Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-05-24/In the media

Discuss this story

Artist re-writes Wikipedia article from scratch: The Adrian Piper article has lots of issues related to COI, largely because she rewrote her article. These have now been reasonably resolved. (Reported by Artnet)
Have they? Piper submitted an OTRS ticket in August 2013 and the article was deleted the same month—whether the article had copyvio or was just a mess, whatever, it was deleted. I recreated/stubbed the article in December 2013, heavily cited with reliable, secondary sources. So Piper writes, "In December 2013, the article was again replaced by a new one, which apparently had not been fact-checked and contained numerous factual errors." Looks pretty solid to me, actually. The citations are numerous enough that any reader should be able to contest any of the "factual errors" with specificity. But more likely, based on my experience with other BLPs, is that she disagrees with the source and not the paraphrase.

As for Artnet, how is this news? Piper wrote her own version in October 2013 or earlier. Did Artnet just happen to discover it from an unrelated inquiry? Nevermind that her version is based on that August 2013 mishmosh that we originally deleted/TNT'd as beyond redemption (no attribution, either, but was it copyvio to begin with?) and simply adds paragraphs of unsourced and primary sourced material that we would never include on Wikipedia. "Artist disputes Wikipedia and writes own encyclopedia article" is not a catchy headline, however, and the real subtext is Artnet trying to position Piper's reaction within her artistic practice of institutional critique. czar 20:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Is "Piper was/is able" supposed to read "Piper was/is not able"? If so, and you fix it, please feel free to also redact this post along with it. I thinking the answer is "yes", since I have difficulty getting your meaning in that sentence without the "not". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Rephrased) Piper was and remains able to contest inaccuracies, especially when they have direct references. My hunch is that her disagreements reside in the original source material and not the Wikipedia paraphrase, as it has been with every BLP I've discussed with its subject. czar 03:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and fwiw, Piper didn't rewrite "from scratch": the bulk of the article (i.e., the directly sourced parts) is lifted directly from the now-deleted WP article czar 14:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]