Talk:Colab

message: Currently, there is a long list of people, entirely based on material by Max Schumann, executive director of a group known as Printed Matter, Inc where the basis of inclusion was based on being a blue link. Some of those people in that list that I trimmed out pending consensus, are heavily dependent on that Printed Matter, Inc source too. Per , it seems like the requisite to be a Colab member is to attend three meetings. I believe a list like this is undue and Wikipedia is also not a webhost. Such directory like information is better suited on their own website, with the exception of particularly notable members that have proper secondary, independent coverage (not cottage mill advocacy agencies for artists) with reference to their membership to Colab. If this was to be the threshold to inclusion, then it would open up door to more and more pages being filled up with people list, such as a church article whose largest content is a list of people who have a Wikipedia entry that are church members whose Wikipedia pages are primarily sourced to borderline sources. Max Schumann source might be considered a WP:SPS given that he's the executive director and publishing it under his own publishing house, rather than the executive director of Printed Matter, Inc who had it published through something totally independent of his own business/organization. Graywalls (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're conflating two things, . That Kiki Smith is a member of Colab is not the issue. That it's a noteworthy piece of her career that warrants mentioning in Colab is. To me this is the same as notability is not inherited. Colab shouldn't need to name drop high profile artists, why do you think that enhances the article? Do we even need a list of members? I'm not sure whether an interview would count for this, defer to others there.        StarM 18:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , we already had that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colab Members and the outcome was to merge the list. I don't want to go over that again. Vexations (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: and as  and I have both said, there's no consensus to merge the whole list. If you are dead set on including Kiki Smith for some reason, fine. Probably about to take this off my watch list anyway as I'm not that interested in the topic.       StarM 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , When I suggested to  I meant that if a high quality source like Grove Art Online, both in their article on Colab AND in their article on the member artist makes mention of said artists' membership, inclusion in a list of member is verifiable, relevant and due. See  and  Vexations (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks . I have looked at this somewhat, although haven't had full time to research it yet. I can't find any evidence to establish their membership in Colab was significant to their careers, likely because threshold was so low to be a member. Almost anyone could be a member. I'd love to be wrong, but right now I see it akin to my getting a promotion during the time I was a Wikipedia admin. One has nothing to do with the other. Hoping to find better sources, otherwise I think this isn't going to be sourceable to the extent required to warrant inclusion.       StarM 14:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we shouldn't include people unless properly sourced, but a dedicated list article might work as a compromise for now. List of Colab members. Acousmana (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes to the List of Colab members - which takes us back to where this waste of time started.Valueyou (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:      I would like to add that the List of Colab members should better be titled a partial list of Colab members. A fuller list (made at the time) can be read in the photograph of it here: List of artists from Colab Moore college of Art catalogue, 1983 https://98bowery.com/return-to-the-bowery/abcnorio-colab Valueyou (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  , I am not sure if were aware when you created the list, but Valueyou already created a spin-off page with just a list of names. I AfD'd it and a consensus was that it should be merged, however the general comment was that it should be selectively merged. The purpose of this discussion we're having here is to decide what to include. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the selection should be done judiciously, not indiscriminately include everyone that is verifiable. I have re-directed the new list you created, which is a re-creation of something for which a consensus has already been established that a stand alone article is not justifiable at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colab_Members Graywalls (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: familiar with not a directory, but what's with all the fuss? Personally, don't think this is such a big deal, the 98 Bowery source is good for the purposes of establishing documented membership. It existed, there were members, this is verifiable, would be in favor of keeping this info, think it adds encyclopedic value. Acousmana (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't include everything verifiable. due weight needs to be considered, and a major consideration is the presence of independent sources. "ABC No Rio Dinero: The Story of a Lower East Side Art Gallery Edited by Alan Moore and Marc Miller New York: ABC No Rio with Collaborative Projects, 1985" This would be a dependent primary source, because it was published by the Colab itself. Max Schumann source would be self published. The idea is to base most of the contents of the article on independent, secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: it really depends what content we are developing, this is hardly a controversial topic, so exluding primary sources is not necessarily a given, local consensus can take precedent, if there is agreement that the Colab article should exist, then fail to see why providing a list of sourced members would be contentious if it's verifiable. Acousmana (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the length of member roster 

message: This is the contents in question whose inclusion or non-inclusion (partial and or in entirety) I am trying to establish consensus. A very lengthy list was inserted by the article's creator, who then spinned it off to a new article about members of Colab, which was AfD'd with conensus to "merge" however, I believe how much of that list's contents are appropriate here is something for discussion here. Graywalls (talk) 
The following is a list of artists who participated in (or were associated with) Colab.Max Schumann (ed.) A Book about Colab (and Related Activities), Printed Matter, Inc, 2016, all pages
*Charlie Ahearn
*John Ahearn
*Liza Bear
*Scott B and Beth B
*Andrea Callard
*Diego Cortez
*Mitch Corber
*Jane Dickson
*Orshi Drozdik
*Stefan Eins
*Carson Grant
*Peter Fend
*Coleen Fitzgibbon
*Ilona Granet
*Marnie Greenholz 
*David Hammons
*Jenny Holzer
*G. H. Hovagimyan
*Joe Lewis
*Eric Mitchell
*Alan W. Moore
*John D Morton
*James Nares
*Joseph Nechvatal
*Tom Otterness
*Judy Rifka
*Walter Robinson
*Christy Rupp
*Kiki Smith
*Seton Smith
*Wolfgang Staehle
*Jolie Stahl
*Robin Winters
 
====discussion====
*Is there any way (via independent sourcing, as I share your Printed Matters concern) to determine which artists' affiliation with Colab was relevant to their careers? Right now this reads as an attempt to raise the profile of Colab with some high profile names for whom this "membership" may not at all be important.       StarM 14:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're conflating two things, . That Kiki Smith is a member of Colab is not the issue. That it's a noteworthy piece of her career that warrants mentioning in Colab is. To me this is the same as notability is not inherited. Colab shouldn't need to name drop high profile artists, why do you think that enhances the article? Do we even need a list of members? I'm not sure whether an interview would count for this, defer to others there.        StarM 18:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , we already had that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colab Members and the outcome was to merge the list. I don't want to go over that again. Vexations (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: and as  and I have both said, there's no consensus to merge the whole list. If you are dead set on including Kiki Smith for some reason, fine. Probably about to take this off my watch list anyway as I'm not that interested in the topic.       StarM 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , When I suggested to  I meant that if a high quality source like Grove Art Online, both in their article on Colab AND in their article on the member artist makes mention of said artists' membership, inclusion in a list of member is verifiable, relevant and due. See  and  Vexations (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks . I have looked at this somewhat, although haven't had full time to research it yet. I can't find any evidence to establish their membership in Colab was significant to their careers, likely because threshold was so low to be a member. Almost anyone could be a member. I'd love to be wrong, but right now I see it akin to my getting a promotion during the time I was a Wikipedia admin. One has nothing to do with the other. Hoping to find better sources, otherwise I think this isn't going to be sourceable to the extent required to warrant inclusion.       StarM 14:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we shouldn't include people unless properly sourced, but a dedicated list article might work as a compromise for now. List of Colab members. Acousmana (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes to the List of Colab members - which takes us back to where this waste of time started.Valueyou (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:      I would like to add that the List of Colab members should better be titled a partial list of Colab members. A fuller list (made at the time) can be read in the photograph of it here: List of artists from Colab Moore college of Art catalogue, 1983 https://98bowery.com/return-to-the-bowery/abcnorio-colab Valueyou (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  , I am not sure if were aware when you created the list, but Valueyou already created a spin-off page with just a list of names. I AfD'd it and a consensus was that it should be merged, however the general comment was that it should be selectively merged. The purpose of this discussion we're having here is to decide what to include. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the selection should be done judiciously, not indiscriminately include everyone that is verifiable. I have re-directed the new list you created, which is a re-creation of something for which a consensus has already been established that a stand alone article is not justifiable at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colab_Members Graywalls (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: familiar with not a directory, but what's with all the fuss? Personally, don't think this is such a big deal, the 98 Bowery source is good for the purposes of establishing documented membership. It existed, there were members, this is verifiable, would be in favor of keeping this info, think it adds encyclopedic value. Acousmana (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't include everything verifiable. due weight needs to be considered, and a major consideration is the presence of independent sources. "ABC No Rio Dinero: The Story of a Lower East Side Art Gallery Edited by Alan Moore and Marc Miller New York: ABC No Rio with Collaborative Projects, 1985" This would be a dependent primary source, because it was published by the Colab itself. Max Schumann source would be self published. The idea is to base most of the contents of the article on independent, secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: it really depends what content we are developing, this is hardly a controversial topic, so exluding primary sources is not necessarily a given, local consensus can take precedent, if there is agreement that the Colab article should exist, then fail to see why providing a list of sourced members would be contentious if it's verifiable. Acousmana (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenged contents

message: *Is there any way (via independent sourcing, as I share your Printed Matters concern) to determine which artists' affiliation with Colab was relevant to their careers? Right now this reads as an attempt to raise the profile of Colab with some high profile names for whom this "membership" may not at all be important.       StarM 14:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're conflating two things, . That Kiki Smith is a member of Colab is not the issue. That it's a noteworthy piece of her career that warrants mentioning in Colab is. To me this is the same as notability is not inherited. Colab shouldn't need to name drop high profile artists, why do you think that enhances the article? Do we even need a list of members? I'm not sure whether an interview would count for this, defer to others there.        StarM 18:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , we already had that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colab Members and the outcome was to merge the list. I don't want to go over that again. Vexations (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: and as  and I have both said, there's no consensus to merge the whole list. If you are dead set on including Kiki Smith for some reason, fine. Probably about to take this off my watch list anyway as I'm not that interested in the topic.       StarM 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , When I suggested to  I meant that if a high quality source like Grove Art Online, both in their article on Colab AND in their article on the member artist makes mention of said artists' membership, inclusion in a list of member is verifiable, relevant and due. See  and  Vexations (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks . I have looked at this somewhat, although haven't had full time to research it yet. I can't find any evidence to establish their membership in Colab was significant to their careers, likely because threshold was so low to be a member. Almost anyone could be a member. I'd love to be wrong, but right now I see it akin to my getting a promotion during the time I was a Wikipedia admin. One has nothing to do with the other. Hoping to find better sources, otherwise I think this isn't going to be sourceable to the extent required to warrant inclusion.       StarM 14:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we shouldn't include people unless properly sourced, but a dedicated list article might work as a compromise for now. List of Colab members. Acousmana (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes to the List of Colab members - which takes us back to where this waste of time started.Valueyou (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:      I would like to add that the List of Colab members should better be titled a partial list of Colab members. A fuller list (made at the time) can be read in the photograph of it here: List of artists from Colab Moore college of Art catalogue, 1983 https://98bowery.com/return-to-the-bowery/abcnorio-colab Valueyou (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  , I am not sure if were aware when you created the list, but Valueyou already created a spin-off page with just a list of names. I AfD'd it and a consensus was that it should be merged, however the general comment was that it should be selectively merged. The purpose of this discussion we're having here is to decide what to include. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the selection should be done judiciously, not indiscriminately include everyone that is verifiable. I have re-directed the new list you created, which is a re-creation of something for which a consensus has already been established that a stand alone article is not justifiable at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colab_Members Graywalls (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: familiar with not a directory, but what's with all the fuss? Personally, don't think this is such a big deal, the 98 Bowery source is good for the purposes of establishing documented membership. It existed, there were members, this is verifiable, would be in favor of keeping this info, think it adds encyclopedic value. Acousmana (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't include everything verifiable. due weight needs to be considered, and a major consideration is the presence of independent sources. "ABC No Rio Dinero: The Story of a Lower East Side Art Gallery Edited by Alan Moore and Marc Miller New York: ABC No Rio with Collaborative Projects, 1985" This would be a dependent primary source, because it was published by the Colab itself. Max Schumann source would be self published. The idea is to base most of the contents of the article on independent, secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: it really depends what content we are developing, this is hardly a controversial topic, so exluding primary sources is not necessarily a given, local consensus can take precedent, if there is agreement that the Colab article should exist, then fail to see why providing a list of sourced members would be contentious if it's verifiable. Acousmana (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion

message: *I was annoyed to see my name deleted as a Colab member.  While I did not have a show at the Whitney, I am certainly notable when discussing both my long connection to Colab, and my history of presenting artist content on the web.  As noted by "someone" "Naming select members, however, feels like a patent violation of the group’s ethos."  We all knew who the pre Times Square Show members were exactly, and yes after the Times Square Show, who was a member or even which organization was  Colab became both blurred and annoying to the original group.  But wikipedia rules have made this page totally boring and lifeless.  Some of the  most interesting and important non-artist members are not even mentioned. I applaud Alan Moore's efforts, but perhaps Colab does not fit well into such a dead style.  This page reads like an autopsy of a dead group of artists. Someone from the founding group such as Alan needs to be the gatekeeper, if the there is going to be a list -- and I am sure we don't need one with the heading "notable." FK  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colab1945 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2022 discussion

message: When looking into the long list of people, I am seeing Max Schumann, publishing through Printed Matters, an organization to which he is the executive director; as well as 98bowery/Marc Miller and that book about Colab by Alan Moore very frequently used. When determining due weight, I believe it is necessary to determine that if they're affiliated with Colab or if those sources are truly independent of Colab, ABC No Rio and people whose biography mentioned in written pieces by those people. Graywalls (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , given that you appear to be far more involved than tangentially involved (tangentially involved, for example, people who edit on Microsoft products while co-incidentally being a Windows user/Microsoft customer), I believe your direct edits to the article is a concern given your level of involvement and it'd be better if your changes are proposed here. Graywalls (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

text: this edit was a while ago, but the comment you were asked by one of the members suggests you had/have a working relation with the organization and their members, thus COI concerns. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: MARC MILLER and ALAN MOORE

message: The questions posed above has not been addressed satisfactorily yet. Despite repeated use of the same Hyperallergic sources, a large portion of materially significant contents of the article remain sourced to the aforementioned Miller, Moore, Schumann published via his own Printed Matter, Inc,  dependent sources, so I don't feel when to remove template was quite satisfied to resolve primary and connected source dependence concern. Discussion would be much appreciated. Thank you all, Graywalls (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , given that you appear to be far more involved than tangentially involved (tangentially involved, for example, people who edit on Microsoft products while co-incidentally being a Windows user/Microsoft customer), I believe your direct edits to the article is a concern given your level of involvement and it'd be better if your changes are proposed here. Graywalls (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

text: this edit was a while ago, but the comment you were asked by one of the members suggests you had/have a working relation with the organization and their members, thus COI concerns. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: recently removed maintenance template

message: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Nechvatal#WP:COI Graywalls (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw it. This COI tag is misleading and should be removed immediately.Valueyou (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

text: , That's a bit vague. Who is the editor with the CoI? What statements specifically are not NPOV? Vexations (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   where are you getting that there has to be a very specific identification? The participants over time, the sources used (some of which are closely tied with those involved with Colab). But one example of non-appearance of neutrality is rattling off names/exhibits, sourced to printedmatter. , as a previous participant to talk page here, looking at the article in current state, do you have a comment you can add? Graywalls (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I don't see any rattling off names. Where is it, and which editor with a CoI introduced it? I fixed the list of notable members. Out of concern that I wouldn't provide enough evidence of membership to satisfy you, it has far more sources than ought to be necessary, but that's easily fixed. Just select the the two best ones for each artist. That we list exhibitions is unavoidable, because organizing exhibitions is what the group did. It is their entire raison d'être. Vexations (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks  for the ping as I was no longer watching this page. There was someone who declared a COI, or at least discussed it on their user page. Trying to find it now. The broader issues in the threads above remain that most of the entities that covered Colab were in some way tied, so I'm not sure if it's a COI or a neutral sourcing (for which there might not be a tag) issue. For example, Kiki Smith/MoMA press. Folks have Opinions on certain content that belongs here and their Opinions were way stronger than my desire to trim it so we have major cite overkill issues that I'm not sure can be resolved.       StarM 16:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , what are you referring to with "Kiki Smith/MoMA press". There is no such thing as MoMA press. The article doesn't cite any publications by MoMA about Smith. Can you clarify how you think there is a CoI there? Vexations (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  citation 49 is literally a MoMA press release (although it was Otterness, not Kiki Smith, I misread) 57 is https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_133_300163669.pdf MoMA talked about Kiki Smith based on materials she/her team would have provided. So when on p3, she's talking about her participation in Colab it's not independent sourcing. I already agreed to disagree on this above, and will not remove the sources. Just answering the question you asked. If consensus is that they're going to stay, it would be very helpful to use refill or another tool so it provides title, etc. in case MoMA changes their URL structure. Let me know if this is helpful.       StarM 01:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_133_300163669.pdf is a copy of an exhibition catalogue, not a press release. I don't think that the associate curator in the department of prints and illustrated books at the Museum of Modern Art has a conflict of interest with Colab merely by collaborating on an exhibition with one former member. Vexations (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, agreed to disagree  and I won't be taking editorial action as I respect your POV on the issue. You and other editors have just as right to an opinion as I do, and there's obviously no clear cut answer to this unless someone wants to go through 3rd Opinion.        StarM 14:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , If I understand you correctly, you think that Kiki Smith, who has not edited this article, has a conflict of interest, because a statement of fact, made by the curator of the Museum of modern art, that is corroborated by other sources, was "based on materials she/her team would have provided", a claim for which you have presented no evidence. Have I got that right so far? Vexations (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I have removed the citation of a a MoMA press release in support of the claim that Otterness was a Colab member that I added in . That was my mistake. We should not be using press releases as sources. Vexations (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I have concluded a CoI investigation and listed all editors with a conflict of interest in the  template. For the most part, those editors made minor changes the article that were factual, even if sources were not provided. It should be noted that many of those contributions date from around 2009, when sourcing requirements were not as rigorously enforced as they are now. My conclusion is that there is no non-NPOV content in the article that has been contributed by editors with a conflict of interest. The article is not biased by a conflict of interest, so I will remove the COI tag. Vexations (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag (March 2021)