User talk:Hamsindh/sandbox

Getting Started

It seems like the best course of action is to choose a format from a book page that we like, and use that as a template. That will give us a sense of what kind of information we need, and how we want to organize it.PaKkTn (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! btw/ here is the page for : Kathleen Fitzpatrick Hamsindh (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, I moved your discussion to the talk page, so you can continue to use the sandbox for drafting the article.--Theredproject (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Ok, since there is not a picture of the book on KF's page, we'll probably need to take one ourselves and upload it to the Wikimedia Commons to avoid any question of licensing. Also, we should definitely include the external links to her page and to the Media Commons site. In terms of content, do we want to do as thorough a summary as the folks who did the[Wealth of Networks] page did, or do we want to give a short overview and just cover the major themes? PaKkTn (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You want to probably find a larger digital copy from the web. Also, you will upload it to Wikipedia, as the Commons does not allow for fair use.--Theredproject (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean - can we upload any image to Wikipedia, regardless of fair use designation?--Hamsindh (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just read the link; but still sort of confused. I get that we cannot just take a picture and really use any images designated 'fair use' since they will be not considered fair use in other contexts. I understand from these [[1]] that we should only use images where "the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works." If we cannot find truly free images, should we get permission from the copyright holders? In this case, the press (NYU Press)? Or am I making this way too complicated?Hamsindh (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is complicated. The short version is that English Wikipedia allows the fair use of low res images to illustrate key points when no freely licensed work is available. One of the most common instances of this kind of fair use is book covers (or record covers, etc) where there is only one image, which is almost always copyrighted. Clear?Theredproject (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks Michael! Hamsindh (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for page structure

Agreed on external links; re:content, we should start with the outline that is the same as [Wealth of Networks] page, but include a section on the collaborative writing process (if we can find enough references for it) before or after the summary section. I'll take a stab at working this content outline out on the sandbox page.--Hamsindh (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The outline looks great so far, should we divide the content areas? With four of us, I propose something like Person A: initial summary (including info box) and chapter 1; Person B: chapters 2 & 3; Person C: chapters 4 & 5; Person D: Reception. Does this seem workable? PaKkTn (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pamela! I like your proposal, and would include 'adding book image, and external links' for Person A as well. I can be Person A as I've been researching for and editing the 'trimmings' (info box, categories, etc.) on the page already. Hamsindh (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can be B, and take chapters 2 & 3 unless others have a strong feeling about that. Also, FYI I've messaged our other group members on the Commons to make sure that they know where to find this talk page and the sandbox. PaKkTn (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all! I can be person C. What are the timelines you're setting for yourselves? (Just to keep efforts synched.)Thinkinaboutit (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! JS here. I'll be D. Thanks for initiating. BiteMari (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

Hello everyone! I've created this section so we all can document any major contributions we do/plan to do to our respective sections of the article. I'll start - by midnight tonight (Wed Mar 5th), I plan to re-structure the page based on the proposal above. I will change the section headings to reflect the book (instead of the Benckler book, which it currently shows). I will also obtain an image of the book and add it to the page (see talk on the 'Picture' section above). Hamsindh (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we all seem to have tasks, should we follow the suggestion about getting a timeline going? Let's set a date for drafts of our contributions to be up, and then we can start tinkering so that the whole article has a reasonably uniform writing style. PaKkTn (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! How about something like this - Add to our sections by Friday (3/14) midnight; Tinker through until Monday (3/17); Finalize by Wed before class (3/19). Did I miss anything? Hamsindh (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. PaKkTn (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, should we re-structure the page according to themes (as per Michael's suggestion)? I'm guessing that the themes will follow the chapters anyway, so we probably won't have to change who's contributing what - rather than chapters we can headline sections with 'themes' that were prevalent in the chapters each one of us is focusing on. Is that ok with everyone? Hamsindh (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me, and I think he was right that we can repurpose summary for that purpose. If this doesn't get us quite far enough from an outline of the book we can deal with it in the editing phase. Also, does anyone have a hard copy of the text? I'm using an ebook so I don't have page numbers. I may need help locating citations, if I end up using any.PaKkTn (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I'm a bit behind but the timeline sounds good to me. I'm working on my contributions now and should have something decent posted by dinner. I have a hard copy of the book if anyone needs a page number.Thinkinaboutit (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I fell behind the timeline as well. I will have my contributions (process of writing the book, and themes from chapter 1) up by tonight, if not earlier. Sorry about the delay! BTW/ I think we can only add a picture up when the article is published, so I am waiting to add the picture of the book until we have finalized the article. Hamsindh (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I have another post to add on the future of the relationship between the university and the university press. I should be able to get that up tonight. As far as revisions/additions what does everyone think of: (1) applying the same format to our citation and (2) possibly starting off the entry with a brief synopsis of the book? If we do this, I'm thinking DIY and community organization might be worth including overarching themes.Thinkinaboutit (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform citations and a brief overview of the book before breaking out the themes both sound like good ideas to me. I'll take a crack at the overview and maybe tinker with the formatting to make section breaks clearer. PaKkTn (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as well! Thanks for getting it started Pamela! I can start streamlining citations. Hamsindh (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what the story is on the Reception section? PaKkTn (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me. Aiming to have skeleton before class. --BiteMari (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

The page looks pretty good to me at this point. How do we want to make the final edits (I'm th8inking here particularly about edits to make the writing styles more uniform)? PaKkTn (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delayed response. I agree that we should work on streamlining the article before putting it up for the world. Not quite sure how. I will re-read the article with fresh eyes right now and see what needs to get done still. Hamsindh (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I streamlined a bit by doing the following: streamlined the references so there are no duplicate references now; deleted the word 'theme' from each of the subsection headings. I think there are a couple of instances where citations are still needed (indicated), I will try to get the citations for those by tonight, but if anyone else can get to it sooner that'd be great! Hamsindh (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good! I don't have time tonight, but can go through tomorrow morning to see where we might be able to add more citations. I also cannot think of a way to make the writing style more uniform without having just one person going through and doing it. Maybe we just leave it and it'll just kind of shape itself once it's released into the wild? Thinkinaboutit (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple edits and added a few citations. Check out citation #8 - what do you think if we place chapter citations like this on each theme heading? I know that our structure is based on themes, not chapters, but these themes are largely developed in specific chapters and these citations may be useful guides for readers. I think this may also allow us to not cite specific page numbers for non-quoted ideas that are developed in various locations in each chapter. Thinkinaboutit (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an interesting idea! Do we know if other book articles do something similar on Wikipedia? The article on The Wealth of Networks does not seem to do this - it just repeats the citation for the book as 'Author Date, pp.' after the first citation of the book (for quotations); but of course they don't have themes that replace chapters. I'm ok with either idea. Hamsindh (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing

I know we are not necessarily done with edits, but wanted to start this section and note that we have to do the following right after we publish the article: 1. Everyone should do a minor edit once the article is published (so that we establish ourselves as primary authors of the article), and 2. Someone (I volunteer) should post the link for the article on the talk pages of Michael, Maura, Ann, and Richard. Hamsindh (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should get things up today, yes? And I also think that we weren't meant to import the whole article at once. I don't feel comfortable getting the ball rolling, but I am available to add info (if we're doing it in sections) and to edit as needed. PaKkTn (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I do believe that this needs to go up today. Not sure about the method for publishing (all at once or piece by piece). I'll check back in a few hours to make an edit on the published article. I guess we can figure out the reference thing later.Thinkinaboutit (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling with regard to the referencing is that it might bring us too close to primary source citation, which is discouraged. On the other hand, some kind of information about where to look for these things would be useful to the reader. PaKkTn (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I bit the bullet and moved the draft into the article space as it stood. I hope I have done this correctly; the good news is I can now see it live. Please all contribute some edits as you are able, and Hamsindh, if you would let Maura, Michael, Ann and Richard know as you suggested above that would be great. PaKkTn (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: the article appears to have been taken down with lightning speed. I've reached out to Michael on the talk page about this, but I go into a class soon so I may not be able to follow up. PaKkTn (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I just resubmitted, using the Wizard. it is now "under review." I believe that we can't do anything much until that is done. PaKkTn (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Failing forward! So yeah, a couple of things: yes, capitalization is specific on WP. You are supposed to cap the first word of a multi word title *only*. So to WP, they are the same, and the second double capped one is wrong. Probably the correct approach would have been to use the title "Planned Obsolescence (book)". Lastly, if your page is under review, that can take forevers, so please post a request to expedite that review on Pharos's talk page with a link to the the Article for Creation (AfC) page. I assume that what you are talking about is an AfC.--Theredproject (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! I fixed it. Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology and the Future of the Academy Theredproject (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Theredproject! I will go ahead now and link an image of the book in the info box. Hamsindh (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]