Different wikis are different. From what I have heard, German Wikipedia
encourages people to write about their employers, while this would be very
controversial on English Wikipedia. The standard I have heard most often is
whether you are paid by the organization. Making a small edit like
correcting an error in the hours of service or the address would not be
controversial, but editing an article about your library or your boss would
be. If you are being pressured to write about your institution, you can
show them this:
Some people put a statement about their employer on their user page for
transparency
The collection itself is a different question, since a non-profit exists to
share information as a public service.
There's an interesting Conflict of Interest statement here:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 10:55 AM Rajene Hardeman <vizzylane(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks. We had a good session this past Wednesday with
librarians new to
Wikipedia and I referenced the bullet points Jake sent.
(p.s. This below email was a draft that I accidentally sent this morning.
All is well)
On Oct 5, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Bob Kosovsky <bobkosovsky(a)nypl.org> wrote:
Hi Rajene,
It's not a black-and-white distinction but one of degrees. If I am in one
of the best positions to describe a topic, why shouldn't I add such
information to Wikipedia? One thing I ask myself: If someone not in my
position added this information would it be accepted? If the answer is
yes, then I have no qualms about adding such information. Is it
promotion? To an extent it is, but it's information that others may have a
difficult time acquiring.
You mention an "exhibit" but I feel that many library exhibits do not
achieve notability by themselves (unless an accompanying book is published
along with substantial reviews of the exhibit). If there's a lasting
website exhibit, then I might add it as a link.
I know others have had difficulty adding links to archival resources, a
problem which I've rarely had. I think the difference might be one of
reputation. I'm active in several WikiProjects and have created/editing
lots of articles, not all necessarily in my professed field (I'm a music
librarian, yet I created article on what was the longest river in
Manhattan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minetta_Creek> - the article was
assessed as a GA). In other words, my track record proves to the community
that I'm not on Wikipedia for promotion, but I'm there to add to the
encyclopedia.
Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts,
Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
blog:
http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2
Listowner: OPERA-L ; EXLIBRIS-L ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users
- My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions -
*Inspiring Lifelong Learning* | *Advancing Knowledge* | *Strengthening
Our Communities *
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 7:13 AM Rajene Hardeman <vizzylane(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks Bob and all,
My real question was not about new editors trying to write about their
own library;
My question is when you want to write about items in your collection, or
historic events surrounding your location or an exhibit which could use
encyclopedic fortification using resources from your library. Are you
promoting your library collection/environment (conflict of interest) or are
you adding relevant content to Wikipedia (using your expertise to provide
sources). And how do you understand the boundary.
On Sep 20, 2018, at 6:48 PM, Bob Kosovsky
<bobkosovsky(a)nypl.org> wrote:
the
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries