Mega-Gem? Wow, cool!

According to my math, we now have 4 articles. But there is still one more day left …

Here’s the current list:

Christina’s Sutphin Fountain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutphin_Fountain

Jasmine’s Numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_0-9

Urbanophile’s Mega-Gem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega-Gem

And, just this evening Joelle made one for the LOVE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVE_%28Sculpture%29

Not bad: 4 new articles about IMA sculptures. I’ll start working this week to get some times from Max as to when he can have lunch at Pucks with you all – and maybe one more, if someone makes one on the 30th? I think Max is going to be stoked to meet you, and the food will be pretty good.

Also Urbanophile may have considerably raised the bar in this wiki business. I think he’s right, individual pages would be most preferable, rather than one big page. And if I understand correctly the category page would be the way to go. I think he’s made such a think in his Mega-Gem article.

What’s odd is that the images for the Numbers and Sutphin fountain have been removed because they were missing “missing essential information” or “unkown”. I wonder if anyone else has a good handle on why these images were removed ….

I love how Joelle has interlinked these sculptures. Very cool.

I’ll be in contact with you all via e-mail this week.

Thanks!

I created one for “Mega Gem”. I can actually create small entries for all of the artwork in that area of the grounds if you want me too. I also have pictures of all of the works from many angles, but they would all appear to be copyrighted art works.

The Sculptures in Central Park one is nice, but that might actually obviate the need for any individual pages, given the short length of what was created. Wikipedia’s guidelines would appear to preclude me making any editorial statements on the art works, which tends to limit things to bare facts.

A better approach might be a category page, which I’m also happy to make.

I’m sorry to hear of your headache. I know that it took me a while to get used to the software, too.

I’ll send you an e-mail with some more info.

Anyhow, here’s the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_0-9

Thanks for the reply. I’m happy to have your critique. I think your astroturfing point is a good one, and something that the IMA must keep in mind. (Though In Wikipedia terms, I would like to propose the deletion of your offer to apologize on the grounds that it is unnecessary – please come around as often as you like.)

“Conundrum” is right. We’re not really selling anything here at the IMA. We’re kind of like a church in that way: we believe in art and want to influence you so that you understand why we believe in it. And if I really stretch this analogy to its limits, then this blog is a kind of proselytizing and my commenting on other blogs is a kind of missionary work. But I digress, gratuitously. Forget I even brought up the church analogy. In any case, I think we’re trying to advance something positive and for the greater good.

We’ll see what comes of all this ….

I would like to share an article about what it’s like to make entries in Wikipedia that a friend sent today:

The Charms of Wikipedia
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131?email

That I like this article so much may be a true sign that I may be a little too geeked-up about Wikipedia. I was literally laughing out loud during lunch with all my colleagues today while I read the bit about Pop-Tarts and the deletion of the article on and apparently by Plamen Ognianov Kemenov, which read, in its entirety: “Hi, my name is Plamen Ognianov Kemenov. I am Bulgarian. I am smart.”

Man, if only everything was that simple and true.