User talk:Kdndocent

Welcome!

Hello, Kdndocent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kdndocent, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kdndocent! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Liz (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edits

Hi! I've undone some of your edits, for two reasons: because you didn't provide an independent reliable source for the information you added, and because repeatedly adding links to an institution where you work might appear inappropriate to some – you could be considered to have a conflict of interest in relation to the museum and its exhibits. Please don't let this discourage you from contributing to the encyclopaedia in other ways – we value and welcome expert editors. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your note. I'm new to this so I'm hoping you can clarify a few things for me.

I've been going to dozens of visual artists' pages and when there's a list of museums that hold that artist's work, there are rarely sources/foot notes provided.

In the case of the museum where I volunteer (unpaid) as a docent, the source I'm using is the list of artwork in the museum's permanent collection that was given to me by the museum's registrar.

There is no outside source for cross-checking this information (as I imagine is the case for many of the museums listed on these artists' pages). What's the solution here?

Also, by identifying myself as someone connected with the museum (as a volunteer), I meant to signal that I had a connection to the institution and wasn't randomly entering information.

Is there a better way to establish that I have ties to this museum and thus access to information about their permanent collection? In other words, is my "Edit Summary" problematic?

Thanks!

Kdndocent (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kdndocent! I saw this earlier, but forgot to answer – I'm sorry! Basically, what I said earlier still applies:

content in Wikipedia must be verifiable in independent reliable sources; if it is not so supported, it should not be added to the encyclopaedia, even if you "know" it to be true, or have personal or unpublished information which confirms it. If you come across any unsourced content which might be (or has been) questioned or challenged, you can simply remove it, though you can also just add a {{cn}} tag, or – better still – find and add a reference. This is invaluable work which any editor, even a relatively new one, can usefully do (and is a very good way to learn about editing here).
repeatedly adding links to institution you're connected with is – at best – a questionable activity; you're not the first person have been asked to do this kind of thing. Although it's not specifically mentioned in our guideline, it tends to be seen as a kind of linkspam. I suggest that you abandon that project.

There's plenty else that needs to be done! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers! Thanks for your response, I appreciate you taking the time. I am curious to know more about your statement "There's plenty else that needs to be done." What kind of Wikipedia work do you see as most important and most needed?

As for listing the museums holding work by certain artists, I've read some more about citation guidelines and wanted to highlight these two sentences. "In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged....Citations are especially desirable for statements about living persons, particularly when the statements are contentious or potentially defamatory." I don't see the information I'm entering as "likely to be challenged" or "contentious or potentially defamatory." Again, I've noticed that the vast majority of museums listed on artists' websites appear without citation. Even with a big name artist such as Alexander Calder, under the heading Collections there are four museums listed there without citation, including MOMA and Guggenheim in New York. Yes, there are three that have citations, but four don't. So I'm hearing and seeing different things: a perception of bad form that you're pointing to (though no actual rule seems to have been broken) and a long-standing practice that has listed dozens of museums without independent reliable sources provided. So I'm puzzled! Kdndocent (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I wanted to add that I fully appreciate the need for citations and reliable sources. I earned my PhD in Anthropology from Brandeis University so I'm fully aware of citation conventions. Kdndocent (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, could you not perhaps observe them? – though the conventions in Wikipedia are rather different to those in academia. Something we have to keep reminding ourselves of in a enterprise as big as this is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – an error or oversight in one article is not a justification for making the same mistake in another. One of the basic precepts of this project is that content must be verifiable. You've told me (I think) that the holdings of the museum are not publicly available; this information is not verifiable, ergo it does not belong in this encyclopaedia. Yes, I'm sure it's true, but – like Tommy Lee Jones in Witness – "[we] don't care!". Our content is based on verifiability, not truth.

That leaves the question of your conflict of interest. I see that you've had a Teahouse invitation, but not, I believe, taken it up. Would you like me to raise this matter at the conflict of interest noticeboard, and perhaps get the opinions of some other editors on whether what you are trying to do is acceptable or not? I'll do so if you wish.

A really useful thing you can do at any time is to look at those articles you've noticed with missing references, and decide whether references can be found or not. If they can, find and add them; if they can't, remove the material, leaving an edit summary such as "unreferenced". This work, like pruning a fruit tree, is essential to the health of the project. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Kdndocent. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]