User:Emilyjanowiak/Wikipedia Reflections

This sandbox will be used to write reflective comments as I complete Wikipedia assignments for my Collections Care and Management course.

Reflections for 11/9/10
This week I browsed through the IUPUI Public Art Collection on Wikipedia to familiarize myself with a project that deals with digitally cataloging and managing a collection of artworks. The project took place in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2009 and was undertaken by Museum Studies graduate students at IUPUI. I found that the main project page provides a good general overview of the collection and could be used as a quick reference for anyone seeking to learn about its history and highlights. The article features several images as a way of visually orienting viewers to the collection and piquing their interest in exploring more of the project. The reference list for this page is rather short, but there are a host of internal links to additional information, so people who would like to find more references related to the collection should not have any trouble doing so.

Two articles that I examined in-depth are Torso Fragment by artist Casey Eskridge and Procession of Ants by artist David Bowen. Torso Fragment was the longer article of the two, providing a description, general information about the piece and artist, and details regarding its acquisition. Because the sculpture was commissioned relatively recently (2005), a great deal of information about its introduction into the IUPUI public art collection could be gathered, including the names of other artists who also had work selected for display that year. I found the article easy to read and just detailed enough. However, if I were to assess the format of the article as a whole, I felt that the heading entitled information seemed a bit vague. The paragraph presented below the heading is quite brief and explains a bit about how the sculpture is one of three sculptures by Eskridge on the campus. Perhaps this information could have been moved under the Description or Artist heading. The shorter of the two articles described the Procession of Ants piece located outside Taylor Hall. All of the information in this article falls under two headings: Description and Artist. Whereas I recommended that the author of the Torso Fragment article consolidate information into fewer headings, I feel that the Procession of Ants author could divide the information into more of them. For example, information about the piece's acquisition could be placed under a separate heading. A positive aspect of the writing is that for such a short article, the author cites several relevant sources related to the artist. Readers seeking more information about David Bowen would be able to access it via this article. One final comment about this particular article is that the photo shows the sculpture masked by trees and it would be nice to see it from a better angle. However, I realize that the author had to deal with limitations of time and access, so it might not have been possible to accomplish this.

I perused a variety of articles written about works of public art on the IUPUI campus and attempted to look for ideas about formatting such an article since I will soon be writing my own as part of the Indiana Statehouse project. The more I read, the more I came to understand that these articles (or any articles on Wikipedia, for that matter) need not go into excessive detail, but should simply present basic information about the piece in a clear, concise manner. As Liam Wyatt stated in his 11/2/10 lecture about Wikipedia and the Cultural Sector, Wikipedia is a "starting point" for further research. If the authors of articles are doing their job correctly, they should be providing a list of reliable sources where readers can go to learn more information. Additionally, no statements of opinion are present in any of the IUPUI public art articles, which allows for an objective reading experience. Although I knew this going into the project, reading through the articles helped to clarify just how an author might go about following these guidelines. In general, I tend to be fairly wordy, can often go into exhaustive detail when writing about a topic and have a tendency to slip in information that may be opinion-based and/or not entirely verifiable. I am hoping that my upcoming participation in the Indiana Statehouse project will help me break some of these habits and learn to be flexible as I adopt a different style of writing.

Reflections for 11/16/10
This week I selected an article about a work of public art from my hometown of West Lafayette, Indiana to examine and edit. I am very new to the editing process, so this was a very useful, practical experience for me. I chose the article about the Engineering Fountain, which is located on the campus of Purdue University. I have seen this fountain many times and used to run through it as a child, so I possess a personal connection to the piece and want to see its article improved. Right off the bat, I noticed a box stating that the article did not cite any references or sources, so it was clear that a great deal of work could be done. I still have some learning/practice to do when it comes to info boxes, references, etc., so I realize that my edits could still be refined and expanded. However, after working on this article for a bit, I think I was able to improve its overall format and readability, as well as cite some references from the web. Granted, I did a fairly limited search, but I could not find any newspaper or journal articles about the fountain, and very few book references cropped up. The only information I could manage to find was located primarily on Purdue's website, but I'm glad I was able to at least start a small reference list. The following is a list of the changes I made to the article:


 * Added headings, as there were none initially.
 * Combined redundant sentences and paragraphs and rearranged them to adhere to headings.
 * Added internal links for parabolic, Purdue Memorial Union.
 * Added a brief art infobox, based on the limited details I could find.
 * Added citations for 2 website references and one book.

Initially I did not enjoy reading this article. It had no category headings, so skimming/sorting through the information quickly was difficult. I felt that the author did not invest very much time in researching and formatting the article, and it almost seemed as if it had been copied and pasted from another source. Some of the information was repeated, and there were several statements that meant the same thing but were simply worded differently. This information should have been consolidated for ease of reading. Because no sources or references were given, I was not able to discern whether or not the information was reliable. I have heard stories about this particular fountain and how it has become part of Purdue University's history, so I know from personal experience that some of the information is probably true. However, Wikipedia has higher standards than hearsay, so in this case, sources need to be provided. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 meaning that I trust the article completely, I would give this article a 3.

Reflections as I work on the article drafts...
I've been interested to see the ways in which people are using varied resources from around Indianapolis. I really like the idea of different people being in charge of different research locations...it's proven to be a great way to save valuable time and energy, and I think the quality of our research will demonstrate this in the end. I also love the idea of different cultural institutions around town coming together for a common goal. It's made us more aware of what they have, it's made them more aware of what we're doing, and ultimately I think it will help the cultural institutions feel that they are making relevant, current contributions to Indianapolis society. The same could be said for Organization Day at the Statehouse, when we made our presence known and caused people to ask questions about what we were doing and why it's important.

11/22/10...While one of my drawing classes was working independently, I began reviewing some of my resources for the Christopher Columbus sculpture. A sophomore student asked me what I was doing, so I told her that I'm in a class that is working on documenting the artwork at the Statehouse and writing Wikipedia articles about it. She thought for a moment, then said, "I guess that's a really good idea, because then it will mean that anyone can learn about the art." I couldn't agree more!

11/27/10...I've been checking in on the Flickr group page and it's been going pretty well so far, but some of the photos haven't been titled/tagged correctly. I'm wondering if there was something I could have done to make the instructions more clear, but I'm not sure how I would have handled it differently. No one contacted me with questions or confusion so I assumed everything was fine. Anyway, it's not the end of the world, but I hope that all of the titling/tagging format issues can be worked out so we have a professional looking final product. I'm looking into how to make my article live, but am a bit unsure of how to do it. On the WSPA template it says "Transfer your finished article to Wikipedia main space once it is complete", but it doesn't specify how to make this transfer. I'm sure if I look around a little bit I'll be able to figure it out, and thus far I have found the WSPA template to be extremely helpful, but in this area I'd like to have a little more information.

11/28/10...Dealing with images in Wikipedia is definitely more complicated than I'd like it to be, but I realize that there are reasons for everything. The main issue I've had so far is making the information that I type in the "free use rationale" template and the name of the photo in my infobox EXACTLY the same. At one point I had written ".jpg" on one and ".JPG" on another, and it took me forever to figure out why my picture wasn't appearing in the article. (It also said something about the article not existing yet, even though it did...still trying to figure that one out.) Anyway, I ended up accidentally uploading the same image three or four times trying to figure out what was wrong, but now I don't know now to delete them because I've been taught how to upload things but not how to DE-upload them. Hopefully while I'm figuring it out I won't be bombarded with comments from the Wikipedia police. Other than image issues, everything has gone smoothly with making the articles live. I still don't know if we're going to come to a class consensus on some title issues, but seeing as how the articles have to be live before class on Tuesday, I figured I'd better just make my best guess, then move to a new title later if need be.

11/30/10 I've been struggling with a few article convention issues, and sometimes have a hard time determining if they are things that I can just make a decision about or if I should consult the rest of the class. Some of the information can be found on various Wikipedia resources as well as the WSPA template/resource pages, so I can work individually on everything just fine. However, at times I wonder if I'm participating enough in the collaborative process. I try to post on the talk page when I have questions and keep up with what other people are writing, but sometimes not everyone addresses the issue and it's difficult to come to a consensus (see above reflection where I discuss how to title my Calvin Fletcher article). I realize that we need to figure out a lot of these questions on our own, and I feel that for the most part, our class has done a good job comunicating and learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. However, part of me wishes that someone would simply say, "you all need to do it like this." I feel like this is the type of project that requires a great deal of continuity across the articles, and we didn't necessarily discuss enough of the details that each student should address. For example, are there specific external links that we should all include? Should all of the busts be titled similarly? Perhaps in the future this could be formed into some sort of leadership role (Continuity tzar? I don't know...). We did this with the photo information (everyone was told that they HAD to title/tag their photos a certain way), and I feel like it was relatively straight forward and easy for everyone to be on the same wavelength. If someone else could come up with a solid plan for titles, external links, "see also" information, etc., the articles might look better as a set. It's not too late to take care of these issues, of course, but because some of our remaining class time will be dedicated to non-Wikipedia endeavors, it might be hard to sort everything out. I'm torn because I feel like the museum tours and guest speakers we've had have been invaluable experiences that I'm so fortunate to have had, but I also feel like we need to have a little more group discussion about the project as it progresses.