Talk:Shared historical authority

Removal of keywords and in practice sections

Hi there. I'm not really sure what the point of the keywords section of the article is. I think we should remove it; if these words are so important to the concept, they should be used throughout the article (and linked to internal articles), thus we don't need a keyword section. On a second note, I also believe that the "in practice" section should be removed. Not only does it show conflict of interest with Lubar, therefore making it appear like self promotion (please see WP:SELFPROMOTE), but, this section discusses a project that is taking place but hasn't been completed. As stated in WP:FUTURE, we aren't a crystal ball, so we prefer not to have pending projects promoted. Upon the case study's release, we can use it as a citation or as subject matter for a further reading section. Thoughts? SarahStierch (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. Here are the removed sections, in case anyone can think of a good way to edit them back to health.

"/* Key words */ A number of terms are used to describe the participants who are sharing authority in this kind of public history programs, including: crowdsourcing, audience participation, creative participation, and public curation. The different connotations of the language mark varied expectations about who will be participating, including: ordinary people, museum constituents, audiences, users, visitors, partners, the community, and the public.

/* In practice */ In autumn, 2011 Curator asked Brown University professor Steven Lubar to write a review of Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World. In the spirit of letting go, Lubar asked his class of graduate students to create a review of Letting Go? that truly shared authority. This Wikipedia page is the result of an in-class discussion about the various methods to let go of a book review. The students hoped that as the book's circulation increased, so too would edits, revisions, and discussion on this page." (cut sections) Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement of this article

Rather than posting a vague and less-useful clean up tag on this article, I thought it'd be helpful to list a few suggestions for its improvement, so as to be in line with Wikipedia Manual of Style standards (see WP:MOS). The article is well on its way, so great job so far!

I agree with the above points. I'd also add to these suggestions:

• Per WP:CITE, be sure to add citations after every declaration of fact (which is quite frequently.) So far there are entire sections that are not cited at all. This should be remedied as soon as possible.
• The section on Letting Go should be revamped to not rely so heavily on lists of ideas. These should be made more concise and developed in a prose style.
• Please improve the Lead section (see WP:LEAD) to better illustrate the main premise of the concept. A reader should be able to understand the concept in full via the Lead, with additional details in the body of the article. This would be a good place to move the Key words section, after a bit of a revamp.
• The Examples section cannot have external links to the sites. These have been removed and the text has been made to be more encyclopedic in a prose style. Citations are needed for some of these examples.
• Be conscious of jargon and avoid non-neutral descriptors within the text. The goal is to be as factual, neutral, and encyclopedic as possible. This has been remedied a bit but the text could perhaps use another run through.

Thanks for taking the first step in sharing this important concept! Let me know if you have any questions. Happy to help! LoriLee (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)