User talk:BDeeds
Collections Management Systems Analysis
[edit]1. Collections Management Systems Analysis
1.1 Three Wikipedia Articles
Overall, two of the three of the Wikipedia articles I evaluated contained glaring errors and two of the three did not include enough references to verify their statements. However, the advantage of Wikipedia is that misinformation can always be tracked and corrected and references can always be added. Moreover, all three of the articles contained at least one working external link to the subject’s official webpage, meaning it is extremely easy for users to scan the articles and then continue on for more in-depth information. The most significant advantage to using Wikipedia as a collections management system is that Wikipedia is ever changing and evolving, just as the outdoor sculpture we will post articles for will be ever changing, either in its location, condition or even the information relating to the artist that created the sculpture.
1.1.1 Indiana Medical History Museum
Having worked at the Indiana Medical History Museum (IMHM) since October 2005, I felt confident that I could evaluate the content of the IMHM’s Wikipedia entry. The article was of average length. The introductory paragraph was concise description of the building and its national importance. I personally would not have described the museum as a museum dedicated the early scientific research of mental illness the rather than an “Indiana monument.”
Overall, I found the internal Wikipedia links within the text to be appropriately selected. It appears as if the people editing the page have deliberately flagged key people and schools they would like to develop articles for in the future. For example, when the internal links for Adolph Scherrer, Walter Bruetsch, the Central College of Physicians and Surgeons or the Medical College of Indiana are clicked, there is no Wikipedia article available.
In the References Section, the link to reference number four is broken. Fortunately, the link indicates that it connects to the museum’s FAQ sheet, so a determined user, knowing the information was from the FAQ page, could track that information down if he or she so desired.
The most glaring errors are located in the side box featuring the map. The location of the museum is incorrect. The location given is 3000 W. Washington Street, which is likely the old address for Central State Hospital. However, the correct address, which is easily accessed from the IMHM’s webpage, is 3045 W. Vermont Street. This is a serious problem for people unfamiliar with the west side of Indianapolis, because the museum is not accessible from Washington Street at all. Another error is that the side box implies the IMHM’s governing body is the state of Indiana. In fact, the governing body of Central State Hospital was the state of Indiana, but the museum is a private, not-for-profit organization. I found all of the categories for the IMHM relevant except for the category of “1895 architecture.” A more appropriate and informative category might have been “buildings designed by Adolph Scherrer.”
1.1.2 Indiana State Museum
As an employee of the Indiana State Museum (ISM), I felt comfortable evaluating the ISM article. I was surprised that the article did not contain much information. For example, the history section of the article contains only six sentences. However, the information in that section is accurate. The editors of the article have listed the galleries and spaces of the ISM. However, the list includes the gallery “Tomorrow’s Indiana,” even though that space is now closed for renovation to prepare for the ISM’s new Lincoln collection. The section on the historic sites is out of date. Moreover, the paragraph states that some of the state historic sites are overlooked because of the ISM and informs the reader that that the Posey House in Corydon has been vacant for a decade, but gives no sources to verify this assessment.
The official website link in the box is broken, although the link in the external link section works. The other internal and external links work.
One of the categories for ISM is “National Road,” referring to its location on Washington Street. However, there is no mention of the National Road within the ISM article. Otherwise, the categories for ISM were relevant.
1.1.3 The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis
Overall, the article on the children’s museum is well-written, although there are only two citations in the entire article. The second source link does not work. All of the internal links work. However, I am unsure of the relevancy in creating internal links to dates with the article’s text. For example, there is an internal link for July 27. I found all of the categories for the children’s Museum of Indianapolis relevant except for the category of Museums established in 1925.
1.2 Indiana Saves Outdoor Sculpture!
There is no true collections management system for outdoor sculptures in Indiana. There is, however, a book, Remembrance, Faith, and Fancy: Outdoor Sculpture in Indiana, by Glory June Grieff that serves as a useful introductory guide to locating and learning about some of the more well-known outdoor sculptures. It is by no means comprehensive. The first part of the book organizes the sculptures by themes, such as religious or allegorical sculptures. The second part of the book organizes the sculptures by county location. Most people would probably use the county location section of the book to identify a sculpture. The text of the book is written in narrative form, making it difficult to scan the pages quickly to find a specific sculpture. I notice that in the index, the sculptures are listed either by title and location (but not artist) or by artist and piece (but not location). An obvious disadvantage to a printed resource like Greiff’s book is that there is an upper limit on the number of sculptures that can be included as well as how much information can be provided. Moreover, it is simply not feasible to include pictures of many of the sculptures. Another disadvantage is that a book is a physical object, subject to damage and not accessible to multiple users at the same time, unlike an entry in Wikipedia.
1.3 Smithsonian Institution Research Information Systems
I actually found the SIRIS database to be quite informative. The sculptures can be filtered down with some accuracy and most sculptures I looked at contained detailed information on dimensions. The main disadvantages to this system are that it not as well-known and accessible to the public as Wikipedia, it cannot be easily altered or updated and it is “expert-dependent,” meaning that ordinary people cannot claim ownership of the project. And because one of the main goals of SOS and our class is to make people aware of, and inspire them to care for, outdoor sculpture, the SIRIS database will not be as effective as Wikipedia can be.
TUSC token ec1c63ab3d721b12033a56bbb3d82457
[edit]I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
File copyright problem with File:Chihulydna.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Chihulydna.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
File:DNA Tower West Side Detail Damage to Wooden Base.JPG listed for deletion
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DNA Tower West Side Detail Damage to Wooden Base.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
File:DNA Tower West Side Detail Damage to Base.jpg listed for deletion
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DNA Tower West Side Detail Damage to Base.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:DNA Tower South Side Taken from 2nd Floor with Atrium.jpg
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DNA Tower South Side Taken from 2nd Floor with Atrium.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ww2censor (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Pretty Clouds 006.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Pretty Clouds 006.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Danish Immigrant Museum Logo.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Danish Immigrant Museum Logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)