Talk:Nathaniel Stern

First thread

working on this Please be patient Artsojourner 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Untitled old thread

references and links seem to be broken. going to give a try to fixing them. 6 Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.88.235 (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

April 2010 update

I've just added two short paragraphs describing recent exhibitions involving a collaborative series produced by Nathaniel Stern. For what it's worth, I am an acquaintance of Mr. Stern, and I obtained the materials I used for this update from him. WWB (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPN

This article is being discussed on the BLP board. --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, whats the beef exactly? From reading the article, I get the impression that Stern "launched" some material ON wikipedia? or did he create his own website called Wikipedia art? or both or neither?? Wikipedia deleted dosen't really make sense, to me at least. Was there some deletion process on wikipedia or did Wikipedia tell Stern not to use its nam, ect?? Alot of questions and probably alot of original research comming back I assume. I tried to read the sources but need more time. Need to eat :)...anyays, to be continued I am sure...--Threeafterthree (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Here's the link you're probably asking for: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art. freshacconci talktalk 17:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking a look at this. I agree, a lot of questions - the less is more approach doesn't really get across the "work". Yes, that's the deletion debate about the original art work, an article called Wikipedia Art, but I'd say that the short text on my page should not reflect the deletion debate; rather, it should say what cited sources say about the work. The MJS article and PBS article both do a good job of explaining the original work, I think. I'd love to have a sentence or two explaining it, if you see that fit.

As you can see, the issue with Wikipedia Art is not reliable sources / a deletion issue (Wall Street Journal, PBS.org, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and more), but a misrepresentation of the information found on these sources. Besides that the work is not explained on any level, the statement "the Foundation requested that Stern and Kildall post a notice on the Wikipedia Art website to distinguish it from Wikipedia" is a PR quote from Jimmy Wales, taken from the PBS article _as_ a PR quote but treated as if PBS says it. It is not only factually false (in actuality, Wikimiedia requested the domain be handed over), but also a misrepresentation of the PBS article, whose _own_ verified information, _outside_ of a quote from Jimmy or me or anyone else, says Wikimedia requested the domain. Of course I'd love having all about the piece on the Wiki, what it was and why, and current award nomination, etc, but I'm OK with it not being there if you also think it undue. But I do object to the falsehood in question being propagated on Wikipedia. Possible to reflect the actual story somehow, even if only briefly (from MJS or PBS - the Journal article is only a small mention)? Or just say it was a domain dispute over trademark that got some coverage and leave it at that - no bias, less is more? Or perhaps just delete the legal controversy entirely, and put one sentence about the work itself (it's unclear here what the work actually is, as opposed to my other work)? I'm really open to anything you see fit, as long as that sentence is changed. Thank you again. NathanielS (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia art section

The subject of this article has requested that this section be improved/expanded/whatever. Please see my talk page for our interaction/discussion about this article. I came here uninvolved via the BLP board, see above. The subject has stated that any improvement/detail/whatever has been repeatidly removed/reverted in the past. I will try to draft something here and proceed. I apologize to the subject in advance if I have mischaracterized or put words in his mouth, ect. Anyways, maybe others could help or review my draft, ect. Thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted a message at the Visual Arts Project talk page (here) to see if you can get some help in this. Thanks for the work you're doing, BTW. freshacconci talktalk

Thanks for that and your'e welcome. The first thing I will do is to try to find some reliable sources and post them here for review....--Threeafterthree (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)ps, maybe the folks who were involved in the AFD could help? or maybe not :)...anyways, just another thought....--Threeafterthree (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing much more besides the sources already used in the article. I guess I will reread those and see what can be added/expanded if necessary. --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a complete press list - though the ones currently listed are the most reliable sources; many of the others - mostly blogs - take a side, either taking on Jimmy Wales or quoting him directly without fact-checking. There's a lot of material, but it's easy to tell who is reliable and not - those who actually look at the correspondence and story and say so in the text. And here is the legal correspondence - if you want to go directly to the source on that yourself. I still believe that more of this should be about the work and not the legal issues, since that's what most of the mainstream media spoke about in their articles (even though it got known because of the legal issues), but that's up to you. NathanielS (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read up...--Threeafterthree (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about paid editing

I'm concerned that Mr Stern may have paid 'Beutler Wiki Relations', aka WWB (talk · contribs), to edit this article, and I'd like it to be checked over for any problems that may have crept in. I'd also appreciate someone finding out if there was actually a paid edit here. I note that a lot of references are only tiny mentions, and an awful lot of those are blogs from the 'Journal Sentinel' - would be a good place to start. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish I'd seen this earlier, though I'm glad the Cavalry has withdrawn the initial charge of undisclosed paid editing. Mr. Stern is a friend, however my edits here have been relatively few and all-volunteer. About my consulting work: I maintain a fully-disclosed separate account (User:WWB Too) to discuss changes to articles on Talk pages on behalf of clients. Meanwhile, I edit on my own time, according to my own interests, from this personal account. So I think the COI tag on this article is misplaced, though I won't remove it myself just yet. Other editors' views welcome. WWB (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cavalry, Bill - Nathaniel Stern here; I've been made aware of your COI and NPOV flags. While I'd not edit my own page, I'm very familiar with Wikipedia and its rules and pillars (etc), and I've been keeping an eye on the article about me ever since a major NPOV issue a while back, an antagonistic edit due to my once public criticisms of Wikipedia. Yes, WWB and I have met once in person, and have been friendly ever since over the Internet. I asked him to get involved in that particular NPOV issue, and he has been keeping an eye on the page ever since as well. But as you noted, not only has he not been paid, he has made very few edits to the page, which is longstanding, well-edited, and well-cited. The COI is probably misapplied, to use WWB's word.

Regarding NPOV, please go ahead and edit any points in the article you feel lack it! Or if you are comfortable doing so, ask WWB, an active editor with an interest in the page, to make the changes. A flag here feels inappropriate. If there are places that lack neutrality in the language of the article (you don't actually point to any), I'm sure WWB would be happy to fix them, and you will get no complaints from me on making sure that the article about me and my work remains neutral, whether it is you or WWB or someone else who makes those edits.

Regarding your other criticisms, the truth is that the vast majority of articles cited are about me and me alone, or my work or collaborations and them alone - I'm familiar enough with them to see that, and would encourage you to go ahead and find all of them if you want the proof. It seems to me that the few articles that "only mention" me or my work, as you say, are in major papers, and use my work over a few paragraphs to prove a point or thesis (like the WSJ one), which should work in the page's favor, not against it. Although it would be a little out of the ordinary in Wikipedia's standards for you to remove all those articles that "only mention" me or my work, again, go right ahead if you think it would make the page more neutral or have less of a conflict of interest - the page would still be substantial. And finally, only 3 or 4 of the references I can see are to the Journal Sentinel (the 13th or 14th largest paper in the US, which is published in the city I live in, so it makes sense I would appear there more), and although whoever put these references in the article links to the blog versions of them, they were all also in print - you can find scans of them on my web site.

All these points, however, should not make a difference regarding NPOV (or COI for that matter) - they are normally brought up in regards to notability or verifiability, which is definitely not a problem on the page. So I ask again, if there is anything in the article which actually lacks neutrality in its writing, go ahead and change it, or ask for it to be changed directly. Otherwise (or once that is done), please remove the flag, or allow WWB to do so. Again to use a term of his, this can be solution-oriented! I trust you and he and any other editors who wish to be involved can work it out - you won't hear from me again on this. Thanks, NathanielS (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pulled the warning tag, which seems related to the erroneous initial assessment. I'll keep the page watchlisted, but if there is any further debate over this, I hope the person raising the issue will drop me a note. Cheers, WWB (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

How is this not flagged for NPOV? The editor is admittedly a friend of the subject... and runs a wikipedia relations company?? Someone neutral needs to review this article please, it feels "produced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishgut Bob (talk • contribs) 09:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Mind looking at my article?

Dear Nathaniel,

As an artist and writer in the new media community, I am very familiar with your work and thought that your special commitment to being involved in the WP community might make you inclined to take interest in some of the edits and issues happening around the article on me. I wondered if you'd mind taking a look at it. The article was created by someone other than me over 10 years ago but in that time there has been some misinformation (places of birth, employment, education, etc) posted & even insisted upon/reverted-to after edits & corrections by others. After leaving it alone for a decade, I recently tried to go in and make some quick corrections myself, given the number of erroneous quotes by journalists, curators, and students writing about me. However, this seemed to open a Pandora's box and suddenly even previously fact-checked info regarding my educational credentials, professional accomplishments, professorial career, and major exhibitions and publications were quickly stripped or reverted. Upon the advice of other WP editors, I've decided to stop editing my page and create a sandbox of suggested edits and references on my Talk page for any interested parties to review, edit, and migrate. I would be honored if you had a moment to look over this post. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisa_Olson#Sandbox_for_Requested_Edits_Dec_1st_2016 Many thanks, Marisa

Marisasolson (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)