User talk:Cmcaseylaborarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for your contributions![edit]

WLL-Seattle-2012 Thanks for attending the Wikipedia Loves Libraries edit-a-thon at the Seattle Public Library! Your help was greatly appreciated. Mlet (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Archives" links[edit]

What's the motivation in edits like this? What information are they supposed to provide to the reader? Ibadibam (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question and the opportunity to elaborate on this idea.
Here's the relevant information from my project description:
"Wikipedia has become a popular research resource for information seekers of all levels of skill and experience. By adding active links to Wikipedia entries that relate to our primary source holdings, we can better connect users to the relevant archival collections. The rationale for this is to employ the 'principle of least effort' to connect users with information; rather than having to seek out our website, negotiate its internal logic, keyword search for related collections, etcetera, users can connect to the relevant archival collection with a click of their mouse. This is particularly important in light of a 2005 Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) report found that only 2% of college and university students begin searching for information at a library web site. [See: "Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: An OCLC Report to the Membership."] OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc, 2005."Cmcaseylaborarch (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Conor Casey, Labor Archivist, Labor Archives of Washington
  • Hello Conor. I will echo the concern of Idadibam with the addition of "external link" archives to Academic freedom (and other articles). Just how are 500 cubic feet of archive material, not links to the material, going to be pertinent to any reader? (I'm a supporter of WorldCat as a resource and I add OCLC numbers to references used in articles.) WP also has WP:Authority control templates. But see WP:LINKFARM and the template {{External links}}. And consider that all sorts of libraries have archive material. We do not simply place links like http://melvyl.cdlib.org/ in any article unless it directs to particular, discreet, relevant material. Finally, Conor, because you are seeking to expand linking to your particular project/employer, you have a WP:COI problem. You cannot use WP for WP:PROMOTION, no matter how noble the cause. Please revert the addition of your various external links. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello Srich32977. Thank you for your questions. I have attempted to answer from my perspective below:
"Just how are 500 cubic feet of archive material, not links to the material, going to be pertinent to any reader?"
-My hope is that by giving users a direct link to the archival finding aid for the collection--which does contain information about its contents, if not digital surrogates--it will be useful to a potential researcher in the same way a non-digital citation for a secondary source book is: That is can point people who are seeking information about a topic into deeper sources that are the building blocks of the entry. For example: Wikipedia is full of citations to non-digitized books that contain arguments that are the building blocks of the articles. In that same way, I hope to point users to collections that relate directly to the topics that are discussed in the articles.
(I'm a supporter of WorldCat as a resource and I add OCLC numbers to references used in articles.) WP also has Authority control templates. But see LINKFARM and the template external links. And consider that all sorts of libraries have archive material. We do not simply place links like http://melvyl.cdlib.org/ in any article unless it directs to particular, discreet, relevant material.
-My hope is that archives and libraries of all types might put links to directly related material within Wikipedia in the same way they have a formatted section for books or external references; though we began with our collections, my hope is that other archives will add links to their guides to assist users to connect directly with primary source collections on that topic.


Finally, Conor, because you are seeking to expand linking to your particular project/employer, you have a COI problem. You cannot use WP for PROMOTION, no matter how noble the cause.
-I understand that is an ethical concern after attending a Wikipedia workshop and getting a better sense of Wikipedia's cultural mores. For that reason, when we have continued with the Wikipedia archival sources project, I have asked our volunteers to also add links to related archival collections in other repositories to highlight the fact that we are not only trying to connect users with our collections but to model new practices that hopefully will inspire other primary source repositories with collections that directly relate to the topics of articles to add links to the formatted "Archives" section of the links. I believe too often articles merely point to secondary sources like books and articles--but we have the opportunity to help researchers find the actual sources and collections that those books and articles drew on to make their evidence and thus make clear that these sources are using raw evidence to make particular arguments based on primary source materials. Wikipedians could then see these collection themselves and make arguments that may support or refute the findings of the secondary source authors cited in the articles. This may be particularly useful in areas in which facts or articles are in dispute, because all parties could potentially go back to the source evidence.
Thanks for considering my remarks and clarifications. Cmcaseylaborarch (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Srich32977, I had the same initial reaction you did. This has the look of WP:LINKSPAM, but remember that we're talking about a non-commercial, academic archive. This is well within the bounds of WP:FURTHER, and I think the inclusion of these links is encyclopedic and valuable. That said, I think the links as they're being included now may be a little heavy-handed, and there's probably a way we could provide this resource to readers without adding a whole bunch of links to a single university's archives. Ibadibam (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Conor, it looks like you and your compadres are seeking to expand/improve/use WP in areas that are far, far beyond my ability to comment on with any authority. (I am simply a volunteer Wikipedian with a bit of experience, but no special authority.) But here are my concerns: One, I fear that the culture, policy, guidelines, and mores of WP may be in conflict/incompatible with what you are seeking. (Specifically, in terms of WP:LINKFARM.) Two, the volunteers may be newbies who simply are not familiar with the WP:5P's, culture, policies, etc. With this in mind, if your volunteers are going about adding inappropriate external links, their efforts will distract from the contributions and efforts that the "regulars" want to make. (E.g., will the regulars end up herding cats when links to hundreds of cubic feet of archive material stored at various university libraries are added?) Three, in a sense, this is a WP:NOTDIRECTORY issue – we don't set up lists of links that say "here, here, here, etc. are places where you can find archives." (For some topics archive material might be in hundreds of places; aren't there other resources that can assist readers in this regard?) Four, WP has a preference for Secondary sources. (See: WP:PSTS.) Primary sources are used with great caution. (This is more of a FYI point. I understand you are not seeking to use the archives as Primary source material for the articles.) Please note there is no editorial board that you can contact in order to vet your proposal/ideas/aspirations for expanded archive external link presentations. Like Ibadibam I've been cogitating on the issues. So I think I will refer you to the village pump policy in order to vet your ideas. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Right. Anti-elitism is very real on Wikipedia, and some of the more bureaucratic editors will try to stonewall you if they think you're going against the guidelines. I'm thinking I'll put out a request for comment to get input from some of the relevant projects and see if we can build a proper collaborative effort to integrate these links. Does that sound reasonable? Ibadibam (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ibadibam--Asking for some feedback and clarification on this and putting out a request for comment sounds helpful. As you noted, I'm just in this as an academic, non-profit, educational institution archives. In relation to your question about whether there is already a directory of related collections, the answer is "kinda". We do have topical bibliographies, but there is no centrally maintained, topical search across repositories, which is why the idea of listing them in Wikipedia so users can find the main collections relating to a topic if so appealing. Thanks! Cmcaseylaborarch (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I came here after discovering the excessive link list here, with no less than 26 links pointing to your institutions's website in a single section. I share S. Rich's concerns.

Conor, I have no doubt that you have been doing extremely valuable work to preserve the history of the labor movement in the US, and I understand that these collections are available to the general public (which sets them apart from special collections in some other archives). But still, these links will be useful to only a very tiny majority of that article's readers - namely those who live sufficiently close to the city of Seattle, or are able to travel there. Or to put it differently, let me quote from the GLAM external links guide:

Generally, links should only be added to actual online information on the article subject, not to pages saying you have information but not showing it – for example, library or archives catalogues, or a page saying what a fine collection you have, without much illustration of it or discussion of the topic.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, coming here as an interested GLAM participant -- I'd say that this is certainly a vexed issue for archivists and librarians. We are encouraged to participant in open culture projects such as Wikipedia, and then rebuffed (although I understand and appreciate the issues on the other side as well). As a labor archivist, I believe Conor is making a sincere attempt to participate and as one of the leading labor archivists in the country, we are fortunate to have his participation. From what I know, collections related to the ILWU are concentrated at a handful of collecting archival repositories (3-4 major ones), University of Washington certainly being one of those. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to point to materials that are held at a particular institution -- the boundaries of knowledge and scholarship should not be limited to materials that are easy to find, or easy to obtain, but instead judged by relevance to the topic. For those who are interested, this primary source material is a treasure trove that will lead to the creation of new knowledge. I'd say that Conor, your contributions would be even more valuable if you'd also link to collections at other repositories and also to digitized content which would be a particularly valuable contribution. Also, improving the pages themselves and and adding awesome citations to secondary sources would be quite welcome! 67.117.146.191 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National Urban League may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 0580_1002_1350.xml; Civic Unity Committe Records.] 1938-1965. 24.76 cubic feet {58 boxes). At the [http://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcollections/laws Labor Archives of Washington,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Seafarers International Union of North America may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |[[Seafarers International Union of Canada]] (http://www.seafarers.ca])
  • s Union of the Pacific Records]. 1934-1985. Includes San Francisco and Puget Sound Divisions). 90 cubic feet. Affiliated with SIU from 1948–1979, affiliated with [[International Longshore and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Cmcaseylaborarch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Conor, the forgoing is a template message for new editors who have a conflict of interest regarding particular articles they are working on. In your case, the conflict exists because you are adding the external links to your website to a variety of articles. (I could just as well posted a message about WP:SPAM.) Please review these policies. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)