User talk:LoriLee/CollectionsManagementSystemAnalysis

Wikipedia Categories Analysis

Being somewhat of a historian on the family of Tsar Nicholas II, I chose to analyze the conceptual issues of three articles related to the Romanov dynasty. The articles encompassed varying topics within Wikipedia, including Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, the Alexander Palace, and the Czarevich (Fabergé egg). In reviewing the categories of these articles it became clear that Wikipedia categories are specific and should not be too broad. I also discovered a difference between the use of lists and categories within Wikipedia articles. Finally, I noticed that the categories are very helpful in linking to other related articles and expanding your search beyond the limitations of the user’s general knowledge.

The article on Anastasia Nicholaevna is a longer biographical article dealing with a popular historical figure. This article is listed in the Wikipedia:Featured articles, meaning it’s considered one of the best in Wikipedia. As much of my thesis research centered on the daily life of Anastasia, I would agree with the assessment that the article is complete. Anastasia’s article lists many categories, most of which describe her status as royalty and a saint. I found that there is a separate list included in the article, titled “Grand Duchesses of Russia.” There was no category with this title, but the list was included within the article. It made me curious about why certain lists are considered to be worthy of category status and others remain in list form.

The article on the Alexander Palace is of average size and includes both architectural and historical aspects. Like the Anastasia article, it also includes lists at the bottom of the article, titled “Imperial Palaces and Residences in Russia,” and “Showplaces in Tsarkoe Selo Museum Complex,” which provide context for the building. The categories link to other royal residences, palaces and buildings in Russia as well as a list of 1796 architecture. None of the categories have overly extensive lists, with only about two dozen other articles listed in each. The Category:Palaces in Russia does have two subcategories and links to other familiar Russian sites like the Kremlin and Winter Palace.

The article on the Czarevich Faberge Egg is a shorter article dealing with a specific Faberge art work, an object that I have viewed in person and have done much research on. I found many of the Faberge Egg articles to be sub-par, many not even including images. While the Czarevich Egg article did include an image, I felt that it needed better headings, an Infobox, and a bit more information added. I used the template from the Renaissance (Fabergé egg) article to create an Infobox on the Czarevich Egg article. I then added headings similar to the Imperial Coronation Egg article. I added some information on the egg’s provenance before considering any categories that might be added. This was my first experience contributing to a Wikipedia article.

The categories of the Czarevich Egg only include, “1912 works” and “Faberge Eggs.” Feeling that the article deserved to be placed in more categories, I added it to the existing Category:House of Romanov and Category:Russian Culture. I chose these because I found them on other Romanov articles and I noticed that Russian Art redirects to Russian Culture. After adding the categories, I realized that the House of Romanov Category lists only people, not objects relating to the family. Because of this, I removed my category from the Czarevich Egg and learned the lesson that categories may be more specific than I had first realized. The Russian Culture category was broader, with over thirty subcategories and a plethora of articles listed. It was here that I noticed Category:Arts in Russia as a subcategory, and then Category:Russian Art as a subcategory on that page. Within Russian Art could be found Category:Fabergé eggs. Through this meandering I inferred that Wikipedia must prefer that you include only the most specific categories when you list them for an article, rather than including as broad a category as you can find.

SIRIS and Save Outdoor Sculpture! Database Analysis

I found the Smithsonian Institution's database,SIRIS, to be cumbersome and unhelpful in searching for objects. The listing of categories in the database were useful in allowing the user to customize their search results. However, the descriptive categories seemed awkward to me as I attempted to find objects, rather than books or photographs. I first searched “Faberge,” thinking I’d find a plethora of objects in the Smithsonian’s collection. The search returned only one easily identifiable object (an amethyst rabbit) and many books and catalogs. When I narrowed my search to “Easter Eggs” using the categories provided, it only showed four books about Faberge eggs, rather than any actual objects.^[1]

Thinking that maybe the Smithsonian really doesn’t have any Faberge eggs, I started over with a new tactic. I searched for the popular “Theodore Roosevelt,” but found mainly letters, books and photographs. These are helpful in research but not when you’re attempting to view objects you’d hope to find in a collection (hats, guns, taxidermy). Knowing that Roosevelt donated many of the taxidermic safari animals on display in the Natural History museum, I would have guessed that it’d be easy to find the collections information on these objects. Due to the overly specific category topics, this was not the case. Simply including a category titled “Objects” would be helpful. Likewise, it might be helpful to create a categorical list of each museum within the Smithsonian so you can narrow down your search by clicking on, for example, the National Gallery of Art or the National Museum of American History, depending on the context and the user’s knowledge of the collections.

Save Outdoor Sculpture! uses the SIRIS database as its base and has the same template for categories.^[2] Because the Save Outdoor Sculpture! database includes only public art, the topics are organized in a more appropriate way for that specific medium. The SIRIS database tries to create categories for too wide a range of objects, which makes it much more difficult to navigate. In the SOS! database, the “Place” category makes it easy to hone in on certain areas and easily find sculptures that are pertinent to the user. On the other hand, SIRIS is not as focused on providing the locations of objects. While searching for items in SIRIS, I found myself often trying to figure out where the object was located. Some items had a credit line which includes the location, while others did not. It would be good for SIRIS to have a separate entry for “Location” or “Place,” similar to SOS! so that the object can be easily located within the far-reaching Smithsonian collection.

Another big difference between SOS! and SIRIS is that SIRIS does not have condition information or much narrative history on the objects. SOS! does not do much better, though. The information online only provides a brief statement, such as “Well maintained” or “Treatment Needed.”^[3] After seeing the extremely detailed SOS! Condition Report form, it is obvious that the volunteers gathering data on the sculptures are providing much more comprehensive report than what is displayed online. It would better serve everyone if the details of the condition report were displayed publicly in the SOS! database.

Glory-June Greiff's book, Remembrance, Faith and Fancy: Outdoor Public Sculpture in Indiana, is a narrative version of the data gathered in the 1992-1994 survey of public art in Indiana through Save Outdoor Sculpture!^[4] While this book will be helpful in finding sculptures that may belong in our collection, it is not useful in providing detailed condition information. Because of its story-telling style there is a lack of clarity and organization of information on the sculptures. Greiff attempts to differentiate the sculptures by theme (commemorative, religious, whimsical) and again by location (specifically by county). This is only helpful to a certain point before it is clear that the overwhelming amount of information became burdensome for the author. For example, a single paragraph may describe upwards of four different sculptures of varying styles and artists. I found it interesting that Greiff, who was the director of the Indiana SOS! survey, would compile the information in a narrative form rather than by lists or forms. The Condition Report form used by SOS! asked volunteers to provide detailed information on the sculptures, however I don't know where this information is now stored. I was disappointed to find these detailed condition reports were not available online in the SOS! Database or in Greiff's book.

I believe that the SOS information, the original forms, are stored in the Smithsonian somewhere but can only be accessed in person. I also believe in Santa Claus, so . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... you be the judge. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

After reviewing the SIRIS and SOS! databases, it is obvious that many of the flaws in these collections management systems can be remedied using Wikipedia. Firstly, Wikipedia provides ways to create lists of articles (or objects) so that a collection can be maintained in one place, on one page. It also provides an easy way for the general public to find information on public art and to update the current condition of a sculpture. Finally, the categories system in Wikipedia can be reconfigured so that it interlinks the collection with a variety of pertinent topics relating to the object, making it even easier to find and providing it an appropriate context within Wikipedia.

Through my preliminary exploration of Wikipedia categories, I came to the conclusion that categories included in our IUPUI Public Art Project articles should be specific rather than broad. As such, if each article will be using the same categories, I don't know how we would combat the issue of including categories that may be too broad. (I also may be incorrect in my assumption that Wikipedia discourages the use of broad categorizing). I certainly believe we should have a master list of all of the pieces in our collection, however I am unsure if this would warrant us creating an "IUPUI Public Art" category or if it should remain a list that would be embedded in each article (similar Grand Duchesses of Russia list in the Anastasia Nicholaevna article). In searching the categorical index I noticed that there are a handful of subcategories that list "Sculptures by Collection," so creating a category for our collection may not be out of reach. I could not immediately find an existing Public Art Category, but I did notice a few artist biographical articles had "Public Art" as a section heading. For now, I think the already discussed categories of "Outdoor Sculpture in Indiana," and "Outdoor Sculpture in Indianapolis" are good places to start.

Notes

This is an archive of past discussions with User:LoriLee. 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.