Talk:Colab

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Regarding the length of member roster[edit]

Currently, there is a long list of people, entirely based on material by Max Schumann, executive director of a group known as Printed Matter, Inc where the basis of inclusion was based on being a blue link. Some of those people in that list that I trimmed out pending consensus, are heavily dependent on that Printed Matter, Inc source too. Per @Vexations:, it seems like the requisite to be a Colab member is to attend three meetings. I believe a list like this is undue and Wikipedia is also not a webhost. Such directory like information is better suited on their own website, with the exception of particularly notable members that have proper secondary, independent coverage (not cottage mill advocacy agencies for artists) with reference to their membership to Colab. If this was to be the threshold to inclusion, then it would open up door to more and more pages being filled up with people list, such as a church article whose largest content is a list of people who have a Wikipedia entry that are church members whose Wikipedia pages are primarily sourced to borderline sources. Max Schumann source might be considered a WP:SPS given that he's the executive director and publishing it under his own publishing house, rather than the executive director of Printed Matter, Inc who had it published through something totally independent of his own business/organization. Graywalls (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I address this question below. Absolutely not "self-published". Alanwmoore (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged contents[edit]

This is the contents in question whose inclusion or non-inclusion (partial and or in entirety) I am trying to establish consensus. A very lengthy list was inserted by the article's creator, who then spinned it off to a new article about members of Colab, which was AfD'd with conensus to "merge" however, I believe how much of that list's contents are appropriate here is something for discussion here. Graywalls (talk)

The following is a list of artists who participated in (or were associated with) Colab.[1]

References

  1. ^ Max Schumann (ed.) A Book about Colab (and Related Activities), Printed Matter, Inc, 2016, all pages

discussion[edit]

  • Is there any way (via independent sourcing, as I share your Printed Matters concern) to determine which artists' affiliation with Colab was relevant to their careers? Right now this reads as an attempt to raise the profile of Colab with some high profile names for whom this "membership" may not at all be important. StarM 14:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Mississippi, Here's a source that describes that Kiki Smith joined Colab in 1978: [1] Here's another one that tmentions Judy Rifka's participation in a show at the Jack Tilton Gallery: [2]. Just work through the list. If you want to search only art magazines, I have a custom search engine that includes a large number of art publications: [3] Vexations (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Vexations. My concern is that these don't indicate that membership in Colab was significant to their careers. Will keep looking. StarM 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what StarM said is a fair threshold. Anything lower, we'd be opening up to lists like list of Amazon Prime members, Costco members who have an Wikipedia article and such non-encyclopedic junk. Graywalls (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Star Mississippi, I think The Guggenheim museum makes clear that Kiki Smith made her first works as a member of Colab. That's the beginning of a very successful career. Is it "significant"? The Guggenheim museum seems to think so, or they wouldn't have mentioned it. That's one of the must important museums in the world, discussing on of the most successful artists in the world (artfacts ranks her in the global top 100 [4]) got her start at Colab. If that doesn't meet your threshold, nothing does. Vexations (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not questioning Kiki Smith's notability as an artist, that's not the issue. The Gugg bio doesn't say she made them as a member or in relation to CoLab, just that it was at the same time in her career. StarM 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Mississippi, There is absolutely nobody who disputes that Kiki Smith was a member of Colab, and yet, you somehow manage to make it impossible to mention that fact. Because she's too important for such an important group? I'm not going to spend any more time on trying to "prove" that this is somehow due. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24554359 "I started doing silkscreens for Colab's Times Square Show in 1980" is probably also not good enough, because it's an interview, I suppose. This threshold of requiring that membership has to be relevant to their career is insurmountably high, and I oppose erecting such a barrier. Vexations (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're conflating two things, Vexations. That Kiki Smith is a member of Colab is not the issue. That it's a noteworthy piece of her career that warrants mentioning in Colab is. To me this is the same as notability is not inherited. Colab shouldn't need to name drop high profile artists, why do you think that enhances the article? Do we even need a list of members? I'm not sure whether an interview would count for this, defer to others there. StarM 18:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note here that Kiki was closely involved with Colab for a few years, and was in fact an officer of the group. [cf. http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/fales/callard/ box 1] She also made a number of episodes of the Colab cable TV program "Potato Wolf". (She discusses this in another recent interview [5], and the evidence is here: https://archive.org/details/mwf_video_club&tab=collection . I'm going to do a little work on this page next month. Alanwmoore (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, we already had that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colab Members and the outcome was to merge the list. I don't want to go over that again. Vexations (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and as Graywalls and I have both said, there's no consensus to merge the whole list. If you are dead set on including Kiki Smith for some reason, fine. Probably about to take this off my watch list anyway as I'm not that interested in the topic. StarM 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi, When I suggested to Limit it to members whose article makes mention of their membership and where that claim is supported by independent, reliable sources I meant that if a high quality source like Grove Art Online, both in their article on Colab AND in their article on the member artist makes mention of said artists' membership, inclusion in a list of member is verifiable, relevant and due. See [6] and [7] Vexations (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valueyou, there's clearly no consensus in favor of including the extensive list above. Please engage in discussion here and establish consensus per WP:ONUS. Pinging participants @Star Mississippi and Vexations: Graywalls (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graywalls. I have looked at this somewhat, although haven't had full time to research it yet. I can't find any evidence to establish their membership in Colab was significant to their careers, likely because threshold was so low to be a member. Almost anyone could be a member. I'd love to be wrong, but right now I see it akin to my getting a promotion during the time I was a Wikipedia admin. One has nothing to do with the other. Hoping to find better sources, otherwise I think this isn't going to be sourceable to the extent required to warrant inclusion. StarM 14:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the result of Articles for deletion/Colab Members decision is to merge the members list to Colab but limit the merge to "significant" artist only (which I disagree with) perhaps this Artsy (website) Colab page might help: https://www.artsy.net/gene/colab @Star Mississippi, Vexations, Graywalls, and Daniel: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valueyou (talk • contribs)
    • @Valueyou:, As this is related, there are sourcing concerns with fairly recent contributions on people and other subjects that relates to Colab, such as the use of Imdb and excessive use of primary and self published sources. Please consider reading WP:RS, WP:Imdb, WP:SPS. Graywalls (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I support including any artist whose participation can be sourced to independent, reliable sources. I Strongly object to making editorial decisions about who is "important" or whether their membership of Colab is "significant". If a source is available, include it. There were no more than about 60 members; it would not be a problem to include them all, provided that sources exist. When I wrote that I do think the list is too long that was because the sourcing for some members was dubious. If all we have is a single source for a long list, that's not good enough. If we have multiple sources, they should be listed. Vexations (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because, not everything verifiable goes. I believe this is a reasonable interpretation of this. Such articles tend to encourage roster type articles which goes against the idea that Wikipedia is not a directory or a hosting ground for something that's better suited for the subject's own website. I've already posted this concern to Wikiprojects companies, and arts. Vexations, let's not jump the gun to start adding back. Also, note how many of those members were significant contributed to or created by Valueyou. Graywalls (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Forgot to ping @Star Mississippi:. From following the discussion, consensus hasn't clearly established. Thoughts in reference to these latest additions? WRT challenged contents, establishing consensus falls on those seeking to include. Discussion having gone stale with no evident clear consensus is not a wait a week and go ahead and add it back in. We've already got two, including myself actually objecting to inclusion (what you just very recently added isn't necessarily objected, but I'm saying should be discussed further given this is a highly controversial change). Perhaps an RfC is needed to get more participation going. Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC) I think I am going to @Possibly: here seeing that he's done substantially trimming on some of the articles of members being added, such as Joe Lewis (artist) on here to see if they'd be interested in sharing some perspectives. Graywalls (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Graywalls,as far as I know, Valueyou is an editor in good standing and a subject matter expert. It is unsurprising that they have made many contributions in this area. Vexations (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        In an effort to attract more participants, I have posted a neutral message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Colab_members Vexations (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming I saw the ping. I'm busy over the next day or so but will try to come back to this by Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest. Don't wait on me if there's consensus in the interim. StarM 02:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will repeat here what I said when this art historical purge began: Stripping artist groups or art movements of the names of their artist members (whatever their notability) renders the pages poorer in detail and indeed almost meaningless. I am not down in the weeds with all of the objections that Graywalls makes to remove material from not only the Colab page but now related individual pages - nor do I have the time to go there. I only wish to point out again that the Wikipedia page for Abstract expressionism contains a long long list of all of the abstract expressionists with a Wikipedia page. Let's please use some common sense and do the same here and restore the list I salvaged. Valueyou (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are concerns at the article you just mentioned as well. other articles having problems isn't a reason for seeking permissive inclusion elsewhere. The issue of questionably sourced or unsourced have come up in the talk page of that article too. I also found a lot of written contents on the page that weren't foot noted that I am not sure if they're original research or something from existing sources but not footnoted. Since I don't have tine to go through it thoroughly nor am I interested in doing that right now, I have tagged that article you have mentioned for issues I noticed at glance. Graywalls (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't include people unless properly sourced, but a dedicated list article might work as a compromise for now. List of Colab members. Acousmana (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to the List of Colab members - which takes us back to where this waste of time started.Valueyou (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi Acousmana Graywalls Vexations I would like to add that the List of Colab members should better be titled a partial list of Colab members. A fuller list (made at the time) can be read in the photograph of it here: List of artists from Colab Moore college of Art catalogue, 1983 https://98bowery.com/return-to-the-bowery/abcnorio-colab Valueyou (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acousmana:, I am not sure if were aware when you created the list, but Valueyou already created a spin-off page with just a list of names. I AfD'd it and a consensus was that it should be merged, however the general comment was that it should be selectively merged. The purpose of this discussion we're having here is to decide what to include. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the selection should be done judiciously, not indiscriminately include everyone that is verifiable. I have re-directed the new list you created, which is a re-creation of something for which a consensus has already been established that a stand alone article is not justifiable at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colab_Members Graywalls (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
familiar with not a directory, but what's with all the fuss? Personally, don't think this is such a big deal, the 98 Bowery source is good for the purposes of establishing documented membership. It existed, there were members, this is verifiable, would be in favor of keeping this info, think it adds encyclopedic value. Acousmana (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include everything verifiable. due weight needs to be considered, and a major consideration is the presence of independent sources. "ABC No Rio Dinero: The Story of a Lower East Side Art Gallery Edited by Alan Moore and Marc Miller New York: ABC No Rio with Collaborative Projects, 1985" This would be a dependent primary source, because it was published by the Colab itself. Max Schumann source would be self published. The idea is to base most of the contents of the article on independent, secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it really depends what content we are developing, this is hardly a controversial topic, so exluding primary sources is not necessarily a given, local consensus can take precedent, if there is agreement that the Colab article should exist, then fail to see why providing a list of sourced members would be contentious if it's verifiable. Acousmana (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To include a list of members who have Wikipedia articles seems appropriate to me. I strongly disagree that we should remove people if Colab was not significant to them – that would be a reason for not mentioning Colab in their individual biographical articles. It is what is editorially relevant to Colab that counts so it may well be sensible to remove some people merely associated with Colab. Who comes into which category I have no idea. This looks to be the state of the article before this discussion was started. In general I do not think that list was too long. Thincat (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • strongly disagree. It is undue. It reminds me of a sparsely filled school page that is essentially a poster board for "notable alumni" in which that section consumes 3/4 of the page length. Graywalls (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 discussion[edit]

  • I was annoyed to see my name deleted as a Colab member. While I did not have a show at the Whitney, I am certainly notable when discussing both my long connection to Colab, and my history of presenting artist content on the web. As noted by "someone" "Naming select members, however, feels like a patent violation of the group’s ethos." We all knew who the pre Times Square Show members were exactly, and yes after the Times Square Show, who was a member or even which organization was Colab became both blurred and annoying to the original group. But wikipedia rules have made this page totally boring and lifeless. Some of the most interesting and important non-artist members are not even mentioned. I applaud Alan Moore's efforts, but perhaps Colab does not fit well into such a dead style. This page reads like an autopsy of a dead group of artists. Someone from the founding group such as Alan needs to be the gatekeeper, if the there is going to be a list -- and I am sure we don't need one with the heading "notable." FK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colab1945 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're blocked until you change your name, and are likely to remain blocked until you understand Wikipedia rules. There are no gatekeepers of content, and you should not edit where you have a conflict of interest because you're unlikely to be able to edit neutrally, which is required. Star Mississippi 00:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have in my possession as a former member and officer of colab three lists of members 1) the list included in the 1982 Annual report which contains 53 names starting with Charlie Ahearn ending with Robin winters. 2) a personal original handout of that list (#1) with my personal annotations of about 1/2 dozen additional members. 2) a handout from a meeting of membership as of Feb of 1995 which starts with Charlie Ahearn and ends with Nora York, totalling 42 members. I am no longer on the 95 list since by that time I was no longer interested in participating with the group, however I remained in constant contact with 90% of the membership and eventually worked closely with BOMB magazine as a consultant. What is most interesting about the lists it the rather consistent number of members, it never really grew much, since we all knew each other. And as for "Notable" not listing someone like Ulli Rimkus who started the Colab centric artist bar "Max Fish" which I and one other Colab member supported is unimaginable. The list of missing include Judy Ross, a well known textile designer, Kiki Smith's two sisters Seaton and Bebe, as well as the important and beloved Colab artist Judy Rifka. No Betsy Sussler, who is still publishing BOMB magazine? or Eric Mitchell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Mitchell_(filmmaker)? My conflict of interest is conflict with obvious disinformation, and insult to these hard working art workers,like myself. Wikipedia's problem with including those who were there, needs to be addressed. Simulacres (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a Conflict of Interest, and you do not understand the sourcing requirements. I also recommend reading WP:SOCK as you don't appear to have disclosed your prior account and are at risk of being blocked. Not by me, to be clear, as I'd be involved. Star Mississippi 00:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Colab is about exhibitions and collaboration, between a very opinionated group of diverse artists. Without a list of the 50 or so undisputed members (which any journalist would confirm by asking colab members) the article is a ridiculous vacuum. Just by looking at the list from Max Schumann I can see this is not the original list -- but the reborn un-Colab of 1995. Trying to confirm if one of the founders is a member is so ridiculous, it is almost laughable. Obviously wikipedia does not work, except as a vast pool of carefully cited plagiarism. Youtube for readers. LOL. Simulacres (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MARC MILLER and ALAN MOORE[edit]

When looking into the long list of people, I am seeing Max Schumann, publishing through Printed Matters, an organization to which he is the executive director; as well as 98bowery/Marc Miller and that book about Colab by Alan Moore very frequently used. When determining due weight, I believe it is necessary to determine that if they're affiliated with Colab or if those sources are truly independent of Colab, ABC No Rio and people whose biography mentioned in written pieces by those people. Graywalls (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY Please note: Printed Matter is a 501c-3 non-profit dedicated to artists' books, distribution and publication. Max Schumann is the current director. PM is on WikiP, BTW, so you can see what it is. This is NOT a vanity publication. "A Book About Colab" was edited by Max as an artists' book, which it is -- an anthology of primary texts, reprinted excerpts, and images. My own "ABC No Rio Dinero", edited by me and Marc Miller, and published by Colab in 1985 is also a collection of original and republished texts. But, since Marc and I are both PhD art historians, it was intended as a history and has a more clear structure than "A Book About". Alanwmoore (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a copy of the Schumann book and the Miller/Moore book (somewhere) and I can state with certainty that Max Schumann and Mark Miller have never been in (or closely associated with) Colab and that Alan Moore was an important member of Colab who has gone on to become an art historian of the group and the general movements around it. Printed Matters has no association with Colab other than publishing the Colab book and putting on a display of the book and associated artworks. Valueyou (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Max Schumann's book is a concern as far as its use in establishing noteworthiness of inclusion for due weight consideration, because it is not independently published. Schumann wrote the book and he is publishing it through his own book distributing business incorporated as 501c3 for which he is the executive director. So he can basically write and publish whatever he wants at his discretion and I think that makes that specific book of his a WP:SPS. Anything is significantly authored by people very closely associated with the organization, groups, products, companies or clubs drastically discounts its value for the purpose of establishing due weight in inclusion or building notability to justify the existence of article. Those type of sources are accurate for non-controversial hard facts. When sources closely related to the article begin to control the contents, we have a due weight issue. Graywalls (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: The idea that Max can "can basically write and publish whatever he wants at his discretion" misrepresents processes of producing expensive projects in non-profit organizations. Again, this is an edited collection. It a primary, not a secondary textual source. Max, BTW, exhibited as an artist at ABC No Rio (as did uncounted numbers of others over 40 years), and became aware of Colab (the founding organization of ABC No Rio) years before he worked for Printed Matter. He was enthused (his father founded Bread & Puppet Theatre, another famous collective), and when he had the chance he took on this book project many years later. Alanwmoore (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Moore appears directly involved with ABC No Rio as well as Colab. ?? http://artfcity.com/2012/07/09/the-abc-no-rio-interviews-alan-moore/2/ and https://collaborativeprojects.wordpress.com/artists/

REPLY: I am. Marc Miller co-edited "ABC No Rio Dinero" with me. He later mounted much of the book to his own website, 98bowery.com. I am presently developing a large-scale historical recuperation project around ABC No Rio's 40 years (only a few of which I was directly involved in) right now (3/21) for launch in '22. As for Colab, a number of us are involved in developing the (now more rare) projects and doing maintenance on its histories. Alanwmoore (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Book About Colab (and Related Activities) – edited by Max Schumann , and with a Foreword and Afterword by art writer and Colab member Walter Robinson - Schumann is executive director of Printed Matter, Inc, publishing through his own company, not independent and WP:SPS. Also, Robinson is a member, so also not independent. Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: AgainPrinted Matter is most emphatically not Max's company. He is a hired hand, and serves at the pleasure of the board of directors. This is normal in all New York State non-profit corporations. Alanwmoore (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

recently removed maintenance template[edit]

The questions posed above has not been addressed satisfactorily yet. Despite repeated use of the same Hyperallergic sources, a large portion of materially significant contents of the article remain sourced to the aforementioned Miller, Moore, Schumann published via his own Printed Matter, Inc, dependent sources, so I don't feel when to remove template was quite satisfied to resolve primary and connected source dependence concern. Discussion would be much appreciated. Thank you all, Graywalls (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: There are many other sources for Colab. I'll round some up and put them in. But this just popped up on my radar today (I don't get notifications on this page), and it will take me some time. I'll take them direct from my "Art Gangs" book (Autonomedia, 2012), which is also not in this list of references. Alanwmoore (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanwmoore:, given that you appear to be far more involved than tangentially involved (tangentially involved, for example, people who edit on Microsoft products while co-incidentally being a Windows user/Microsoft customer), I believe your direct edits to the article is a concern given your level of involvement and it'd be better if your changes are proposed here. Graywalls (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this edit was a while ago, but the comment you were asked by one of the members suggests you had/have a working relation with the organization and their members, thus COI concerns. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (March 2021)[edit]

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Nechvatal#WP:COI Graywalls (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Graywalls Saw it. This COI tag is misleading and should be removed immediately.Valueyou (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, That's a bit vague. Who is the editor with the CoI? What statements specifically are not NPOV? Vexations (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations where are you getting that there has to be a very specific identification? The participants over time, the sources used (some of which are closely tied with those involved with Colab). But one example of non-appearance of neutrality is rattling off names/exhibits, sourced to printedmatter. @Star Mississippi:, as a previous participant to talk page here, looking at the article in current state, do you have a comment you can add? Graywalls (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, I don't see any rattling off names. Where is it, and which editor with a CoI introduced it? I fixed the list of notable members. Out of concern that I wouldn't provide enough evidence of membership to satisfy you, it has far more sources than ought to be necessary, but that's easily fixed. Just select the the two best ones for each artist. That we list exhibitions is unavoidable, because organizing exhibitions is what the group did. It is their entire raison d'être. Vexations (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re not specific about what you think is wrong, how is anyone supposed to fix the article? Vexations (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graywalls for the ping as I was no longer watching this page. There was someone who declared a COI, or at least discussed it on their user page. Trying to find it now. The broader issues in the threads above remain that most of the entities that covered Colab were in some way tied, so I'm not sure if it's a COI or a neutral sourcing (for which there might not be a tag) issue. For example, Kiki Smith/MoMA press. Folks have Opinions on certain content that belongs here and their Opinions were way stronger than my desire to trim it so we have major cite overkill issues that I'm not sure can be resolved. StarM 16:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi, what are you referring to with "Kiki Smith/MoMA press". There is no such thing as MoMA press. The article doesn't cite any publications by MoMA about Smith. Can you clarify how you think there is a CoI there? Vexations (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations citation 49 is literally a MoMA press release (although it was Otterness, not Kiki Smith, I misread) 57 is https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_133_300163669.pdf MoMA talked about Kiki Smith based on materials she/her team would have provided. So when on p3, she's talking about her participation in Colab it's not independent sourcing. I already agreed to disagree on this above, and will not remove the sources. Just answering the question you asked. If consensus is that they're going to stay, it would be very helpful to use refill or another tool so it provides title, etc. in case MoMA changes their URL structure. Let me know if this is helpful. StarM 01:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi, https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_133_300163669.pdf is a copy of an exhibition catalogue, not a press release. I don't think that the associate curator in the department of prints and illustrated books at the Museum of Modern Art has a conflict of interest with Colab merely by collaborating on an exhibition with one former member. Vexations (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, agreed to disagree Vexations and I won't be taking editorial action as I respect your POV on the issue. You and other editors have just as right to an opinion as I do, and there's obviously no clear cut answer to this unless someone wants to go through 3rd Opinion. StarM 14:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi, If I understand you correctly, you think that Kiki Smith, who has not edited this article, has a conflict of interest, because a statement of fact, made by the curator of the Museum of modern art, that is corroborated by other sources, was "based on materials she/her team would have provided", a claim for which you have presented no evidence. Have I got that right so far? Vexations (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the citation of a a MoMA press release in support of the claim that Otterness was a Colab member that I added in [8]. That was my mistake. We should not be using press releases as sources. Vexations (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have concluded a CoI investigation and listed all editors with a conflict of interest in the {{connected contributor}} template. For the most part, those editors made minor changes the article that were factual, even if sources were not provided. It should be noted that many of those contributions date from around 2009, when sourcing requirements were not as rigorously enforced as they are now. My conclusion is that there is no non-NPOV content in the article that has been contributed by editors with a conflict of interest. The article is not biased by a conflict of interest, so I will remove the COI tag. Vexations (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colab&oldid=1201017135"