Talk:American Alliance of Museums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Museums (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merger[edit]

As indicated by the template above, the article Media&Technology was recently merged and redirected to this article. However, there has been some exuberant edit-warring to keep the two articles separate, leading me to conclude that we need to have a discussion of the merger.

IMO, the merger makes abundant sense, for multiple reasons:

  1. Media&Technology is a committee or section of this professional organization. The AAM is a notable topic for the encyclopedia, but I have seen no indication that this committee is notable (within the meaning of that word in Wikipedia, including the definition at WP:ORG), independent of the professional organization of which it is a part.
  2. The article American Alliance of Museums is not particularly long, so it is not a candidate for splitting.
  3. The article Media&Technology was created 5 years ago, was tagged as an orphan 4 years ago but is still an orphan, and receives little page-view traffic. This record of neglect supports the view that the topic does not merit a separate article.
  4. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting organizations. It appears (from various bits of evidence) that most of the edits to the article historically have been by users who seem to be members of the Media&Technology committee, who therefore have an understandable pride in their organization and have been trying to use Wikipedia to increase its visibility. Not only is that kind of advertising inappropriate, but committee members have a conflict of interest that raises a red flag here.

Let's restore the merger of these two articles. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The article seems to have been originally created by the committee in 2008, and the undo of the merger seems to have been done by someone with a conflict of interest (the edit summaries mention the Chair). The edit summary appears to base the need for a separate page on whether it will be actively maintained (by a "small NFP"; presumably the committee).
Wikipedia's standards seem to be very clear on this overall. Again, the reasons for merger are Text, Context, and the history of the article (including creation and editors). Has the IP address from which the anonymous edit was made been notified of the discussion?
Additionally, a search of Wikipedia for the Chairs listed does not return any articles and it would appear this information (namely, listing the chairs of one committee of one organization) is non-encyclopedic. A mere list of names without context or notability (WP:NLIST).--JC1008 (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I notified one IP about this discussion, but I failed to notice that several different IPs and at least one registered single-purpose account have been energetically involved with undoing the merger and editing Media&Technology. Some of these appear to be shifting IPs at the same places, and all are presumably committee members with a COI, but I guess that more notifications are needed. --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes; I did look up who was doing them. Looking at the way the material is put together and what was chosen for it, I assume good faith and get the idea they might have seen merging as judgement on the value of the organization (combined with some misunderstandings - for example: WP:COPYPASTE, or the edit summary "small NFP volunteer group doing this"). Obviously, it's not judgement, and merging is just complying with Wikipedia guidelines. Given the multi-year orphan status and low page views, the content would even be better off in the AAM article if they want people to read it. Both articles need citations and some re-writing, so providing some Wikipedia guidance on writing articles might help here. --JC1008 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I had seen multiple users and edit summaries that indicated COI, but I had failed to notice the difference between,, and, all of which edited these pages in a short period of time.
As for the need for merger, I also think that Wikipedia guidelines require a merger. However, because the merger instigated an edit war, I decided it would be best to start this discussion. After 4+ years, a few days of discussion shouldn't do any harm. --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops. I too missed that at first, clicking through them. --JC1008 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience with this. I understand your logical desire to merge these pages. Would it be possible to not lose any of the new data that has been added with this merger? Thank you for your consideration. --SAS12345 (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2013
A merger wouldn't lose newer information. The article, does, however, need edits (see the page for the boxes in each section). There's no need to hurry on edits or having a number of members do them - just help get some good, relevant, neutral content. I'd recommend solving that copyright issue first and then working on finding some reliable sources for citations. It is probably not necessary to have a committee chairs list for one committee of one organization in an encyclopedia, but other than that, most of the content just needs edits.
This page provides some good information for editors associated with organizations, and at the very bottom there are important links to review like the style guidelines: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You can also always ask for help. When in doubt, ask yourself if your edits sound appropriate for an encyclopedia and how you'd feel reading the same content/tone about another organization. Again, this content is probably better off in the AAM article if you want people to read it. There's a bunch of pages linking to AAM (some of which I've added over the last few months), but none linking to the committee. --JC1008 (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I didn't even know they had their own article. COI: I'm a member of AAM and lend a hand with some things regarding the Media & Tech group. One of the lead organizers of the group told me she was going to post something on "our Wikipedia page," and I was like "UHHH NOOO PLEASE DON'T DO THAT." I wholeheartedly support the merger. Let's get it over with, please. Missvain (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
This discussion appears stale, it also appears that the consensus is overwhelming supportive of a "merge". Over 2 years later this has finally been done! Garchy (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Does the AAM accredit museums? So claims the Wikipedia article, "Virginia Museum of Natural History", which goes on to assert that "re-accreditation" by the AAM is a high honor. If the AAM accredits museums, then this article should discuss that fact, and give some information on such accreditation's history, process, standards, etc. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)