Talk:Proposed wikis/Lyrics

Song Meanings / Interpretations Wiki
I've certainly experienced all of the above, and have spent many fruitless hours looking for writing about a particular song or album, only to find shallow 'critic's cliché and "OMG, THIS SONG ROX0RS/SUX0Rs!1121" type discussion, and that's just in the rare occurrences where there wasn't a financial motive behind the publication. Therefore, I propose a Wikicity to provide a common place where people can begin, expand, and collaborate on the meaning, metaphor, symbology and all other forms of analysis of songs.
 * Did you ever hear a great song and wonder what it meant?
 * Have you ever tried looking for an analysis of a song's lyrics on the internet, to great dismay?
 * Have you ever wanted to discuss a song that was particularly meaningful to you?

Things to consider

 * No single meaning
 * Because the nature of the writing will be interpretive, rather than purely descriptive, there is no absolute standard of accuracy that an interpretation can be held to. While it is possible to view this as a weakness, I consider it instead a strength:
 * Multiple concurrent interpretations of the subject can be edited simultaneously (Diversity).
 * The interpretation that appeals most to the editor at the time they begin (a session of) contribution is most likely to be expanded upon by that editor (Selection).
 * The combination of diversity and selection based upon suitability is the most basic requirement of Darwinian evolution. I postulate that while there is certainly room for multiple co-existing interpretations, there will be a competitive use of natural resources - the editing time of collaborators. Thus, in the ideal situation at least, a small number of interpretations which "feel right" will arise out of the wide diversity of possible interpretations. 


 * Why just songs?
 * The demarkation of scope in any non-inclusive Wiki (ie: not wikipedia) is always going to be arbitrary to a certain extent. One must draw a line somewhere between allowing interpretation of all creative writing and covering only the smallest subsets of literature. I would draw the line past including prosaic writing, as this is significant duplication of effort, the analysis of literature being already covered in mountainous amounts. However, I don't see any reason for not including non-musically backed poetry, etc. What do people think about where the line should be drawn?


 * Legal issues
 * Song lyrics are covered by the statues of copyright in most jurisdictions. However, there is a strong precedent for the publishing of lyrics under fair-use doctrine in the US and Europe, and the attack lawyers are mostly based therein. While to ignore a problem is not solve it (*), I think that so long as there are a plethora of websites offering song lyrics purely for advertisement revenue, we oughtn't worry too much about legal action for their inclusion for interpretation and analysis, with no commercial interest involved.

People interested
Nsh 14:21, 16 Mar 2005 (EST) (Remove IP signature, forgot I had no login here yet)

Comments and ideas

 * Possible names
 * name: soul, title: Soul of Songs

There is already a lyrics wiki. My concern with this would be that the song lyrics would be included, and may cross the line between fair use and copyright violation. Angela 22:00, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * The wiki is down already. We could impose many restrictions (e.g. only song titles and parts of lyrics less than three lines may be reproduced), but the nature of wiki is such that there is no restriction. The wiki could involve a lot of management, which again contradicts the concept of wiki. -- Danielwang 02:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)