Talk:SNAC/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about SNAC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Question

@Fuzheado: There's an existing redirect, created by @Philafrenzy: in Sept 2015, from Social Networks and Archival Context Project to Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities. I can see no mention of that project on that target page, nor any sign that there ever was such a mention. What connection is there between the IATH and SNAC, if any? Could someone please add any necessary clarification? Thanks. PamD 07:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. I suppose it's a new-ish phenomenon that my creating the Wikipedia article here is driven by Wikidata more than Wikipedia! So if you look in this article, the University of Virginia IATH is one of the four main partners for creating and developing SNAC. The project has come a long way since 2015, so that it not only justifies a standalone article, but SNAC IDs are used quite a bit in Wikidata. So I created the SNAC Wikidata item first, then came to Wikipedia to create the SNAC page. I will point the redirect to the SNAC article, and additional redirects. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: link to the source text. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. PamD 05:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Text added was very close paraphrase of "Introduction" section of https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6970208/ PamD 06:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

SNAC on Wikidata

The Wikidata community imported about 130,000 SNAC IDs, which means that 130,000 items in Wikidata have a connection to the SNAC database. I have documentation on the relationship between Wikidata and SNAC at d:Wikidata:University of Virginia/SNAC.

I proposed some edits to this Wikipedia article as a way to put the Wikidata project in context. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest edits

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

Hello, my name is Lane Rasberry or user:bluerasberry in Wikimedia projects. The University of Virginia presents the SNAC database and employs me as Wikimedian in Residence. I have a conflict of interest in editing this Wikipedia article.

Editors with a conflict of interest should seek Wikipedia community review or comment about any proposed changes to Wikipedia articles. I just made a series of changes to this article and then self reverted. Check the version of the article I am proposing or see the proposed changes which I made and self-reverted. I am requesting that anyone check what I did in the article history and if they like restore it.

In these edits I attempted to add a screenshot from the archive and add single sentences and citations from whatever publications I could find describing this database. Thanks to anyone who can review my proposed edits and either make them live or give me feedback. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Question: Seeing as how the Projects Computer science, Databases and even UofV have purview over this article, are there any other members from those Projects who would be willing to review this request? I'm not affiliated with any of those projects so I can't say as an insider whether or not it would be quicker to go that route, but it might be. spintendo 02:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You've mentioned looking at the diffs to see the changes which you've made. That can be challenging in that it's not exactly clear at first what particular changes have been made and where, and in any event, the diffs do not group the changes together, making editing of these changes difficult to accomplish. A second instance of these changes was also provided, showing an article which is different from the article under the COI edit request. In that instance it is likewise challenging to grasp what changes have been requested. This differentiated process of review using unique and unconventional ways of presenting the proposed information is, in my estimation, one of the reasons why no input has been garnered, at least on this talk page, for the last 2 weeks. In the hope that the COI edit request process can be expedited with minimal delay, I would ask if you could possibly modify your proposal in a more generic form, perhaps placing as much as possible the individual proposals here on the talk page for me to review. That would be extremely helpful here. I understand though if this is not possible, and as an alternative, I would like to suggest making the request directly at WP:COIN or perhaps an WP:RFC. Please advise. Thank you!

spintendo 10:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Request edit

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Sorry, I was away and missed your reply. I can format this in any way you want. I fail to understand exactly what you are requesting. Let me try to make this easy in a way that seems natural to me, and if this does not work, then I will follow your above advice.

check this page diff. Proposed edits are on the left, the current page version is on the right
Note that two things are proposed - an image insertion and some text addition
Review the image insertion
1. note at the top "image" and "caption". This is where I proposed a screenshot of the database. See how the screenshot would look. See the article as it is now with no screenshot to compare.
2. Comment here - can you approve this screenshot from a COI perspective? (copyright, etc is in order)
Review the text insertion
1. Check that same page diff for the text on the left side. Again, this is what I added.
2. Note what changed - the proposal is for the addition of 7 sentences, each of which is backed by a different citation.
3. For an alternative, in-context view of the citations, see Special:Diff/847634802#References and check #4-10 (7 citations)
4. Check the citation sources. They are The Chronicle of Higher Education, compdb.blogspot.com, Digital Humanities Quarterly, Journal of Archival Organization, and 2 publications of the University of Virginia.
5. Consider the conflict in the sources.
  1. I say that the non-U of Virginia ones are neutral publications with no seeming COI to this project. Compdb is less established than the journals but seems like a modest academic group blog in this field.
  2. The University of Virginia publications are promoting this project. I cited one to disclose a sponsor. The other I cited as a source for the program participants.
  3. After considering the conflict in the sources consider the sentences which are summarizing those sources. Are they neutral?
  4. Reject any of the 7 sentences/citations which fail COI checks
Give an overall assessment. There are 8 changes here - an image, and 7 sentence/citation pairs. Any one or all of these changes could be pass / failed.
After giving an opinion say whether I should solicit further opinions.

Of course I am not driving this review and anyone can say what they want. I am only trying to present this in the clearest and most accessible way.

Thanks for whatever you can do. Please just say if I should go or do something. I can find my way and follow any process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply to edit request 10-AUG-2018

Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes for information on each request. Regarding the picture mentioned as being requested to be added, the dimensions of this file (640x302) are not conducive to the dimensions of the infobox, which are almost the exact opposite (251x480). It is suggested that the picture be edited so that when inserted, details are not lost in the resolution. Regarding the review, one step of the process was omitted in your post: the checking of information which is to be added to the article on whether its inclusion might alter the meaning of text already present in the article (e.g., "for the omission of material or sources, for the misrepresentation of a source's tone, and for the use of source material out of context."^[1]). The issues shown in my review predominantly involve this aspect. spintendo 23:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

More information Edit Request Review section 10-AUG-2018 ...

Edit Request Review section 10-AUG-2018

A 2012 article described the archive as in development.
? Clarification needed.^{[note 1]}

___________
A related article said that the design of SNAC could be the basis for designing a similar larger database.
Declined.^{[note 2]}

___________
In 2012 the SNAC team presented the project at the National Archives and Records Administration.
? Clarification needed.^{[note 3]}

___________
A 2014 academic critique examined SNAC.
? Clarification needed.^{[note 4]}

___________
A 2015 academic case study described the development of the project.
? Clarification needed.^{[note 5]}

___________
In October 2017 the project self-reported that the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation founded [sic?] awarded it $750,000 and listed its participating member organizations.
? Clarification needed.^{[note 6]}

___________

[1]
This part of the edit request proposal requires clarification because it does not specify what archive is being discussed nor what about it was being developed. SNAC is the archive, but that is not immediately apparent from the diff. Additionally, "in development" is not very precise. If not expanded upon, the fact that the archive is in development may be a detail that can be left out. (See WP:NOTEVERYTHING.)

[2]
This part of the edit request proposal was declined because it apparently deals with a hypothetical (e.g., "could be the basis for...").

[3]
This part of the edit request proposal requires the least amount of clarification, mainly because it contains a subject ("the project") a location ("National Archives") and a verb ("team presented..."). The claim still requires clarification as to what each of these elements pertains to in the main body of the article's text. The claim as it is presented in the diff does not relate at first glance to these surrounding statements (the ones offered here in the edit request). As the claims in these diffs are only presented in terms of how they relate to each other within the diff, it is not easily seen how these claims would relate to the article's text where they are requested to be placed into.

[4]
This part of the edit request proposal requires clarification because the statement appears to be a fragment of a full sentence, or else no other context is provided as to what the critique was in relation to or what its results were (i.e., "examined SNAC.." meaning examined which part of the project - its planning and construction, or its finished capabilities?)

[5]
Similar to the note above, this part of the edit request proposal also requires clarification because the related context is difficult to see with the provided information of the diffs. How did the study describe the development? What is it about that description, or about that study's observation of the project's development, that make this source especially relevant for inclusion? These are questions which a reviewer might surmise through a concerted examination of the reference. One additional way would be to ask for clarification from the COI editor, which helps to determine the reason or purpose behind including certain details. Having an idea of these reasons can help the reviewer to visualize what type of context the COI editor is attempting to shape with their additions, and whether this proposed context conflicts with the one already existing in the article.

[6]
This part of the edit request proposal requires clarification because it is (a) not grammatically coherent and (b) appears to end mid-sentence (e.g., "and listed its participating member organizations.").

References

[1]
"Template:Request edit/Instructions". Wikipedia. 30 July 2018.

@Spintendo: Thanks for the review. This is more detailed than I expected so thanks for being so straightforward.

When I added this information I was attempting to share bland text in an attempt to make reliable sources accessible. You did not comment on the sources till now, but I suppose that the reliability of a source depends on the way in which it is used.

I will give another go at this eventually but not before I have time to reflect on the level of care you put into your response. I would like for this article to be right and am not in such a hurry. Thanks again for routinely taking the COI requests. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)