User talk:MuseumKatie

Smithsonian Institution Research Information Systems
As part of my exploration of this content management system, I searched 'outdoor sculpture' to compare the Smithsonian Institution Research Information Systems database to how we might form our own database. I thought that specifically using the same type of art, outdoor sculptures, may help see the advantages and disadvantages of their database.

One entry I found intrigued me as I was exploring: Bronze Puzzle by the American sculptor Richard Hunt (sculptor).

One advantage is that you can enlarge images by clicking on them, which would be a great treat for our content management system if Flickr allows. I like that the database includes when, where, and what organization surveyed it, and that will be important for us to include to give our Wikipedia articles a sense of credibility. It gets bonus points for being accessible online, but was not the easiest to navigate.

On the other hand, there are definite problems that I noticed with this entry. First, there is one "digital reference", or picture, attached to the Bronze Puzzle file. The picture has no sense of scale, or means of measurement, and it looks like it has been photographed on a carpeted floor. Would an outdoor sculpture be located on carpet? Maybe, but it does seem contradictory, and with no explanation offered or description of location, the database does not cover all the bases. Maybe SIRIS has an explanation of it being on carpet, but why then would it not include this online? This is a thought I would like to carry over into our class project—whatever information we have, we publish via Wikipedia. The smallest detail may make a great connection to other outdoor sculptures or to trademarks of the artist, you never know. There is also no mention of how many pieces there are in the Bronze Puzzle—are they removable or permanently placed? While the database offers good suggestions of relevant topics of information, it needs to include more information because the entries of sculptures do not seem complete. Overall, I find that the SIRIS database is lacking in information about its contents.

Through examining the SIRIS database, I found it a good resource for how to set up our future Wikipedia articles. While too much information can be overwhelming, I feel the SIRIS didn’t offer enough information, sometimes not even covering the basics like the year a sculpture was created.

Indiana Saves Outdoor Sculpture!
The key element to a successful content management system is accessibility. Who cares if you’ve gathered and compiled all this great information if you do not hay easy access to it? The Indiana Save Outdoor Sculpture! database has this exact problem.

The book Remembrance, Faith, and Fancy: Outdoor Sculpture in Indiana by Glory June Grieff was a good resource for locating sculptures and finding background information on them, especially when sorted by location. Like the SIRIS content management system, this version of Indiana SOS! in book form is a reputable resource. Its readers will trust the information included in the book, and will be able to use it as a resource if needed in future projects; the information included will not change until a revised edition is published.

However, the book form can only reflect the existence and condition of sculptures at the time of publication in 2005. While this records sculptures at a certain period of time, it cannot reflect recent changes in condition or recent damages or recent relocation of the sculpture; a main component of our collection and articles is creating an up-to-date account. I also think we are looking to be more detail-oriented than Remembrance, Faith, and Fancy: Outdoor Sculpture in Indiana was, in other words, we should utilize lists instead of a narrative form. This will also help us keep our articles maintaining a neutral and unbiased tone (literature) and point of view (literature), something that Wikipedians are requested to maintain when writing articles.

Three Wikipedia Articles
Overall, Wikipedia is the most familiar and thus most user-friendly. Say we added our sculptures to SIRIS, it would be available to a more academic, research-based crowd; whereas in book form it would be available to everyone but accessible to only a few. Wikipedia proves to be the best option to reach an audience that will be searching for things of interest to them, and may come across our articles.

Delphi
The first article I decided to analyze was on Delphi located in central Greece; I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to analyze this page because I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable on this ancient site.

One good thing about the article is that it is extensive and well-supported. There are numerous notes, references, even suggested readings to support the statements made about Delphi. The article is well-rounded and includes the history of the site from past to present; we should consider including the history of sculptures in our collection as much as possible. For example, even something as unique as the video of East Gate/West Gate as it moves from the Indianapolis Museum of Art to IUPUI should be included. The Delphi article has a section called ‘Media’ that is a video of the site, but it was hard to hear the audio along with it. This is a possible option, or even having an external link for the video would suffice. The article also has a ‘see also’ section, where a bullet-point list of internal links can take you to related articles and topics. This seems like an informal version of the categories, and may be beneficial to include with some of our sculptures, informing the viewers of other works by the same artist, similar artists, etc. Lastly, the article was appropriately organized in terms of its categories, from Category:Ancient Greek cities to Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Phocis Prefecture. The categories represented the big picture of Delphi, a World Heritage site, but also got specific to include unique aspects of the site, like Category:Former theatres. We should attempt to have as many applicable categories as possible for our articles, so that they can hopefully reach a wider audience.

Despite having reputable sources, I found some blatant errors in the article for Delphi, the first being some bad internal links to non-existent articles, like the Athenian Treasury. Just try and click it- there is no Athenian Treasury page (though I’ve decided to create one, eventually). I think it looks sloppy to have rotten links on the page, definitely something that we want to avoid with our articles. The next error is a big one. The article says that the Athenian Treasury was “built to commemorate the Athenians' victory at the Battle of Salamis”. However, I know that the inscription on the Athenian Treasury dedicates the building as being erected as a symbol of victory for the Battle of Marathon. This is a pretty big mistake. This goes back to the whole credibility issue; once we publish our articles, they are out there for other people to edit—for better or worse.

Diadumenos
The second article I analyzed is the Diadumenos sculpture, which is well known as the prime example of the aesthetic canon of Polykleitos. I thought this would be a great article to dissect because it is a sculpture, like pieces in our collection, but also there is a specific piece in our collection, the Torso Fragment, that is similar and may be a good comparison to the Diadumenos.

The article starts off with the significance of the sculpture, which is a great way to get across its important, lasting impact. Despite this being a relatively short article, it is also well-supported with eight notes, two reference books, and three external links. For the size of the article, this is sufficient. Also, there are four pictures throughout the article, one each serving as the main image for each subtitle in the article. Plus, all four images have a red background, which gives them a cohesive look. If possible, we should try to include similar images of our sculptures, making sure that they look cohesive.

Something helpful that this article is missing is a fact box, one that states the name, the artist, the period, the date, the medium, basically the basic information of the sculpture. I am under the impression that entire class supports having some sort of template info box, preferably under the article’s picture. The article also doesn’t mention much information on other sculptures in the Classical Greece period. In fact, it doesn’t mention the period of art it belongs to at all. Maybe it would be helpful to include that our sculptures are all from a modern/contemporary art period in our articles; or at least we could attribute that as a category for our sculptures.

Museum of Bad Art
The third article that I analyzed was for the Museum of Bad Art. The MOBA article is considered a featured article on Wikipedia, or one that is considered complete, and I thought it would be interesting to read about how a “trendy” new museum is represented on Wikipedia.

The article’s info box is organized well, for example, it includes a website, the names of the director and curator, and even public transit access. This may be beneficial for us to include, what bus routes are nearby the sculptures. I know the Red Line, which connects to IndyGo bus lines in downtown Indianapolis stops near the Herron School of Art and also a couple stops along Michigan Street as well. This would help people feel comfortable using public transportation to view our collection. It also shares a lot of information on the history and foundation of the museum; if possible, we should try to do the same for our sculptures. Contacting the artists, if alive, would be a great way to discuss their motivation for creating the sculpture, and also give the artist more exposure on Wikipedia. The article also has a friendly and slightly humorous tone plus lists many sources, which makes it fun, interesting, and educational to read.

The article doesn’t have many weak points, but it is very long. The section of “Collection Highlights” features three works, but doesn’t mention how these three were chosen to represent the museum. One, “Lucy in the Field with Flowers”, was the first piece of MOBA’s collection, but the other two are just named as highlights. I was thinking it may be nice to have a Wikipedia page for our collection, and then from there have a list of our sculptures or highlights, but it may be easier to just attach them all through their categories. I just feel that we need some way to show that we consider these articles we are about to create as one group, as a single collection. This way, people can be aware of the whole collection and maybe even walk around and view them as such.

Conceptual Issues for Relevant Wikipedia Categories
Just a few categories I discovered while searching Wikipedia. I think it is important to include any relevant categories. I arranged them below, approximately from broad to specific.


 * Category:Sculpture
 * Category:Tourism
 * Category:GPS
 * Category:Public art
 * Category:Pop art
 * Category:Modern art
 * Category:Contemporary art
 * Category:Contemporary works of art
 * Category:Outdoor sculptures
 * Category:Outdoor sculptures in the United States
 * Category:Outdoor sculptures in Indiana
 * Category:Marion County, Indiana
 * Category:Indianapolis, Indiana
 * Category:Tourism in Indianapolis, Indiana
 * Category:Indianapolis metropolitan area
 * Category:Outdoor sculptures in Indianapolis
 * Category:Visitor attractions in Indianapolis, Indiana
 * Category:Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

Yay, all these links work! This seems like a lot of categories, and these are just the ones that already exist! Some of these are also articles on Wikipedia, and we should make sure to work the internal link into our sculpture pages.

Modern Art & Contemporary Art
Technically, aren't modern art and contemporary art two separate art periods? Modern art goes until the 1970s, whereas contemporary art is after World War II. I have a little problem including both as categories, since these two are possibly contradictory. However, I think we must take into consideration the audience for our articles-- will most Wikipedians care that there are two different periods of art attributed to one or more of our sculptures? Will readers consider our articles less credible? I don't have an answer for these questions, but I think we should take into consideration the date of creation for the sculptures and apply which category fits it best.

Contemporary Art & Contemporary Works of Art
Here's another issue with some of the existing categories- some seem basically the same. Wikipedia describes Category:Contemporary works of art as being for "works of art in Contemporary art that do not fit into more standard categories such as Category:Paintings, Category:Sculptures, Category:Performance art, Category:Installation art, Category:digital art and so on". Well, our collection is all sculpture, so maybe this means Wikipedia prefers our articles to not' include something as 'normal' as sculpture into this category. For example, Ann Dancing is listed in Category:Contemporary works of art, which makes sense since it's not really a sculpture or installation, maybe similar to digital art, though. I think we may be able to get away with including our sculptures in both categories, and we may as well try it. Worse case scenario would be one of those "bots" comes along and removes some categories from our articles.

Visitor Attractions in Indianapolis, Indiana
This category is for tourist attractions in Indianapolis. I think we can make a case for this. It has subcategories for festivals, museums, and parks in Indianapolis, and are we not creating an outdoor museum with our collection? The IUPUI campus itself could even be considered a park, of sorts. I think our collection, as a whole, would be the best addition to this category, plus, it would create a way of having our sculptures be known as a collection. However, if there is to be no "IUPUI Outdoor Sculpture Collection" page, then I think the next best solution would be to include this category in our individual sculpture articles. For example, Numbers 0-9 is listed as a visitor attraction, and while some of our sculptures may not be as widely known or created by famous artists, art is always a visitor attraction.

Collections Care & Management Comments
Hola. Nice work on Mega Gem. Way to jump in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you are welcome to delete comments on your talk page whenever you want. It's yours, after all. --Richard McCoy (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Katie. I'm glad to know you are a mango fan. Regarding your note on my talk page, I think if we can get someone to volunteer to be the Flickr Czar, I can spring for a Pro account that would bypass every student hitting their limits as we try to document the entire collection. Do you think that's a good idea? --User:Jgmikulay

Hey thanks friend... I thought it was so fancy that you wrote on my page that I had to write on yours! I can't believe you're writing a real article! Your so smart! :) See you tomorrow! Cgshc09 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Cgshc09 and P.S.- you're right, that Michael Ballack guy really does look like Matt Damon! Cgshc09 (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Cgshc09

Hi Katie, thanks for commenting on my page. I took the Athens study abroad course with Dr. Sutton. It was great I LOVED it! I think it is so cool you excavated at the agora, we went there many times, what part did you excavate? I would love to go back and excavate. I think Santorini and Sounion were my favorite places,did you go to any islands?Eris1999 (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Katie! Great presentation yesterday! I know you really helped me out! I had one question for you. On the two pages I created I have that "Templates for deletion" thing in my categories. Do you know what is causing that? I thought I would ask since you figured it out for the info box! --Kchattin (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dracorex says thanks!
Feel free to add the GLAM:TCMI userbox Thanks for your help tweaking the survey! LoriLee (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Children's Museum update
It's time again to share the latest news on the Children's Museum of Indianapolis Wikipedia project! In the last few months we have been busy with our third image donation, which was made up of 150 images that were professionally photographed specifically for this upload. We are asking for volunteers to categorize these images and distribute them into Wikipedia articles. Your help is appreciated! Check them out here.

We have also donated our first ' and a second ' to Commons. In September we were thrilled to welcome Jimmy Wales to the museum. Following our successful Edit-a-Thon and Translate-a-Thon in August, translations have continued with the help of the established QRpedia community, (particularly Russian translations thanks to Lvova!) We have begun to analyze our implementation of QRpedia codes and completed an extensive case study. In November we presented at the Museum Computer Network conference about how museums can effectively collaborate with Wikipedia. You can see more details on the Prezi.

In more general news, in addition to serving as the Children's Museum's Wikipedian-in-Residence, it was recently announced that I will be taking on the role of US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation. In this role I will be working to streamline the process of connecting interested US GLAMs with the Wikipedia community. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to let me know. Be sure to sign up for This Month in GLAM to keep up with the latest GLAM-Wiki news from around the world (subscribe).

We have a listing of High Need and Moderate Need requests on the Ways to Help section on the project page. I encourage you to lend a hand if you're able. While the Children's Museum partnership continues to truck along, we still are in desperate need of volunteers to help disperse our images and update and maintain content. Thank you for your time and help. Happy holidays! LoriLee (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!