BDeeds

Collections Management Systems Analysis

1. Collections Management Systems Analysis

1.1 Three Wikipedia Articles

Overall, two of the three of the Wikipedia articles I evaluated contained glaring errors and two of the three did not include enough references to verify their statements. However, the advantage of Wikipedia is that misinformation can always be tracked and corrected and references can always be added. Moreover, all three of the articles contained at least one working external link to the subject’s official webpage, meaning it is extremely easy for users to scan the articles and then continue on for more in-depth information. The most significant advantage to using Wikipedia as a collections management system is that Wikipedia is ever changing and evolving, just as the outdoor sculpture we will post articles for will be ever changing, either in its location, condition or even the information relating to the artist that created the sculpture.

1.1.1 Indiana Medical History Museum

Having worked at the Indiana Medical History Museum (IMHM) since October 2005, I felt confident that I could evaluate the content of the IMHM’s Wikipedia entry. The article was of average length. The introductory paragraph was concise description of the building and its national importance. I personally would not have described the museum as a museum dedicated the early scientific research of mental illness the rather than an “Indiana monument.”

Overall, I found the internal Wikipedia links within the text to be appropriately selected. It appears as if the people editing the page have deliberately flagged key people and schools they would like to develop articles for in the future. For example, when the internal links for Adolph Scherrer, Walter Bruetsch, the Central College of Physicians and Surgeons or the Medical College of Indiana are clicked, there is no Wikipedia article available.

In the References Section, the link to reference number four is broken. Fortunately, the link indicates that it connects to the museum’s FAQ sheet, so a determined user, knowing the information was from the FAQ page, could track that information down if he or she so desired.

The most glaring errors are located in the side box featuring the map. The location of the museum is incorrect. The location given is 3000 W. Washington Street, which is likely the old address for Central State Hospital. However, the correct address, which is easily accessed from the IMHM’s webpage, is 3045 W. Vermont Street. This is a serious problem for people unfamiliar with the west side of Indianapolis, because the museum is not accessible from Washington Street at all. Another error is that the side box implies the IMHM’s governing body is the state of Indiana. In fact, the governing body of Central State Hospital was the state of Indiana, but the museum is a private, not-for-profit organization. I found all of the categories for the IMHM relevant except for the category of “1895 architecture.” A more appropriate and informative category might have been “buildings designed by Adolph Scherrer.”

1.1.2 Indiana State Museum

As an employee of the Indiana State Museum (ISM), I felt comfortable evaluating the ISM article. I was surprised that the article did not contain much information. For example, the history section of the article contains only six sentences. However, the information in that section is accurate. The editors of the article have listed the galleries and spaces of the ISM. However, the list includes the gallery “Tomorrow’s Indiana,” even though that space is now closed for renovation to prepare for the ISM’s new Lincoln collection. The section on the historic sites is out of date. Moreover, the paragraph states that some of the state historic sites are overlooked because of the ISM and informs the reader that that the Posey House in Corydon has been vacant for a decade, but gives no sources to verify this assessment.

The official website link in the box is broken, although the link in the external link section works. The other internal and external links work.

One of the categories for ISM is “National Road,” referring to its location on Washington Street. However, there is no mention of the National Road within the ISM article. Otherwise, the categories for ISM were relevant.

1.1.3 The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis

Overall, the article on the children’s museum is well-written, although there are only two citations in the entire article. The second source link does not work. All of the internal links work. However, I am unsure of the relevancy in creating internal links to dates with the article’s text. For example, there is an internal link for July 27. I found all of the categories for the children’s Museum of Indianapolis relevant except for the category of Museums established in 1925.

1.2 Indiana Saves Outdoor Sculpture!

There is no true collections management system for outdoor sculptures in Indiana. There is, however, a book, Remembrance, Faith, and Fancy: Outdoor Sculpture in Indiana, by Glory June Grieff that serves as a useful introductory guide to locating and learning about some of the more well-known outdoor sculptures. It is by no means comprehensive. The first part of the book organizes the sculptures by themes, such as religious or allegorical sculptures. The second part of the book organizes the sculptures by county location. Most people would probably use the county location section of the book to identify a sculpture. The text of the book is written in narrative form, making it difficult to scan the pages quickly to find a specific sculpture. I notice that in the index, the sculptures are listed either by title and location (but not artist) or by artist and piece (but not location). An obvious disadvantage to a printed resource like Greiff’s book is that there is an upper limit on the number of sculptures that can be included as well as how much information can be provided. Moreover, it is simply not feasible to include pictures of many of the sculptures. Another disadvantage is that a book is a physical object, subject to damage and not accessible to multiple users at the same time, unlike an entry in Wikipedia.

1.3 Smithsonian Institution Research Information Systems

I actually found the SIRIS database to be quite informative. The sculptures can be filtered down with some accuracy and most sculptures I looked at contained detailed information on dimensions. The main disadvantages to this system are that it not as well-known and accessible to the public as Wikipedia, it cannot be easily altered or updated and it is “expert-dependent,” meaning that ordinary people cannot claim ownership of the project. And because one of the main goals of SOS and our class is to make people aware of, and inspire them to care for, outdoor sculpture, the SIRIS database will not be as effective as Wikipedia can be.