". The word "understable" seems to conflicts with"very important". I have discussed with another translator(also Chinese) and the conclusion is "spelling mistake". Is it a mistake?--H2NCH2COOH (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have for myself took it as a spelling mistake. --Nevinho (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there's a spelling mistake, but I can't see what's wrong. What I mean is "one may easily understand why it's important that wikipedia refuse original works in its articles, and that is a very important point to continue to apply this policy within wikipedia". --Psychoslave (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Understable" should be undertandable, isn't it? --Nevinho (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

↑That should be "understandable", you missed a "s".--H2NCH2COOH (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That's it understandable. --Psychoslave (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

What about a wikimania panel, presentation or meeting? --Nevinho (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the wikimania wiki, next edition will take place at Hong Kong, from 7 to 11 August 2013. Living in France, I don't think I will have the financial requirements to go there at the moment. But if others persons are enthusiast about the Wikikultur project and plane to go there, I would be glad to help them to prepare presentations. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You can apply for a scholarship. Transportation, food and lodging included. If I were you I'd do it. I think it would be very good for the wikimedia movement. Hugs --Nevinho (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I didn't know. Curently the dedicated page says Scholarship applications are not being accepted at this time. Please stay tuned for updates. That's a good point I think, it give us time to see if more people will declare interested, which would give more credit for an application I assume. --Psychoslave (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going to attend the meeting in Hong Kong if I don't have any lessons. The only problem is my poor English level... Anyway I will try it.--H2NCH2COOH (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Translation requests

The template system is deprecated. Please follow the process described in the page above; see also the tutorial at mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation example, when the page is ready I can mark it for translation and then you'll have to import the old translations to the new system manually. Nemo 07:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I followed the tutorial, pleas tell me if I missed something (basically, I added translations markup, the rest of the manual addressing what we can do after you mark it for translation. --Psychoslave (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you didn't add the markup, only two tags. It's done now. --Nemo 09:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I may have missed something on the documentation page, or I don't understand what was missing, but anyway, thank you. Now I began to put back translations, but I can't change some part of the French translation, because I can't edit it directly anymore, so it now try to transclude "Wikikultur/fr/supporters" instead of "Wikikultur/supporters" for the "People interested" section. I see that the Italian translation doesn't suffer from this problem, so I suppose that there is something I missed, or a work around. Can anyone help me on this topic? --Psychoslave (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Misaligned with core purpose

I don't see much chance for success of such a proposal because it doesn't fit under Foundation's core goal, which is sharing knowledge. Becoming an e-publisher of fiction doesn't further this goal, IMO. I'm sure somebody from the Foundation will explain their position at some point for this particular case, but it's been made clear by one of the representatives at a recent meeting that the Foundation focuses on activities that help fulfilling this goal most efficiently (which is why they don't provide special funds for activities in endangered languages, for example). — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of possible refusals from some members of the foundation. I think I already addressed some possibles critics of this kind in the FAQ. Now to give a more specific answer to your arguments, I may begin to say that I don't agree that :

• fiction works can't be used to share knowledge, quite the contrary: many fiction works try to share important knowledge through an entertaining form which increases chances to spread knowledge.
• Wikimedia is not a fiction e-publisher, Wikisource provide many fiction works.

To me, this would really look like an untenable viewpoint to say in the one hand that we want to share knowledge, and in the other hand that we refuse to share knowledge adopting a certain form. That would be even more regrettable that not only would you miss an opportunity to expand the free/libre movement with the knowledge the work contains, but you would also lose the work as an free/libre subject to study for its form. Being able to study forms is an important part of the knowledge acquirement process, in a general manner, and even more important when you want to theorize new knowledge.

Those said, I didn't say Wikikultur should especially focus on fiction works, the main idea is that you should be able to publish original works, something you can't do on other Wikimedia projects (unlike fictions works, as said above). -Psychoslave (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course every work contains some kind of knowledge in one way or another, but that's the main problem here. The project you propose would quickly become a dumpster for all kinds of random content, because it would be impossible to write any sensible guideline for inclusion with such a sweeping interpretation of "sharing knowledge". Direct educational value of Wikikultur would therefore be negligible, and there is no potential for symbiosis with the Foundation's main project - Wikipedia. POV essays, for example, can't be used as references because of reliability issues, so this part of the argument about symbiosis is invalid.

You can publish original work on Wikiversity if its main goal is pedagogical. Wikisource, on the other hand, has the criterion of reproducing works that someone deemed worthy of publishing before, so there is at least some assurance of quality control and educational value. There would be no such assurance on a project with such a broad scope.

Sorry, but the idea is so vague and has such a dubious value that I personally couldn't support Foundation spending resources on it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't perceive the "bazaar" as a problem, but as a sound reflection of knowledge diversity (and knowledge representations diversity). Moreover the wiki technology always provide us tools to organize the contributors bazaar, that the whole point of category and portals. POV essays are already used as references on wikipedia, that's not even a question. The question is about where those essays where published. The Wikisource criterion is not about whether it was already published, but if it where already published on printed materials. This mean that if someone think that what she wrote worth a publication, but doesn't have the means, she won't end up on Wikisource. For example, if you live in a country where you can't publish something if the government doesn't approve what you say, it will be hard to meet such a criteria. That the assurance of "well thinking" control. As said in the FAQ, to me reliability is mainly an issue on who do you trust and source transparency, and wiki are good tools to investigate on both this points. --Psychoslave (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Moreover there are other cases where references to originals works would be interesting, without raising any reliability concern. I already gave some in the FAQ (I invite you to read it, If you have not already done so), but here are some. Lets say you wrote wikiversity article on counterpoint (basically, a construction you can use when writing a score), and you want to illustrate it with some existing works. Possibly, you will find an existing score (on Wikisource ?), but possibly not, and you would like to share an original work as an illustration. But more important, you would like to provide to the whole community examples of original works which were realised upon completion of this course. This could help improve the course, analysing if it help students to produce noticeable original works or not. And in the other way, encouraging to share original songs will provide more noticeable original works to analyse, so one may elaborate theory on commons structures not described in others current musical theories. --Psychoslave (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You obviously haven't had much experience with internet trolls to believe that "well thinking" can provide any control. Sharing results of Wikiversity classes sounds nice, but we don't need a free-for-all wiki just for that. That could easily be done within Wikiversity.

As said in the FAQ, to me reliability is mainly an issue on who do you trust and source transparency, and wiki are good tools to investigate on both this points.

Are they? How can you trust an IP contribution or a made-up username? Because this is the only thing that you can know for certain on an open wiki. And using opinion pieces as statements of fact is indeed generally discouraged, even with identifiable authors (see en:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations). — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I misexpressed, but on the first point it seems to me that you understood the exact opposite of what I was thinking (or I misunderstand what you mean, in any case please keep in mind English is not my native language, please be indulgent). I'm not referring to people being able to troll as they want on their favourite text editor or politician. What I mean is, basically, for someone living in a dictatorship may have difficulties to publish a printed version of a text including opinions its government disapprove.

I don't think that Wikikultur would be a "free for all" place. Not everybody want to share their original works under a free/libre license (sadly), so that would not be "for all". And works that would fit better with other Wikimedia projects guidelines. Not missing opportunities to extend and protect the free/libre community heritage and the community itself, that's one of the principle concern of this project. Maybe we could launch several projects instead of just one Wikikultur. But launching neither one nor the others, that's missing opportunities to get more contributions and contributors in our community.

Next point, "how can I trust an IP". Well, it's all depending on the topic of course, but what's really important here is not whether I trust or not an "anonymous" IP, but that I'm able to see that some particular sentences where published by an IP (or not). So I can analyse that words with this peace of information in mind (if I think it worth to check who published it). If it's a logged user (or someone contributing from a static IP computer), I can look at its others contributions easily, and that will help me to establish a reliability profile. Of course it's not a perfect, but I'm not waiting any source to give me absolute truth, and I personally won't trust any source which pretend to present such a thing. Using opinion pieces as statements of the fact that someone said that this was her opinion seems ok to me. That doesn't make this opinion a fact. To my mind, you never get "facts" or "real stuff", or "truth", but (necessarily truncated) representations of reality which happen to match with your current perceptions (or not). Maybe it may help you understand the way I think about reliability and trust. -Psychoslave (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If someone living in a dictatorship publishes opinions which the dictator disapproves of then the dictator, and his minions, can log in and replace those opinions with approved opinions and there is no way for Wikikultur to resolve this disagreement as there is no agreed standard for what should stay in and what gets taken out. One man's art is another man's nationalist rant.

If the objective of WikiKultur is to 'provide a space to publish art' then who decides what is art and what is not? What is special about Wikikultur compared to all the other places on the web which publish bad poetry? Filceolaire (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For the first question : to my opinion, the good practice would be to keep both versions in an equal visibility, so you would "fork" the article and include a reference to each other. For the second question, there's an entry in the FAQ untitled 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. What is special about Wikikultur compared to other places on the web which publish poetry, is that it's part of the free/libre culture movement so if you think a poem isn't good enough on some points, your contributions are welcome. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong  Oppose

• Strong  Oppose. Should go to wikibooks or even to wikiquote! --92.202.26.147 16:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you to take time to share your opinion. Please consider reading the whole proposition, as your answer seems to induce that you didn't: indeed the text explain why wikibooks and wikiquote can't be used for this kind of works. --Psychoslave (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychoslave, what about Wikiversity? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity is fine for research original works, even in music for example. But it's not a place for artistic or other cultural original works. --Psychoslave (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Talked with the community Pyschoslave. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Spiritually support

While I support having a literary magazine/wiki hybrid, I don't see why it would be necessary. People get blogs in order to share opinions and knowledge, but it's their own work and not that of the masses working together. Unless the content is peer-reviewed, the masses would dilute the perspectives of any one author. 68.173.113.106 19:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Take the example of fairy tales : sure you may identify some well known authors, but you know that's all folklore which inspired them in the first place. Also, I don't agree with the assumption that opinions are strictly individual constructions. Thank you for your spiritual support. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A third-party similar project

Seizam is a MW based commercial project outside the WMF which has the same aim. Ie. Provide a collaborative and creative space for artistic content. See Project:Freedoms & [1].

Hello, thank for your interest and for the hint. While this project seems really interesting and that I wish you success with it, it looks to me that it have a different goal than wikikultur. First, this is a project where it seems you must pay a subscription. While I hope this will be a successful business model for you, wikikultur have a different approach on this topic, closer to the wikimedia projects which is everyone should be able to access and contribute to articles, whether they also financially contribute or not. Anyway, once again thank you for the hint, I'll look closer at it when I find time, it's seems really interesting. --Psychoslave (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Precedent within wikimedia

Ni!

Just to put in context, here's some analysis of other wikimedia projects which already provide room for hosting cultural works, both published and original, in them.

Wikisource

• hosts previously published textual cultural works, such as poems and fiction, that entered the public domain or are freely licensed.
• [in some languages] hosts original cultural works, as long as they are translations of above records

Wikimedia Commons

• hosts previously published multimedia cultural works, such as photography, film and paintings, that entered the public domain or are freely licensed.
• hosts original cultural works, as long as they provide documentary value.

Also, the Wikimedia Commons community and the WMF even sponsor a prize for original cultural works, the Picture of the Year award.

So, there are two basis for rejecting a project such as Wikikultur. The first is whether it provides knowledge value, such as the documental works in Commons, the second is originality.

Now, I'm gonna play hard on the second issue and state outright that art is undoubtedly a source of knowledge. Appreciation of art, and freely interacting with it, teaches us a lot. It conveys us information about the feelings, world view, awareness and existence of other people, times and places, and of things not factually accessible to us. Knowledge that no amount of non-artful things could.

The fact that both Wikisource and Commons host a huge archive of previously published art, for the sake of its relevance as a source of knowledge, confirms the above view is in agreement with Wikimedia's position.

The only issue, therefore, is regarding the originality of the artworks.

Is there anything in the Wikimedia statutes that prohibit it from publishing original content? No.

In fact, as discussed above, it does already allow the publishing of original artworks in under some constraints. On top of that, Wikimedia has already at least one project, Wikiversity, that allows original creation of content that is neither translational nor documental; there, anyone can publish original content as long as it is for research purposes and it is in accordance with a code of conduct and ethical standards. And having such, there is no conceptual reason for giving art, regarding its originality, a different treatment than is given to academic research..

So the actual restriction, if there is one, must be practical:

• Will the project demand too much in terms of infrastructure?
• Will the project be unable to coordinate the conduct of volunteers?

On that, Wikimedia Brasil has been hosting a wiki for original cultural works for almost 4 years now (see a previous topic on this very page). In terms of infrastructure the resources have been modest and provided by a single individual, and the coordination has been carried out by the sporadic work of no more than three volunteers. During this time, we never had an incident of overload or abuse we could not handle by ourselves.

Therefore I see no reason for the WMF not to embrace Wikicultur, other than unawareness of what I have presented here.

Hugs,

--Solstag (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The hosts original cultural works, as long as they provide documentary value for commons is very interesting because potentially any work may have historical documentary value. I already went to exposition where the subject was daily life photo from the early 20th, just usual family photos from then, but pictures with historical interest for us. Of course when you make an exposition you can select most appropriates subjects, but you have to have a collection to select from in the first place. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong support

This would be useful; would prefer one multilingual wiki, though. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)