Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

维基文化

This page is a translated version of the page Wikikultur and the translation is 85% complete.
Other languages:

目前，仍然有一些数字作品不能上传至任何维基媒体项目，因为它们不符合任何项目的收录标准，例如原创的诗歌、音乐、散文、论文、小说，无论这些作品是否在别处发表过。

這是成立新的維基媒體基金會姊妹計劃的提案。
Wiki social network
提案狀態
狀態已拒絕
原因no interest in many years. Pecopteris (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

如果能建立一个收录这些作品的维基项目，那将会是一个很大的进步。

维基百科不收录·原创研究，这是可以理解且必要政策。然而不同的计划需要不同的政策指引，早期为维基百科设定的政策页面在现在可能已经不适用于其它维基计划。现有的相关计划中，维基教科书的教育性太强，而维基文库不接受未以纸质形式发表过的作品。

不过，也许有人说，若该项目建立，将为把原创作品从维基百科移除提供很好的理由：“您的作品包含原创研究，维基百科不是发表原创研究的地方，但您可以将原创作品发表至维基文化”。到最后，维基百科的条目也许可以使用维基文化作为引用源，允许使用原创信息（而该信息可能是来自匿名用户的主张），发挥其“自由创作”的优势。例如，论文中可能有统计数据，而我们可以看看它能否作为维基百科条目中某种观点的引证。

在艺术方面，该计划将有助于促进文化自由发展。它将提供一个场所，让每个艺术家都能实践他们希望分享、创作的东西，并与来自各维基计划的读者保持交流。

概述

這是成立新的維基媒體基金會姊妹計劃的提案。
Wikikultur
未定，欢迎创作
提案狀態
狀態已擱置（參看如何重新啟動它）
提案詳情
計劃描述发布诸如诗歌、音乐、散文、论文、小说的原创作品，无论它们是否被发表过。
是否為多語言wiki？将有多个语言版本。
預期語言數量该计划是多语言的。
提案主題自由的文化舞台（原文：The Free Culture Scene；The Libre Culture Scene）
提案URL待定
技術要求
請求的新功能不需要开发MediaWiki软件的新功能。欢迎加入类似 Extension:Duplicator的扩展，以便创建分支（例如写小说的分支结尾）。Extension:LilyPond可用来提供分享乐谱的途径。可能，可以开发（或集成）小说界面来简化音乐和图形的贡献和协作。
開發wiki暂未开始孵化
感興趣的參與者
See below

提案人

Psychoslave (talk)

待选名稱

wikiculture wikicultur wikikulturo wikikultura wikicultura wikikult wikisevenadur wikimentan wikicultural…

相关计划

  • 维基文库（不同地点要求作品已发表）
  • 维基教科书（相对维基文化对教育性影响）
  • 维基论文的着重点比较小，可被维基文化覆盖，可以在维基文化中创建其分类和专题
  • 维基乐谱、维基音乐II等都包含于维基文化，它们也有自己的分类和专题页面，方便读者寻找
  • Sexta poética，一个巴西的维基诗歌发布网站，隶属于巴西维基媒体
  • WikiCulture - the same unofficial proposal (written unaware of this). May have good points.
  • Ourproject.org

域名

顶级域名为.org，网址待定。

邮件列表链接

相似网站

People interested

Add your name to the end of the list with #~~~~ if you are interested in this project.

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

常见问题

该计划是否和已有的重复？
否，它与现有计划的方针不同，除非维基教科书放弃教育性的方针，或维基文库修改方针，接受未曾以纸质形式发表的作品。
它会不会影响现有计划？
维基文化可能会分流一些喜欢写原创性论文、发表个人观点的维基百科用户，尽管如此，维基文化也有其积极作用：减少维基百科的中立性破坏。此外，维基百科或许可以将维基文化上的文章作为引用源，为人们提供带维基格式的资源，它具有历史记录、统计功能等优势，将有助于提高主题知名度。
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.

讨论

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikikultur/zh&oldid=27868469"