Comments:Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Comments from feedback form - "Factual knowledge and it's man..." | 1 | 05:08, 1 July 2011 |
| Archives of American Art and my blog | 1 | 05:05, 1 July 2011 |
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it. And this article wouldn't have been possible without the help of Mr. McDevitt-Parks, whose astute insight into the Archives-Wikipedia relationship has prompted me to think more carefully about the role of Wikipedia in disseminating information — "factual knowledge", as you call it. Collecting information is hard; organizing it is much much harder, and it is truly a miracle that Wikipedia has gotten this successful.
I just realized that I was quoted in this article. The writer brought my quote about digital rights and sales of Ansel Adams images by institutions out of context. It comes off 1) out of context to my blog which is imperative to the quotation being understood 2) that I am making a blanket statement about organizational policy as a whole regarding image use at institutions 3) that I am representing Archives of American Art, when I was making this statement as an individual outside of the organization. This is causing quite an issue during my Wikipedian In Residence position and I have had to do lengthy explaining to a number of GLAMs about my quotation being taken out of context. It would be ideal if my quotation could be removed or strictly placed into the context as stated on my blog. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)