User talk:Ad Referendum

Collections Management Systemes Analysis
For the purposes of this assignment, a collections management system is basically a set of organized data for the purposes of cataloging, updating, and learning information about a collection of objects. These tasks can be accomplished with filing cabinets and paper, but, not surprisingly, museums prefer computerized systems if they can afford them. In my analysis of Wikipedia as a management system (examining three articles) and SIRIS, the Smithsonian Institution’s database, I will consider the people who use these systems, the purposes for which they are used, and some benefits and drawbacks of each. I will also examine Glory-June Grieff's book entitled Remembrance, Faith, and Fancy: Outdoor Public Sculpture in Indiana.

Three Wikipedia Articles
Wikipedia articles are created “by the people, for the people”—anyone can access them, and anyone can create them, but this latter fact is one reason that Wikipedia may discourage students and researchers from using it as a source. The three articles I examined were the components of J. R. R. Tolkien’s fantasy trilogy The Lord of the Rings: articles about The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King.

For the most part, the articles were fairly well-written and presented detailed information about all three books—down to information about each chapter of each volume. There were minor grammatical errors, and one piece of information I knew was false, but it was not a major plot point. The worst problem was a lack of references in the Fellowship of the Ring article—there was only one reference for the article, and it had nothing to do with the content of the book. At the beinning of the article is a note saying sources are needed, but it has been in place since May of 2008, and obviously, not many changes have been made. One section included information about Tolkien’s original plan for the trilogy and that he would have preferred a different title for the third book—information which should probably be referenced. Since these are encyclopedia entries, perhaps there should also be more information about Tolkien, the books' influence on the fantasy genre, and so forth.

Wikipedia does have several good qualities: knowledgeable people can make useful changes, so that there is a sort of peer review being implemented; articles are divided into sections, so people can access the part most relevant for them; there are internal and external links if people need more information; and it is usually easy to find information. On the negative side, errors can be made and may go unchecked for long periods of time, and when people find what they're looking for, they may not necessarily know that it’s true if there are insufficient sources.

SIRIS
SIRIS (Smithsonian Institution Research Information System) includes several catalogs with categories of information that are available to the public, although many people may not know about this resource. I am not sure who creates the database, but I would guess it is managed by the Smithsonian staff.

SIRIS' format is a list of data that can be a good starting point for further research. As a content management system, I found it useful—at least as a starting point, or if only basic information is needed. "Cross-linking" allows the researcher to look at items of the same type. SIRIS gives mostly the basic facts about its works—descriptions, who created the object or records, relevant dates, condition assessment, and so forth. Sometimes "extra" information is given, such as part of the history of the entry.

In conducting searches on SIRIS, I found it hard to see what I was looking for on more than one occasion—maybe I didn’t understand how all the searching should be done. Also, sometimes SIRIS may not have the exact information people are searching for; enties are not exactly the same, with exactly the same elements.

The Greiff Book
Glory-June Greiff's Remembrance, Faith, and Fancy: Outdoor Public Sculpture in Indiana, though it may not be considered a true collections management system, is similar to content management systems in that it gives information about a particular collection of objects and a "searching function" of sorts (an index in the back). It provides historical and background information about sculptures, although most are discussed in great detail, and, like Wikipedia articles, the information is in a narrative form. For researchers needing basic, quick, easy-to-access information, the book will probably be less than ideal, but it does allow people to read about sculptures in detail comparable to or greater than the information on SIRIS. Grieff's structure categorizes sculptures so that people can read about works of a certain type all together; the last portion of the book is a county-by-county sculpture survey that can be useful to those searching in their local area. My guess is that two audiences for this book would be a portion of the general public, and perhaps professionals conducting research.

Conclusions
Effective collections management systems allow easy access to information, but the quantity of information required for them is debateable--people using the system need different amounts. Museum staff may look for one thing, researchers another. Wikipedia is a highly-available source that includes the option to view more information if necessary, but the fact that anyone can post anything to it makes it less than credible for many people. SIRIS, although available to the public, is not as well-known as Wikipedia, and finding information there may not be as easy as in Wikipedia. Glory-June Grieff's book is a rather different approach to research--while it presents useful information, it is not as easily accessed, and its style, although it can be detailed, makes data more difficult to find than with databases such as SIRIS. A narrative style is better if one is not sure what they are looking for or would like a broad overview of a subject; a book such as Greiff's is also more personal. A computerized "database" style, such as SIRIS is better for quick, basic information, although it may not be as detailed as the researcher would wish.

Final Project Information Search
As you can see, I found almost no information about Bart Kister. I have emailed Ms. Eickmeier to see whether she can help, but have not heard from her yet. Richard and Jenny, if you don't mind, I will leave it to your discretion whether you want to give me any more time to see if she can offer assistance. At the moment, though, I do not intend to do more research because it is past the project date.

My search for the artist has included the following sources (I did not keep a record of sources I checked at the beginning, but I can't imagine there are many more):

1. ARTbibliographies Modern 2. Art Full Text (?) 3. Art Retrospective (Wilson) 4. News-ProQuest Newspapers 5. Indianapolis Star 6. Google 7. Ms. Eickmeier (email)

Searching for Wind Leaves and/or Bart Kister (along with perhaps the Riley Courtyard information) includes the following sources:

1. ARTbibliographies Modern 2. Art Full Text (?) 3. Art Retrospective (Wilson) 4. ARTStor 5. Google 6. News-ProQuest Newspapers 7. Indianapolis Star 8. IUPUI archives 9. SIRIS

Category:Information science Category: data management Category: content management systems

Nomination of Wind Leaves for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wind Leaves is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Wind Leaves until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  02:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wind Leaves Proper Left.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wind Leaves Proper Left.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:"Chimney" Front.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:"Chimney" Front.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. EBE123 talkContribs 11:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Survey
Hi Ad Referendum!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)