Jump to content

User talk:Rgstudio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflicts of Interest

[edit]

Hi Rgstudio! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I just wanted to flag that it appears you may have a conflict of interest. Based on your username and edits, I'm presuming that you are either Robert Gober, an employee of Gober's, or a representative of Gober, his studio, or gallery. If this is the case, you should refrain from editing articles related to Gober.

There is more information available here about Conflicts of Interest. Feel free to read through and familiarize yourself with the guidelines around editing articles that relate to yourself in some way.

Thank you! (And I'm a huge fan of your work, if you are in fact Gober!) 19h00s (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had no idea about the COI and appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I've been Robert Gober's archivist for three decades and just wanted to have more thorough and correct information on his Wikipedia page. Mr. Gober and I felt that some of the statements didn't reflect his work fully or clearly, so he had asked me to edit if possible. Great to know you're a fan! Rgstudio (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, happy to help -- I've seen artists get burned before when they or their representatives didn't fully understand the COI rules and tried to make extensive edits, so I'm always quick to flag COIs before they snowball into something else. And thank you for understanding the nuances here - a COI is not an accusation of bad faith or wrongdoing, just a label to help editors stay as neutral as they can when working on articles, so I appreciate you not reacting negatively to the feedback. I responded to your message on the COI noticeboard with some more details on how to request edits, but feel free to ping me or leave a message on my Talk page if you ever need any assistance! 19h00s (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm reading about how to request edits now, but am not fully clear on it yet. It appears I should start on a Talk page with asking someone to review and possibly make the edit for me. Is that correct? Rgstudio (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! You can either follow the step-by-step instructions with the edit request wizard, or you can start a discussion on the Talk page for the article you want to change. If you go the Talk page route, you'd start off with an introduction as to why you can't make the edits - alerting other editors about your COI - and then list the details that need to be changed, removed, or added, with independent*, notable, and reliable sources to back up each claim. It may take a little while for an editor to take up your request if you submit it on the Talk page, but if you have solid sources and the information is non-controversial and verifiable, someone will definitely come and help eventually.
*The "independent" part of that description is really key - because of the COI, it's more likely that other editors might object to information you provide that is cited to sources that lay in the gray area here. Most of the time, it's totally OK for an editor to cite, say, an essay by a curator from a monograph that an artist produced in conjunction with an exhibition. But that source can be interpreted by some as non-independent, as the artist had a hand in producing the publication and presumably had some sort of editorial control or influence. For editors without COIs on a subject, this is not usually an issue, but because of your closeness to the subject, there is definitely a possibility that some editors will want information sourced from completely independent publications (e.g., newspaper or magazine articles about the subject, books/essays written without the subject's participation, etc.). This is probably more detail than you needed, but I can imagine as Gober's archivist you have access to all of his monographs and self-published material - while other editors could probably use those sources for information, I don't want you to put a bunch of effort in citing key details via those sources just to be told they're not independent. I have a lot of my own opinions on that subject (Wikipedia and arts scholarship don't always get along), but that's for another day haha. 19h00s (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You've been immensely helpful. Rgstudio (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! One additional note that might be helpful - when you're including information about the themes Gober's work addresses, the style of Gober's work, or the specific importance/relevance/talent of his work, it's crucial to make clear whose opinion is being expressed. There's a bit of nuance to this, but with artist biographies in particular, less-experienced editors will often include critical analysis sourced from a critic, art historian, or curator, but will present it as fact without an in-text attribution to the original writer. Basically, if you're requesting anything be added that could be described as "analysis" (as opposed to fact-based descriptions of Gober's work, exhibition history, biography, etc.), be sure to frame it as analysis and name the person who offered that analysis.
A good example (if I can toot my own horn) would be the analysis & themes section of the article on Cady Noland. Note that all the analysis includes declarations about who made the analysis ("Critics have written..." or "X critic wrote..."), and the analysis is framed as such, instead of being presented as straight fact. This is one of the trickier parts of editing here when it comes to the arts, as it can feel natural to just say things like "X artist's style is representative of x, y, and z," without noting that someone originally offered that statement as analysis.
Happy editing! 19h00s (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for overloading you with feedback, but two final points that will help as you request info to be added to the article.
First, I would recommend going ahead and implementing the Template:Paid on your user page and user Talk page. If you use the template as instructed, it'll just add a basic message that you have been paid by your employer - Gober - for your contributions on Wikipedia. It doesn't sound like he's contracting you specifically for this work, but as explained in the guidelines, editing as part of one's job, even if not the only or main task associated with the job, is considered paid editing. There's more info available at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure that lays out the specifics, but again I want to highlight that this disclosure does not constitute a moral or ethical judgement - it's just a form of transparency that will build trust with editors you might be requesting help from. Your current disclosure describing your role as Gober's archivist is definitely a great start and shows good faith and intention, but Wikipedia terms of service/use do require a formal Paid Editing disclosure in the form of a template on your user page.
Second, the Wikipedia Manual of Style (and the specific sub-section on Visual Arts) is incredibly useful for understanding how to write in the style of Wikipedia. I imagine you'll be requesting specific detail changes, as opposed to suggesting large blocks of prose for Gober's article, but even beyond writing/formatting/style, the MOS is a great guide to what kinds of information belong in an article and what don't. There are many articles that do not actually follow the Manual of Style (as you can imagine, it's a lot of work to clean up the millions of articles on here that anyone can edit), but just because other articles are not in line with the MOS does not mean your requests can be outside the style guidelines. For example, many artist bios have exhaustive lists of exhibitions - the MOS specifically warns against this, and removing exhaustive, often unsourced exhibition lists from artist bios is actually a long-term project of some editors. If another editor, without a COI, were to add an exhaustive exhibitions list to an artist bio, there's a good chance it would be reverted by someone who understands the MOS, but sometimes they just get left there and no one comes along to clean it up. However, because you have a COI, editors will expect your requests to be in line with the MOS - I doubt any editor would add a long list of exhibitions if you requested, for example.
Again, sorry for the info dump -- as I said, I'm a big fan of Gober's work, so I wanted to give a few insights that might make your edit requests better formatted and more likely to be implemented. Have a good one! 19h00s (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rgstudio (just pinging you so you see this notification!) 19h00s (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rgstudio, you are lucky to have met up with 19h00s! They are one of WP's best visual arts editors and a wonderful collaborator. I mentioned it on the COIN noticeboard that I'm happy to help as well. I've worked with good faith COI editors like yourself several times in the past. Please don't hesitate to ask me to help out with improvements to the Gober article. Regards, Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 19h00s (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]