User:RichardMcCoy/Project

WSPA Project Notes

I am directly involved in this project:

~~[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Outdoor Sculpture!]]~~ (Too close to SOS!)

~~Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art!~~ (While I love the exclamation point, it made sharing the link very difficult!)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Saves_Public_Art (This is final, I swear)

"This is final, I swear" ??? :) Jgmikulay (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Save Outdoor Sculpture! Resources

1) Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Indiana, the Indiana Historian, May 1994 ^[1]

2) Save Outdoor Sculpture! in Conservation, the Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter, Volume 22, No.2, 2007^[2]

Principles of Documentation

From the American Institute of Conservation "Guidelines for Practice" for art conservators ^[3]:

DOCUMENTATION

24. Documentation: The conservation professional has an obligation to produce and maintain accurate, complete, and permanent records of examination, sampling, scientific investigation, and treatment. When appropriate, the records should be both written and pictorial. The kind and extent of documentation may vary according to the circumstances, the nature of the object, or whether an individual object or a collection is to be documented. The purposes of such documentation are:

• to establish the condition of cultural property;

• to aid in the care of cultural property by providing information helpful to future treatment and by adding to the profession’s body of knowledge;

• to aid the owner, custodian, or authorized agent and society as a whole in the appreciation and use of cultural property by increasing understanding of an object’s aesthetic, conceptual, and physical characteristics; and

• to aid the conservation professional by providing a reference that can assist in the continued development of knowledge and by supplying records that can help avoid misunderstanding and unnecessary litigation.

25. Documentation of Examination: Before any intervention, the conservation professional should make a thorough examination of the cultural property and create appropriate records. These records and the reports derived from them must identify the cultural property and include the date of examination and the name of the examiner. They also should include, as appropriate, a description of structure, materials, condition, and pertinent history.

26. Treatment Plan: Following examination and before treatment, the conservation professional should prepare a plan describing the course of treatment. This plan should also include the justification for and the objectives of treatment, alternative approaches, if feasible, and the potential risks. When appropriate, this plan should be submitted as a proposal to the owner, custodian, or authorized agent.

27. Documentation of Treatment: During treatment, the conservation professional should maintain dated documentation that includes a record or description of techniques or procedures involved, materials used and their composition, the nature and extent of all alterations, and any additional information revealed or otherwise ascertained. A report prepared from these records should summarize this information and provide, as necessary, recommendations for subsequent care.

28. Preservation of Documentation: Documentation is an invaluable part of the history of cultural property and should be produced and maintained in as permanent a manner as practicable. Copies of reports of examination and treatment must be given to the owner, custodian, or authorized agent, who should be advised of the importance of maintaining these materials with the cultural property. Documentation is also an important part of the profession’s body of knowledge. The conservation professional should strive to preserve these records and give other professionals appropriate access to them, when access does not contravene agreements regarding confidentiality.

The Question

How do we categorize, describe, and define what art is, how it's made, and what condition it is inside the framework of Wikipedia?

One way to answer this question is to look at ways that art has been categorized (and cataloged) in print publications, online, and in Wikipedia.

A quick summary shows that the articles about art in Wikipedia are messy. By contrast, the articles about practically all sports teams and even most cities are very well categorized and organized. How can these or other sites be used as models for articles about individual artworks, and specifically about "outdoor sculptures."

In his book Defining Reality, Edward Schiappa suggests that instead of asking "What is X?" we should ask "What should count as X in context Y, given our needs and interests?"^[4] So, we want to figure out what should count as public sculpture in the context of Wikipedia, given that we wish to promote increased awareness of and care for it as part of our professional interests as conservators and scholars. Jgmikulay (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorizing Art

While print publications are very important, there is a lot of information on the Internet about this subject, that is based on print publications. To this end, a focus will first be given to Internet publications.

The interesting question here is what can be pulled from these to make a Wikipedia article about outdoor sculptures that is well described using common terminology and is cross-linked to other articles and subjects within Wikipedia. Since SOS! contains a significant amount of information about outdoor sculptures in the US, it seems to make good sense to base the articles on their sorting system.

- The Revised Nomenclature for Museum Cataloging: A Revised and Expanded Version of Robert G. Chenhall's System for Classifying Man-Made Objects

http://www.altamirapress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0761991476

The Getty has created the :

- "Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) describes the content of art databases by articulating a conceptual framework for describing and accessing information about works of art, architecture, other material culture, groups and collections of works, and related images. CDWA includes 532 categories and subcategories. A small subset of categories are considered core in that they represent the minimum information necessary to identify and describe a work. CDWA includes discussions, basic guidelines for cataloging, and examples."

http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/cdwa/8materials.html

The Visual Resource Center has creataed the :

- Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) is a data content standards initiative for the cultural heritage community. CCO web resources include cataloging examples, training tools and presentations for use by practitioners, in addition to excerpts from the CCO print publication. Sponsored by the Visual Resources Association Foundation, CCO activities center on educational efforts to promote widespread acceptance of cataloging best practices for the visual resources, museum, library, and archival communities.

http://www.vrafoundation.org/ccoweb/index.htm

The Smithsonian created the Save Outdoor Sculpture! database which also categorizes art:

- "SOS volunteers collected data on more than 32,000 publicly accessible outdoor sculptures across the United States. The information they gathered has been added to the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s Inventories of American Painting and Sculpture, a database of over 400,000 artworks, including indoor and outdoor sculpture."

For example, here's the article about the Depew Memorial Fountain, in Indianapolis, IN.

http://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=S23C54192U089.60580&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!8643~!16&ri=2&aspect=Browse&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=Outdoor+Sculpture+--+Indiana+--+Indianapolis&index=OBJEC&uindex=&aspect=Browse&menu=search&ri=2

- - Some headings that cross-referenced include

Artist Subject (Is this based on Library of Congress Subject headings?) Object Type Owner Title

Wikipedia articles

Sculpture is art, or fine art, or an art object

There is an Outline of sculpture on Wikipedia.

Public art is another way to say outdoor sculpture.

There is also a history of sculpture, and of course a history of art and art history.

There is an article about the sculpture of the United States and an article about outdoor sculpture in New York City and there's a List of sculptures in Central Park.

Some other general categorizations: Roman sculpture

Categories of Art

Perhaps this is better stated at visual language. However there is a Wiki Project on Culture and the Arts (WP:PROJDIR/C).

The Visual arts or things that are artworks include: Architecture, Conceptual art, Drawing, Painting, Photography, Printmaking, Sculpture, Prehistoric art, Ancient Art, Contemporary Art, Abstract Art, Figurative art

Analogies

Looking for standardized templates of information?

Cities

Indianapolis San Fransisco

NFL Teams?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/National_Football_League

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Indianapolis_Colts

Articles about Techniques for Creating Art

- Just a quick start here **

Metalworking

Interesting Projects that are not using Wikipedia

The Quilt Index http://www2.matrix.msu.edu/~quilti/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

The Science Museum http://objectwiki.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wiki/Home

Placeograpahy http://www.placeography.org/index.php/Main_Page

British Postal Museum Wiki http://www.wikiindex.org/BPMA_Wiki

Dave Lester's talk, Mobile Historical Landscapes: HistoryPlot

http://www.slideshare.net/davelester/mobile-historical-landscapes-historyplot-1312800

The Save Outdoor Sculpture! Project

A State By State Guide

Indiana

An overview of the Indiana SOS! Project http://www.in.gov/history/2924.htm

Glory-June Greiff's PPT Presentation on Indiana Civil War Monuments

http://www.in.gov/iwm/files/indiana_sculpture.ppt

References

Communication with CC&M Students

Once you've created your account, drop me a note here with a link to your user name.

Christy Brocken is .wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Creneejb

Lori Phillips is User:HstryQT —Preceding unsigned comment added by HstryQT(talk • contribs) 15:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Katie Petrole is User:Kpetrole. Kpetrole (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Kpetrole

Chrissy Gregg is User: cgshc09 User:cgshc09 —Preceding undatedcomment added 05:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

Sarah King is User:Ad Referendum User:Ad_Referendum Ad Referendum (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Britt Deeds is User:BDeeds User talk:BDeeds —Preceding undatedcomment added 01:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

Editor assistance

You have a response at WP:EAR#Editors in Indiana. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Collections Management Systems Analysis

Students will analyze three Wikipedia articles, the Smithsonian’s public database (SIRIS), and information on local public sculpture published by Indiana’s Save Outdoor Sculpture (SOS) project. Students will prepare and publish this written analysis using your individual Wikipedia “talk page.” The completed assignment should have a word count of 1,000-1,200 words. Your analysis should include ten internal Wikipedia links, and address conceptual issues for at least three relevant Wikipedia categories.

Articles investigated by IUPUI Students

"*" = Articles that relate to sculpture, public art, or visual art. (33/57 = 58%)

Categories investigated by IUPUI Students

Category:Indianapolis Museum of Art

Not all students directly addressed conceptual issues around categories; those that did suggested that accurate and narrowly defined categories are most helpful.

General thoughts that students had about Wikipedia, SIRIS, and Indiana SOS! & Greiff Book

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a bit difficult to use and understand. It is complex and vast.

Many of the articles are not as filled out as they could be and some of the information is incorrect.

Those articles that have references are more reliable and trustworthy.

Wikipedia is more flexible and accessible than a book.

Wikipedia articles that have images are better than those that do not.

A few students assumed that one or very few editors had written existing Wikipedia articles. (But most article have a huge number of edits and editors.)

Categories are complex and difficult to use correctly, but have the potential to be powerful organizational tools.

Using the common formatting structures of Wikipedia were not used by all students.

There is a sense of accountability within Wikipedia because you can identify who made the edits.

SIRIS

Mixed results from the students if it's an easy-to-use database. Some found it fine, others really didn't like it.

Students did not like the fact that the data was fixed. It appears to be difficult to update or add to.

Students liked that it was published by Smithsonian because that adds some sense of authenticity, but some pointed out that this database is also prone to inaccuracies (a few found errors or inconsistencies in the database). The same holds true for the Indiana SOS! book.

Indiana SOS! & Greiff Book

Books are cumbersome to carry around (at least in comparison to a web-based cell phone).

A book published in 2005 is potentially out of date.

A book cannot be updated easily.

This book was seen as difficult to obtain by some, even though copies were located in about 10 Indy libraries.

Students prefer online information to books mainly because of the ease of online search (Google!).

It seems clear Google has changed the way we expect to search for and find information.

--Richard McCoy (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

General "Tips" Generated in Student CMS Analysis Talk Pages

Remember that you are in effect digitizing the IUPUI public art collection--try to be thorough and objective in order to help future researchers.
All internal and external links should work! Bad links look sloppy.
Make use of lists and charts for information that does not require narrative.
Consider how searching users will find your article and link/categorize accordingly.
Present evidence, notes, suggested readings, and references to support the content of your article--make sure your claims are well-supported with publicly-accessible research.Be sure to make existing research visible in your article--give people credit for the work they've done.
Consider adding a "see also" section to enumerate internal links closely related to your article. Use "see also" section to link to good articles within our collection.
Be sure to address the significance of your sculpture.
Try to develop a cohesive look and style of presentation among the collection's articles.
Use an "info box" including a photograph.
Address how the sculptures are accessible via public transportation--this is a way to make them more accessible to diverse audiences.
Create a Wikipedia overview article about our collection, including links to all 40 articles/works. Justify it as a single collection.
Be sure to use headings and subheadings in your article to ease navigation.
Use good ideas you find in other articles--formats, ways of organizing content, photo treatments, categories, etc.
Link to larger thematic issues--artist biographies, art genres, city history, etc.
Try to locate art criticism and include reference to it, especially in local press.
Focus on organizing your article well. Is it logical? Is evidence presented? Are the most important bits addressed first? Think about the appropriate information hierarchy.
Don't forget to address artist biographical details.
Don't be afraid to edit other people's articles, especially if your sculpture article will be linked to them.
All articles about IUPUI sculptures need to link to SIRIS.
Photos included in Wikipedia need to include sense of scale.
Prioritize functionality and consistency.
Use Wikipedia's help function!!!
Before you use a category, make sure your work fits the definition as described in Wikipedia.
Don't be afraid to propose new categories. For example, "Outdoor Sculpture on College Campuses."
Remember that interconnection of content expands the potential audience.
When including links, add enough information about the source so that if the link becomes broken a user can still locate the source.
Use content box to allow users to jump to the sections of highest interest/relevance to them.
Before linking to an article or source, check it--is it reliable, accurate, and useful?

--Jennifer Geigel Mikulay —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Why Wikipedia Sucks

Richard's Reasons

Wikipedia is not like other Internet resources. It does not auto-aggregate. Take for example the AC/DC album, Highway to Hell. Check out the info box on the side. That professional reviews and chronology. All of that had to be build manually for this album. That's a drag, right?

The dream would be for it to do that automatically. Of course, I don't know how to make that happen, but I think it would be cool.

But perhaps others would say that "automatically" is less accurate than manually. But look at every other website that suggests things based on your choice, or that chose links randomly for you.