User talk:Allyson7657

Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis
Hi Allyson!

I had to delete your additions to Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis for two reasons: Hope this cleared some things up and if you have any questions, just leave a message for me [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fetchcomms&action=edit&section=new here].
 * One, it looks like that text was copied directly from the museum's website. Wikipedia doesn't have permission to copy that material (because all our content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license, we can't accept copy-pastes of other sites unless they agree to our license terms—which include allowing modification and commercial usage of all text on our site).
 * Now, if you do have permission from the copyright holder of the text you added to publish it under our copyright license, I would normally direct you to provide verification of this permission, etc. But, here's the other problem: we can get permission, but that doesn't mean the text is automatically acceptable for Wikipedia. The problem with your additions is that they read like an advertisement of flyer for the museum. Now, I know plenty of other Wikipedia pages sound this way, too, but it's not a good thing as we're trying to be an encyclopedia—presenting free information in an unbiased and neutral manner. An example is this sentence you added: "As a gathering place for experiencing contemporary art and culture, we push the boundaries of innovation, creativity and expression." I've never seen an encyclopedia use "we" before in an article, especially when referring to some other organization! That sentence also expresses an opinion—can you verify that the museum pushes those boundaries? What if I disagree? There's no way to prove who's right and wrong there. So, Wikipedia only wants unbiased, non-promotional information, but also verifiable facts.
 * Now, there are some things you added that could be verified, e.g., "Born in 1969 in Ballarat, Australia, David Noonan lives and works in London." I doubt it would be too hard to find a news article, magazine article, or book (or something else that is generally considered a trustworthy publication) to back up that statement. But (sorry for all the buts!) I don't see much point in including that information because it only pertains to a single short-term exhibition. Wikipedia should cover general, encyclopedic material—definitely not every exhibit that the museum presents. If there was a particular exhibit that received an unusually large amount of media coverage, sure, maybe mention that somewhere, but remember that an encyclopedia should focus on the subject in general (background info, history, notable achievements, etc.).

Regards,

/ ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)