Talk:Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence

Might I suggest a rephrasing of Q5? "Are there other - non-Wikimedia - opportunities online you feel the National Archives should look for?" --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion! Dominic has already been invited to respond to the questions here, so hopefully I've changed the text quickly enough for him to see the changes. Ragettho (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

random notes

The following are notes to self, since I'm about to go to bed. :) Feel free to help or comment if you wish.

File:Dominic during Campus Ambassador training, 2011-01-07.jpg looks like it could be cropped. This would allow for a bigger view of Dominic's body and less of the distracting plants and powerpoint presentation. Right now Ferriero's figure appears much larger than Dominic's.

[1]: transfer to Commons? It would be a great file to have on this article, but only if there is space.

Is the Education category appropriate? Sleeping on it.

What else could I do to expand the intro text? Is expansion needed? Did I give undue weight to particular aspects of this story? Did my Wikimedia bias show?

Follow-up questions?

Check again for grammar/spelling errors when done.

Ragettho (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy of Ferriero's letter now available on Commons. Ragettho (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OR notes for review

The interviewee provided answers directly onto the wiki. (2 edits for first set of questions and 1 edit for follow-up).

Dominic also corrected the information regarding the organizational structure of his internship position. This information seems to supersede contradictory information presented in The Atlantic source.

Lastly, Dominic has indicated his satisfaction with the article, though he has pointed out that he is working the maximum 40 hours per week. I'm not quite sure whether I should change the last sentence of the intro text to reflect this, so I'll leave it up to the reviewer to decide. Ragettho (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1252949 [Passed]

Revision 1252949 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I've made a few minor stylistic corrections. Otherwise, good to go! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1252949 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I've made a few minor stylistic corrections. Otherwise, good to go! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Sarah's concern over quote

{{flag}} I've noted Sarah's concerns, and I tend to agree the quote is out-of-context. The "chop" seems to push the idea that cultural institutions are 'hoarding'; they're not in this case. The blog cites exploitation of images such as the Mona Lisa. It would be more appropriat eto have the "...the importance of contemporary image donations to free culture will allow for educators to inform the world that people in these communities are flourishing today - and are not stuck in the past of black and white images taken by a government employee." remark as a quote. It's more forward-looking regarding the issue of image release."

I'd welcome other people's input on this, and note that substantially citing Sarah should've been brought up with her pre-publication. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I sighted your edit, as it checked out and does seem more in the positive spirit of her blog post. Am wondering what she thinks of the revised passage. --Pi zero (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks PiZ. I suspect we'll get a response soon. It seemed the earlier phrasing was awkward in terms of pushing for "radical liberation" of content. Something to learn here for the author, and the reviewer.

As a wider issue, I think there's a need to be particularly careful in covering Wikimedians in Residence. They're effectively WMF ambassadors to the GLAM sectors. What they say, and write, is carefully picked wording. Taking a phrase that strikes a chord with one of our contributors could sour relationships. I don't want to see that happen (I've a bot of a COI here,... I'm effectively the interim liaison between WM UK and Museums and Galleries Scotland - and I want preferred access to exhibit openings and so on to try my hand at culture-related OR.) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the main source I used for that was the Wikipedia Signpost, not the blog. I only used the blog to provide a more complete quote than what was presented in the Signpost. In any case, I've reread the blog post, and I still think that my interpretation of Sarah's post was accurate.

For example, here's a further snippet from the blog post: "Regardless, there are some institutions that can rake in the dough at licensing off images of the Mona Lisa and Van Gogh, despite being out of copyright - just like the Ansel Adams images created for the feds - these are public domain. We own them, the public, so let us have them, right?" How does this not imply that Sarah is pushing against the hoarding of freely-licensed works by various institutions?

Regardless of the answer, the quote that is now in the article seems (to me, at least) more out-of-context than the previous quote. The new quote was referring to donations of privately-held, fully copyrighted works to the rest of the community. ("I'd love to see a content donation from an Indigenous community - specifically images of people today.") That does not fit in with the context of this Wikinews article, since I was trying to describe NARA's efforts to distribute hard-to-find free images to the rest of the public.

I will remove the quote currently in place, pending further review. Ragettho (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You, out of context from the blog post, put across the "radical liberation of content" POV. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, what was the actual message that Sarah tried to convey in her blog post? Ragettho (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As a whole, the blog post is noting a "managed release" of content, and poses wider release as a question. That Sarah felt you'd quoted well out-of-context is the main concern. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, if a source genuinely feels they've been quoted out-of-context, and that it's a problem, we'd work to rectify that. Of course, there would be occasional exceptions; if a big org felt they were quoted poorly on something unsavoury, a key issue in an article perhaps, I'd rather add it into the article that the quoted source "said their remarks had been 'taken out of context'" or similar. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Um

Two things:

1. What's a "Wikipedian-in-Residence"? This isn't explained anywhere into the article.
2. I think the Archivist of the United States should be mentioned (in this case, and if I'm not wrong, he's David Ferriero).

This wasn't published yesterday night so I think this can still be corrected :P Cheers, アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed a one-sentence paragraph right after the lede. In retrospect, it would have been good to make this a question in the interview — What is a Wikipedian in Residence? What does one do?

We're now running short on time. I've wondered lately if we ought to stretch the 24-hour horizon a bit for interviews, just as we stretch the freshness horizon for them. --Pi zero (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FA!!!!

{{editprotected}} The FAC passed. Please add {{FA}} to this article. :) Ragettho (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Done