Talk:Libre culture

Do we need 2 articles on Libre knowledge and Libre culture?
Someone recently asked me to create this Libre culture article, which I duly did, but now I wonder if the Libre knowledge and Libre culture articles should be merged? They both refer to the sub-culture of the free culture movement most closely aligned with the principles/philosophy of the libre software movement. --K (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * An argument for two articles is to cover cultural libre resources (music, art, entertainment, ...) and libre knowledge resources (education, science, research, ...), and initiatives focused on those, separately (though there is of course some overlap).
 * Currently, Libre knowledge is in the new Category:Libre culture. -- K (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The simplest thing to do would be to redirect one to the other. --K (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Libre Knowledge (LK) is actually a bad place for this article but Free culture movement (FC) may be more apt. LK is trying to cover a lot of disparate subjects so I've no objection to splitting them off into stand alone articles with main pointers in subsections. FC is kind of stub-ish at the moment, could use some expansion and has some issues which could be cleaned up as well. Mayhaps interested editors could contribute improvement there? -- dsprc   [talk]  11:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * also: it depends on which free culture... what a web we weave, eh? ;) -- dsprc   [talk]  11:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks. Multiple, overlapping sub-cultures have developed within the broader free culture movement&apos;s "ecosystem". This article is about one of them (LC/LK) which I think could do with an article (or two or three) separate from (but linked to) the free culture movement. Your point about the free culture movement article being a better place for much of what is currently written in the LK article (if I understand you correctly) is a good point, though I would go for the LC article (about the libre sub-culture). The LK article was (of course) written with Libre knowledge in mind, so rewording to cover both K and C may take some thought. Similarly, disentangling culture and knowledge to create two articles will also require some thought. I'll give it some ... (watch this space :-) . K (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, gave it some thought. This is just my take (for now, I can be persuaded otherwise). At first I tried to disentangle culture and knowledge in the Libre knowledge article to produce two articles (Libre culture and Libre knowledge). This would require quite a lot of work (as expected) and involve rewriting of some sections for the Libre culture article. On the other hand, there is a lot of overlap. It seems to me that the LK movement emerged more obviously directly out of the free software movement, and although elements of the LC movement pre-dated the (Lessig) FC movement, much of it was spurred on by the FC movement while continuing to be influenced by the FS movement - enough for a L(sub-)C to develop. It seems that a good name for the article would be "Libre knowledge and culture" - this would avoid having to disentangle knowledge and culture which (imo) doesn't make sense. The C side would need some attention. The most significant sprout of the recently seeded LC article is the Gallery which shows examples of libre works of art, music, movies, festivals, entertainment, .... i.e. very clearly about the cultural works, people, groups and activities - rather than the knowledge.


 * So, my suggestion (though interested in other ideas) is to rename/move the Libre knowledge article to "Libre (knowledge and culture)" and continue to develop the Libre culture article along the lines it seems to be going (culture focus), and perhaps rename it to "Libre (arts)". - K (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, Category libre could be associated with an abbreviated "Libre culture" article which links to "Libre (knowledge)" and to "Libre (arts)" ??

Art or Arts?
I notice that Libre (arts) now redirects to Libre art. There is an important distinction which is also made in (e.g.) French (Art, Arts), Spanish (Arte, Numeración de las artes) and other languages. Looking at the corresponding wikipedia articles Art and Arts (note carefully the distinction), I'd go with the broader of the two, Arts. I am okay with renaming/moving to Libre arts (i.e. plural with an 's' and removing the parentheses) - K (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! :) First of all, I am a native Hungarian and don't yet speak indoeuropean languages very well, but I - as a librartist - think: art is art, art music, art movie etc. Since CopyCamp 2014 I strongly push forward the term: Libre culture & Libre art, see the corresponding commons:Libre_art page and category :) But I propose: let's fork! :) the Libre art page to Libre arts! :) SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree (and your ability to share knowledge across languages is fantastic :-). - K (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * thx, PIE rulez. I included the Bassam Kurdali quote into the article and initiated an other document (editable .odt included), check it, if You have time: [[File:Libre_art_s.pdf]] :) SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All good. Remember to put the licence inside the document too. I notice the dates are very recent - or even in the future (2016 - a typing mistake I think :-); please read the No original research article (hu:Wikipédia:A Wikipédia nem az első közlés helye). There are some ruthless "deletionists" about who sometimes delete pages without warning and it can be really difficult to get a page undeleted. - K (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ye-ye-ye, O.R. was here: http://m.cdn.blog.hu/sz/szabadon/libre_art.pdf - fixed, THX! :-) SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)