User:Emtrix/Wiki-flections

For 11/9
First and foremost, I am very glad that I am enrolled in this class now and not last semester. I heard horror stories of the hoops and hells that the class had to go through to complete the project. I am happy to be standing on their shoulders reaping the benefits of everyone's hard work. Learning Wikipedia is complicated enough when all the information is organized for you, I can't imagine going through that process blind while also having to complete research.

In terms of the IUPUI Public Art Collection, I think this was a great project. While they say that public art is often ignored, I am not one that usually takes it for granted. I love the idea that there is an easily accessible source now that has information about these pieces, especially Mega-Gem (which has provided shade for many a picnic of mine). However, what is available in the IUPUI Art box at the bottom of the articles is incomplete. The articles reference 40 artworks that were researched and the Flickr accounts show much more. How did the 28 pieces make it into the box and why were the other twelve left out? Or were the articles taken down?

I was suprised to learn that there is a Curator of Campus Art, though it makes sense and is comforting to know. Does the Wikipedia project reflect the information that the curator has or is the information in the articles more comprehensive? I would imagine that at WSPA grows, curators of other public collections, if they exist, may celebrate the work done on their collection's behalf. I am also curious to know if there has been any response from artists about this project or about particular pages. Having a Wikipedia page about your work of art may be great for notoriety or could pose copyright problems. If I were that artist, I would be thankful for the work done on Wikipedia. So, as I finish writing this...While I first wondered how necessary it was to document artwork on IUPUI's campus and what it really achieved, I suppose I am sold on the potential benefits this project can provide to the work.

For 11/16
Updated La Grande Vitesse

Though short, this article seemed to have all the necessary and interesting pieces. The length was not particularly brief like some of the IUPUI articles turned out to be, but it was in no way as in-depth as Cloud Gate. I'm not sure many public works, particularly in smaller cities, could ever reach the quantity and quality of information in the Cloud Gate article. Cloud Gate is an icon in a famous part of a large city. It is not suprising that there are five books used as references to this article as well as dozens of newspaper articles. Although, with a sculptor as famous as Calder and as part of the Art in Public Places program, La Grand Vitesse would most likely have its own fair share of text to pull information from. In that case, this article has the potential to be much bigger. The limited number of references (3) as well as the amount of information that is NOT cited in the article makes it seem incomplete, especialy when compared to Cloud Gate. Much of what is included in the article sounds like it was written by a Grand Rapids native who happens to pass by the sculpture often. The article is description heavy - describing both the work and the surrounding landscape. It seems almost as if the references were added as an afterthought to make the topic more notable. Though again, there is much more potential for this particular entry.

In terms of the Wiki-details, there is little to critique. The internal links were appropriate, highlighting proper names and words that would need more explanation. Sometimes articles have too many internal tags on words that aren't necessarily that confusing. There were just enough little blue highlights here to make the page readible. The length that I found before editing it was just enough to not really need headings and subheadings, though the article looks more fleshed out now that those have been added. The categories seem appropriate and I can't say that anything is obviously missing. I did add the See Also section to include links to articles for Calder and other Grand Rapids public art. That addition makes the piece seem more of a larger whole than even including categories.

Overall, I trust the article as it stands, probably rating it an 8. I probably trust it for all the wrong reasons. First, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt - sometimes to a fault. My line of thinking here is that there would be no reason to present false information in this article, so though things like dimensions are not cited, they are certainly not estimations. I would believe that the information was retrieved from somewhere. Some of the other information that was given just sounds like things someone who works in the area would come to know over the years. Again, I trust it, though I know that is not appropriate for Wikipedia standards. If I had to rank the article outside of personal feelings, using Wikipedia standards, the ranking would be much lower, maybe a 5. I'm not sure exactly what pieces of information the citations are noting - whole sentences or just the previous statements. There is a bit more work that could be done to make more clear what statements have sources.

For 11/30
I really got into this project more than I thought I would. There were two unknowns that were causing a little anxiety for me at the beginning: 1)I'm not the world's best researcher. I don't always know where to look; and 2)I heard how much last year's group struggled. But, it looks like the kinks were worked out this time around.

It was a huge help to have people in charge of going to the various libraries and museums to scope out what was available and how to navigate the place. Being fairly new to the state and not really having a historical background, there were many places I would not have thought to look for resources. I am also not very mobile during the day, unless I tote the baby around, so it was helpful to be armed with knowing where I could effectively and efficiently spend my time looking for material. Though there was still a fair amount of research done, the preliminary work from the other classmates streamlined the process.

As for the second worry, it became clear very early on in this process that this year it was a whole new ball game. Everyone must have learned from last year. The Wikipedia project page was highly organized, fairly easy to navigate and in general, answered all my questions. Once I got used to the big idea, the terminology and the general set up, I was very comfortable. I am a person who likes to experiment with new experiences if given the time. Regular and longer naptimes on the baby front coincided with the start of this project, so I had a lot more time than expected to learn Wikipedia while doing the research. Because I had the time and quickly "figured it out", once I had something slightly substantial to publish, I was excited to do so. There is something somewhat gratifying in having someone search for your topic and see your work near the top of the search results. Though my name is not officially on these articles, it's still a bragging point...if you like to brag.

Looking back on the project process, I can't say that I would change much of anything. I always felt I understood what to do or knew where to look in order to find it. At times, I did get a little lost in the pages as I navigated from project pages to templates to style guides. I came to rely on my watchlist as a source of "bookmarks" to get me to pages. I suppose I could have also officially bookmarked those pages. I'm not sure there would be another way around the massive embedding and page jumping. All in all, the process seemed pretty organized, or at least quickly self-correcting, to me. There were some hiccups, but it was more on my end often because I acted before I should have.

This project also made me look at Wikipedia in a new way. Like most internet users, I definitely used Wikipedia to look up information that I was curious about. Now, though, I have a new respect for the effort that it takes to put up an article. I am willing to use Wikipedia as a valid source of information because I can more discriminatly explain which articles are well-researched. I do realize that not all entries are as scholarly as others and there is a lot more work to be done across Wikipedia. It also makes me feel a bit more empowered to do something about it as I now generally know how Wikipedia works. I know that I can always add content if I think things should be more fleshed out. Yet, as with most projects and plans, that takes time, which is definitely a luxury. But knowing that I can change something is still comforting.