@apry which modes most in need of wikinature? Tough question; what counts as a mode and is the need external or internal? My throwaway answer to that sort of question is film and pharma, because they are the commanding heights. Communication which is supposed to increase human knowledge, ie scientific or academic, is a more serious answer. It seems there's a need (but not internally on the micro level, researchers and many others are set in their ways) for more summary, more linking, more figuring out whether some bit is a contribution, rather than ticking off a feather in cap of particular persons and entities. This is why I tend to be enthusiastic about the currently tiny interface between scientific communication and wikis, eg 1 2.

The obvious place to look is the history of "moral rights" but I don't know if that's the best place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights doesn't even have a history section, but it does have a hilarious "see also" note: "Vanity, the possible philosophical basis of moral rights." If the section existed it would doubtless mention romanticism and Hugo in particular.

I guess that would be kind of an No Copyfraud license, copyfraud more broadly interpreted than just removing stuff from public domain. Sort of the reverse of "Reverse Bastard Copyleft"  which I recall intends to only allow distribution if licensee takes full credit.