User talk:Michaelashafer

Collections Management System Analysis

As apart of the Wikipedia: School and University Projects, the Fall 2009 IUPUI Museum Studies Course A416/A516 has created a Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art! and we will also be analyzing three different collections management systems. We will being assessing these systems based on their accessibility, ease of use, and functionality. The three different content management systems we will evaluate include: Wikipedia, the Smithsonian Institution Research Information System (SIRIS) [[1]], and Indiana SOS!

SIRIS, the Smithsonian Institution Research Information

This content management system was easily accessible through the Smithsonian's website[[2]]. Digital access to this database makes it very functional and easily accessible. This website allows for a variation of search styles. One is able to use the "Browse" tab by entering the title, artist, subject, object type, or owner. If the knowledge is unknown, one can also scan through a series of images using general keywords, subject matter, or artist. This feature also allowed you to combine searches to further limit your search. SIRIS also allows you to choose the way in which your search results are sorted.

SIRIS also offered an "About" tab that gave background about the SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture! Project, and additional resources about how to help the cause. I especially found the tab labeled "Highlights" helpful when I was searching for sculptures. This feature allowed me to search by the city and state in which the sculpture is located, by ethnicity of the artist, or merely to browse through paintings or pictures.

The last means of searching available was the "All Categories" tab. I liked this tab and found it very useful. It allows one to search the museum files, archives, and libraries. This really showed the accessibility of the Smithsonian Institute.

I was somewhat disappointed when I actually tried to use the SIRIS database. I tried to look up "The Greeter" sculpture that sits in the entry way to the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. I recently administered a condition report for this sculpture, and was disappointed at the limited, and out of date information available on SIRIS. I first began my search by using the "Browse" tab and entering "The Greeter" into the keywords. I initially came upon a report that had last been updated in 1985, and had no information regarding the subject matter of the sculpture and no picture. This report also had the sculpture as being located in Delaware. I decided to use the "Highlights" tab to try and look for the "The Greeter". This led me to another report on the sculpture that had been done in 1993. This report had the sculpture as being located in Indiana, but still not at the Eiteljorg. The first report had the date the sculpture was made as 1970, and the second had the sculpture dating to 1988. The various conflicting information available on SIRIS leads me to believe that it is in need of intensive research and revision. I believe it could be an efficient content management system, but more time and effort needs to be put at making the information accurate and up-to-date.

Indiana Save Outdoor Sculpture!

This archive of sculptures in Indiana is quite different from the SIRIS database in that it exists in analogue only. This is quite inconvenient seeing as it is also not widely distributed according to the Indiana Historical Bureau, the Indiana SOS! archives exist only at the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana Headquarters at 340 West Michigan Street in Indianapolis. A book also exists in a limited availability. This severely limits the archives accessibility. Without easy access to the materials, it is unlikely that they will be used.

This system also does not reflect recent changes to Indiana's collection of sculptures. With the same respect, unlike Wikipedia, only knowledgeable contributors are able to add to the book, making it more reliable. I am sure that it is possible to make this archive digital, but until it is available online, it fails as an effective content management system.

Wikipedia as a Content Management System

I have selected three Wikipedia articles to analyze their ability to serve as content management systems. I also analyzed the use of categories and their effectiveness at connecting the specific articles to a greater body of information.

1.The Children's Museum of Indianapolis

The page devoted to The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is a very nice synopsis of the museum. It does not offer much interpretation of the museum's mission and its successes or failures, as an article I wish it did. As far as a content management system, the article gives a concise list of the floors and the galleries located therein. Other information included in the article is centered on the building and the neighborhood. Much of the article is devoted to renovations and expansions of the building. I found the bullet points to be quite boring and ineffective.

This article had nothing by the way of references. There are no footnotes and only one external link to the museum's website. When reading Wikipedia articles, I always look for references. I suppose there should be some if it is both reliable and current information. The article included two pictures, one of The Children's Museum's emblem, and the second was an image of the interior space. I was wondering how this was possible considering the copyright issues that exist in Wikipedia. I was of the impression that this is why Flickr was necessary for the final project.

The categories related to the article were ok, but several more could have been added. There were only four categories: "Museums in Indianapolis", "Museums established in 1925", "Children's museums in Indiana", and "Visitor attractions in Indianapolis, IN". These categories should be expanded to include "Family attractions in Indianapolis", "Chihuly sculptures in Indianapolis", "Egyptian galleries in Indianapolis", "Dinosaur exhibits in Indianapolis", "Child entertainment in Indianapolis", as well as many others I'm sure.

2.Pop Rocks

This article was a collection of interesting factoids about pop rocks. It gave the ingredients, background and history, information on the manufacturing, and debunked urban legends regarding the carbonated food. The article contained five references, five external links, and one image of the product's package. Categories included "Brand name confectionery", "1975 Introductions", "Kraft Brands", and "Patented foods". For starters, they could add "candy", "carbonated foods", and "urban legends" to the list of categories. This article succeeds as a content management system in that it provides information that I'm certain would not be available elsewhere, such as the manufacturer's websites. This sort of miscellaneous information is the type of content that is most fitting for Wikipedia. The last article regarding The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is less conducive to organization of this kind. They have an official website that will probably list everything in the article, making the article unnecessary.

3. Nail polish

At first glance, this article appeared to be filled with chemical compounds that were not very user friendly. After reading through the article more, I saw that it did address nail polish as a part of fashion trends, although these were limiting, it was still interesting information. I also noticed that several of the sentences contained the phrase "citation needed" at the end. This worried me. Wikipedia has done better in recent years about making the information reliable, but I wonder why this material was not removed from the page if it did not have proper (or any) citation. I assume that the "bots" are that ones that added these memos at the end of the sentences, surely it was not the author. This is a major concern for placing my articles regarding outdoor sculpture on Wikipedia.

Despite the lack of citation in several places, ten references were listed along with three external links.

Again, categories were an issue in this article. The categories listed included "Cosmetics, "History of Cosmetics", "Nail Care", and "Toiletry". I think that "Manicure", "Pedicure", and "Nail salon" could be added to this list.

Relevant Wikipedia Categories

For the final project, we will all have different categories pertaining to the different artists of the works, but we should have some categories in common so that when people search, they are able to find our articles in close proximity. When considering relevant Wikipedia categories for our project, it is important to consider the relevant aspects of our collection as a whole. First, our collection is located on IUPUI's campus, so that should definitely be one of our categories. Also, obviously, "Indianapolis Sculptures" should be another category. Both "public sculpture" and "outdoor sculpture" would also be relevant.

Besides these rather obvious categories, I think we will need to further assess our collection before we can assign categories in further detail.

After compiling a list of sculptures we could find what they have in common. For instance, maybe all of them were made within the last 15 years, or maybe they were made by local artists. This would certainly expand our availability for common categories. I know several of the sculptures are located outside of the Herron School of Art, so maybe there could be a category related to student work, who knows! All of this will depend on researching the collection.

November 2009

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to the page Talk:Untitled (L's). Blank pages are malicious to Wikipedia as they often confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the deletion process for how to proceed. Jusdafax 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)