Talk:Activist Women's Voices

Deletion of details of oral history collection

@DGG: I am baffled at the deletion of details about the oral history participants. While I understand the point that Wikipedia is not a library catalog, the much stronger counter-consideration is the fact that the inclusion of the activists is critical to understanding and appreciating the scope and curation of this collection. The deleted information presented here is also in line with GLAM efforts and is the direction that Wikipedia should be moving towards, versus against. I don't understand this approach to deleting content. Lastly, I am very surprised that you *as a librarian* would make these deletions and not (a) discuss it on the talk page and/or reach out to me personally since we are friendly IRL and (b) would take this very aggressive destructive approach. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

BrillLyle I am here to participate in this discussion. Thanks for adding the content in this edit, which DGG deleted.

When I give Wikipedia presentations, I almost always start with these two points.

1. After everything a person contributes, please provide a citation, per Wikipedia's verification policy and WP:NPOV.
2. Please make sure the citation complies with Wikipedia's WP:RS policy, particularly, do not cite sources which were self published or which have a direct financial relationship to the subject being covered.

In my experience, people asking these questions about their content rarely contribute in a way that is followed by deletion of their content, even if they are new contributors.

How do you feel about these rules? Should they be used? To what extent did your contributions comply with them?

In your writing above, you seem to be suggesting that human thought went into this review rather than the brainless rote application of some rules. While I would love for Wikipedia to be more human, I also like the idea that in crowdsourcing we can give everyone the same ruleset and when they follow it, then almost always (99%+ of the time - the most amazing precision in any major crowdsourcing project) people from different backgrounds come to the same conclusion.

I want to support you in this. I am looking at what you added and what DGG did, and wondering what other options existed.

How do you think that Wikipedia should handle self published materials from the hundreds of thousands of organizations which have come to Wikipedia to promote themselves? Why do you feel that the self-published promotional materials of this library project should go into Wikipedia in this case?

It always pains me to see when someone uses the Wikipedia editing interface in the way it was designed to be used and another person sees this as a "very aggressive destructive approach". Of course almost always Wikipedia users who have their content deleted take it personally. I understand why you feel that having the content deleted was aggressive. What confuses me after all this time is what alternative we could have to show respect for what you did, while following some rule set. The rules are subject to change, but I wonder - do you think the rules are fair? Do you have better rules to propose? Did DGG apply the rules correctly in this instance? Would other Wikipedians have made the same decision in this case?

What do you want to see happen next? Do you see ambiguity in DGG's judgement? How do you want this content to be judged? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Thank you for taking the time to discuss this.

As to the two points you bring up:

1. Since I am obsessed with citations, I am usually erring on the side of too many citations versus too few. And as far as a neutral point of view, I am so spooked by #copyvio I am also afraid of adding too much written content as the tendency of fellow Wikipedia editors is to be very hostile to content, so it becomes a wasted effort. I have trained as a librarian and archivist and have 17+ years working with confidential information including my current IRL job so I would like to think I understand what a neutral point of view is, etc.
2. I have no financial relationship with this collection. Far from it. I was not involved in the self-publishing of this material. 2 to 3 years ago, I was an unpaid intern at CUNY Graduate Center Library who digitally processed part of this audio collection, so if my knowledge of the collection and the participants is deeply passionate, then that is a stated fact I won't deny. But it *was* 2 to 3 years ago, and it is a collection that if there was a Wikipedian-in-Residence, it would be a perfect subject of a great Wikipedia article. So I would argue my contribution here complies with these rules. And I won't drag Wiki-GLAM into this but...

Question: the blog posts that are citations that list me as a contributor, is that a problem? I have no current connection to this organization or the collection anymore.

As DGG very eloquently says, no one is 100% free of Conflict of Interests. I only edit pages I am at least a little bit interested in, and some of them, like Jewish genealogy, where I also volunteered in an *unpaid* capacity, I have worked on because it is my community and I know the entries desperately need improvement. Again, I get ZERO compensation for these contributions.

To me, the section in question is a perfect subject of a Wikipedia editathon. I believe that Wikimedia NYC would like to increase engagement with academic partners -- this is a PERFECT collection that could be the subject of a great editathon. Deleting the section makes the editathon a no go. I am confused by this. Can you speak to this problem, Lane?

I know very clearly that DGG only has the best intentions in his approaches to Wikipedia. He is trying to do what is best for the encyclopedia and he understands the rules here. I guess I think the rules should be reconsidered and the stringency of many of the content-hostile policies should be re-evaluated and overhauled. It makes Wikipedia a very hostile place, especially in contrast to the reality of the rest of the internet, where EVERYTHING is available online for free, without constraint. I am not suggesting a lawless state, but more bendability, especially when it comes to GLAM entities. So no, I don't think the rules are fair.

I think David should have set up a conversation on the Talk page discussing this issue. Deleting it right off the bat was the hostile part. This has happened quite often with content I have contributed in the past. To entries where the subjects are women and articles are underwritten. I spend time culling citations and adding good solid content and am accused of fawning over the subject, or am told that works are not notable -- when the whole point of contributing to the entry is to establish notability that is clearly there. It's a vicious cycle that I don't believe is a win for Wikipedia. It sure discourages me from contributing content, which I think is a bad thing.

You ask a lot of questions, Lane. What is your opinion of this deletion? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I ask a lot of questions. I wanted to see if we are considering the same issues, and I think that no, we are not.

My evaluation is that this information comes from "http://activistwomen.commons.gc.cuny.edu", which is a self-published source, and therefore is not a reliable source, so adding it prevents the article from being neutral point of view. That is the end of my evaluation and I did not consider other points. I expect that DGG reverted the content for that reason. I did not take any other factors into the consideration because I tend to follow the rules without thinking about them.

On your talk page you say "I have zero interest in patrolling new pages" - Jim suggested that you look at the process so that you could come to understand how it is that Wikipedia has trained thousands of people to look any given content and evaluate it in the same way. You do not have to patrol pages or do anything you do not want to do, but I would like for you to believe that what happened here was because a short, easy-to-understand rule set was applied to your contribution, and that there was no room for subjectivity, and a volunteer gave you the response that was merited based on the current rules.

You might argue "the rules are unfair", and this is true, and I would help you to change them, but not here on this talk page. Briefly, I want to acknowledge - yes, the rules are often called hostile. Yes, they prevent partnerships with institutions like libraries. Yes, Wikipedia readers request that we put more self-published content into the encyclopedia. Practically all experts in publishing and nonprofit management would agree with you putting the content you shared into Wikipedia is the best way to operate the encyclopedia. I would talk about those things with you elsewhere.

The issue that I would like to resolve here is determining whether there is anything unusual about the way that DGG reverted your contribution. I see the content, it is backed by promotional self-published sources, so standard process is to revert it. Do you see something more at play here? To what extent do you think this is the expected application of the existing rules? What room do you see room for subjectivity here?

It is my wish that Wikipedia contributors feel like their content is reviewed by an unthinking robot that treats all contributions equally and consistently applies the rules to the same situations in the same way. I also want everyone to feel that almost all situations can be judged by learning only a few rules, and that processes here are not complicated. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I keep finding that whatever I want to say, someone else has said more precisely due to sharper focus. Broadening the focus beyond the rule behind the deletion, a substitute is also available. Link to the original, drawing attention to what it offers. I've run into a somewhat similar problem with corporation officers. Many of them shift to a different job on the roster a few years later, or retire and are replaced. When I find this, rather than update I delete and link to the official corporate roster page. No way Wikipedia is going to do a better job of it than they do. Your case is not about updating, but still if a list is available as an external page, there's little need for a copy in our article space. Perhaps one day we'll do a collaborative event, in which case there will be an event page in Wikipedia:Project namespace with similar lists, but still not in article space. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry: This was very helpful information -- and much room for thought and further discussion, obviously. I stripped the article of much of what is considered self-published source. I hope that this action assuages the issue. Your explanation makes sense, especially the way you very clearly said it. Additionally, I did a bit more research and added more citations from third party sources, but am concerned the article citations are now a bit light. I am going to try and add more information going forward, if it exists.

I guess the approach of using a very constrained list of criteria / rule set in such a black & white way means the pedagogy of the editing experience is lost. Like this instance here, where you have all so kindly taken the time to actually teach me what to do in these types of cases. It is so much more helpful than a blanking of an entire section with a curt one line explanation. I think that's when it gets discouraging, and the inevitable defensiveness creeps in. I don't know if I agree with the approach DGG took -- I obviously would've preferred a discussion about this here versus the blanking with what seemed like a sarcastic note. Again, I think Wikipedia is the perfect place to collocate information about GLAM collections, but I see this is going to be a very difficult sell. I don't see this as a duplication of a list that exists elsewhere -- I see Wikipedia as a centralized collocation point where the general overview and links point towards resources that those interested can do original research. Thank you both. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

BrillLyle Okay, thanks. I think it is resolved here. We applied some rules. Now I meet you on your talk page to raise options for changing rules. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much Bluerasberry -- really appreciate you taking the time to talk this through with me. I know I will be a much better Wikipedian now. I think I am so impassioned about this collection and how personally powerful it was for me (it was one of the motivators for me to start editing Wikipedia) that I got a little blinded with wanting to add as much information as possible. But it weakened the article, I think. So again, thank you. Thank you to everyone who talked me through this! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Responses

Please excuse the delay, but i was trying to word this properly, & I needed to rethink some things.

I was being much more empirical than Blue's questions might imply, though I'll be perfectly willing to discuss the general problems also.

1. The problem I saw was that I would like to have as many articles as possible on subjects of this sort, but this article would not be easy to defend. The fundamental problem with many articles on libraries, archives, and the like, is the lack of really good references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, and that is true with this article also. What is really needed primarily is to find them if they exist, and --if not-- to find some way to work around it, which is often done best by combining articles. To fix things temporarily, it helps to remove features that might make the article stand out to those who might want to delete it. It's characteristic of many articles about organizations, that they more or less include the material that would be on a web page about them. This usually includes internal details, not likely to be of general interest. The most conspicuous such section here is the sponsors, and the second the contents. This is especially true when either of them is primarily red-linked. I know I myself often seeing article with such redlinked content on any subject will consider it for deletion. I probably should have dealt with both sections, but I wanted to immediately remove the redlinks.
   The purpose, of course, is not to remove significant content, but to make a stronger article.
   In dealing with subjects where there is likely to be some objection--especially if it is ill-informed or prejudicial objection, it's particularly necessary to make a very strong article. Establishing as many strong articles helps as a precedent--having any be deleted is the opposite.
2. More generally, this is about a particular kind of data: contents data for a collection (using "collection" in the most general sense). This has previously come up for discussion in the context of a different sort of collection, the table of contents of a book. It's also come up sometimes for articles about publishers, or the speakers at a conference. BrillLyle is completely correct that to some extent this is needed to show the scope of a collection. We normally do this by citing highlights, not by making a complete listing. The highlight we usually use as a minimum is notability in the sense of having a WP article or being obviously qualified for one. I am not sure that all of these people would qualify by the usual rules--it has proven very difficult in the pat writing articles about activists until someone has actually done significant scholarly work on them.
3. Much more generally, I would be in favor of having some article on all publications,archives, etc, that might be used as a source for a WP article. There has in the past been considerable opposition to including these in mainspace, so it is not clear how to handle them. Adding an additional name-space is a major proposition that would need very careful planning. There may be easier alternatives.

I hope we can discuss this. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DGG: Apologies for the delay, this cold is not going away and work has been busier than normal.

re: point #1 citations. I agree with your concern that there are not enough citations in this article -- at least not enough to my liking. As you know I am a bit obsessed with citations, so once I set the article up, I reached out to the original stakeholder(s) of the collection to ask them for press citations I know exist (especially about the creation of the collection) that are probably not electronically available -- or might be difficult to find. I will continue to pursue this vein as I agree there is a vulnerability here that could be less than ideal without more information. I think this might take some effort on my part but is fixable.

re: point #1 sponsors. I thought that including the grant-funding institutions to this collection might help to legitimize and support the importance of this collection. So if the Ford Foundation felt this was a worthy endeavor, worthy of funding, the collection would be regarded more highly, and the entry much easier to defend. So I saw this as a positive versus a weakness. Thoughts on this perspective?

re: point #1 redlinks. As far as redlinks, I'm pretty sure that I didn't do any redlinks, as they bug me. So not 100% clear on what you are talking about.

Unless you are referring to the list of Activists as a redlinks section for a potential editathon, which the librarian contact at CUNY expressed might be of interest especially regarding this collection....

re: point #2 inclusion of list of Activists. I understand the concern of not including all of the Activists in a list; however, this conflicts -- at least in my mind, conceptually -- with the idea of the GLAM initiatives, and the idea of addressing gender imbalances of subjects of articles on Wikipedia. These are women who are unheralded but mightily accomplished within the framework of their accomplishments in different areas of New York City. I would posit that the inclusion of the Activists is a challenge to add both GLAM and more diverse entries to Wikipedia. Notability would of course be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but the Collection itself, especially the raw data surrounding the Collection -- which I know exists in digital form but no one else but researchers and those of us who saw the density of supporting materials (especially press), would know. I was not sure how to communicate that in the article. What I mean to say here is that without fail, each Activist had a binder full of press clippings about their work that was gathered as part of the supporting materials of the oral history interview. So the inclusion of those materials would help, correct? I didn't want to get too deep into original research, etc. But supporting materials do exist.

added thought on inclusion: It always bugs me when there is a concern of having a full list of information, versus a selected list. I see complete filmographies for obscure people all the time. Quite frankly, it's (dare I say) encyclopedic, which is what we are all here for in the first place? I would prefer to include too much information (curated, of course, and/or as sub-sections if significant, like let's say Gene Hackman's filmography) versus anemic.

re: point #3. 100% agree there needs to be a really solid, defendable framework for collections like this. The Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History has an OUTSTANDING group of deeply rich and more importantly, historically significant oral history collections that should be highlighted. I believe that GLAM content like this should be better supported on Wikipedia, to make Wikipedia richer. So I would love to work towards making this happen. I'm not 100% clear on what namespaces are and what the mainspace is, but would love to do whatever I can to support efforts so articles like this aren't so vulnerable, and are supported by some sort of Wikipedia-friendly frameworks.

As part of this discussion / initiative (?) :-) , I plan on working to expand and clean up the entry for Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History -- and possibly create additional articles on some of the collections, especially Combat to Kentucky. Because of the richness of their collection, it seems like it would be a great case study. And Douglas A. Boyd would be a great technological "partner"(for lack of a better word) for Wikipedia.... What do you all think?

added thought on point #3. Question: Would an infobox for GLAM collections be helpful? It could pull the general info into Wikidata in an organized way, and would make the entry better, correct? Thoughts?

Thanks again, everyone. I am really happy we are all discussing this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

1. If you think the articles on the activists can be written, try. The results at afd have been erratic, in the absence of firm guidelines and the relative uselessness of the GNG, but many have been kept, even those I think inadequate. I think some of our articles on this field are a little borderline in documentation, with the main problem -- as usual -- being sufficiently significant coverage; newspaper articles tend to have problems with both areas. I don't think anyone here has sufficiently explored the use of activist and left-wing publications for supporting articles, but they would unfortunately be subject to challenge as not being independent. There are some files I have in mind I want to talk to you about. The best approach is to look for those that are written about extensively in books. There is no point holding an editathon until we are sure there is usable material available to the participants. Editathons shouldn't be used to produce articles that might be vulnerable; it discourages the participants. Oral histories have a problem: they are normally first party sources, essentially autobiographies. But I have seen some that are evaluative also, and I don't know the nature of what is available for these. Their key purpose, after all, is to record the materials for writing by historians, but they also have a role in making the primary material available to the public, which is quite interested in unmediated autobiographies regardless of whether they can be used as sources for WP. I always add them as external references for that reason.
2. I am not prepared to dilute the principle that lists of people in WP articles normally are limited to those that are notable. As Blue mentioned, changing this would open the gates to all sorts of undesirable material. And even notable is sometimes a problem. There have been some examples of publishers trying to list every book they publish, and at this point I would be opposed to such listings for even notable books; I'd limit them to famous. They're catalog data. They're catalog data I find fascinating, but I find many things fascinating besides that which would fit into an encycopedia.
3. It's arguable, and I will be arguing it Friday at the meeting in Washington, but at this particular time I think the need to keep out of WP material that could possibly be seen as promotional is much more important than being inclusive for notability. This is very unfortunate, but none the less there's no way of hiding from it.
4. Infoboxes are not the place for large amounts of data,; they are intended as brief summaries. Wikidata is not limited to material from infoboxes--the data could be entered directly. The ideal place, imo, would be article subpages, except that WP decided not to implement that,at least on the enWP. We could try asking for that. The alternative is a separate space. There could also be an argument for using WP space, as a resource for articles. `
5. There's another factor: I am personally not happy trying to remove articles on topics I think important; but i am equally unhappy with inadequate articles on topics important to me. And if I continue what I'm doing otherwise, I don't have time to rewrite them. The best I can do is to guide others in rewriting them. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)