Talk:Amy Karle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article needs to be rewritten

I found this article while following up what appears to be WP:UPE editing. The article has the typical problems of such editing: a poorly referenced, promotional presentation. Compare to what may be the last good version: [1]. Everything that's not supported by BLP-quality refs should be removed. We need to identify the references that establish WP:BIO, and other high-quality references. --Hipal (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal, I agree with your observation. It was heavily edited by the artist some time ago, so it is definitely a COI article (they then changed their user name after adding links and photos of their work to several other articles.) Then the additions were made by an IP. Whether there is now UPE editing going on is a distinct possibility. It also contains an excessive amount of detail (possible OR?) which should probably be pruned. Netherzone (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal BLP-quality refs list below, plus myself and other editors have made updates. What else needs be done to resolve the issues and remove the templates? ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal Netherzone I agree with you. This page was originally created as part of a Women in Red editing project (University of Edinburgh). Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red

I think it might help if folks have a look at the relevant advice page for biographies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Essays/Primer_for_creating_women%27s_biographies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Essays/Primer_for_creating_women%27s_biographies

@ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey It does seem to me that the page has become overloaded with content and the number of references is excessive. A shorter page might be a lot clearer and more effective. Grousebeater2 (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I looked at the GA rated article on Neri Oxman as an example of how to update the article on Amy Karle. Neri Oxman and Amy Karle have exhibited together and both have a number of works and extensive reference lists on their articles. I updated the article in a style more like Oxman’s and also referenced the Primer for creating women’s biographies.

I am a student editor and looked at this in detail with a peer reviewer in my class. Neither one of us know nor have a COI with either Oxman nor Karle. We think it’s updated appropriately now with a neutral point of view, not written as an advertisement, thus I removed the template tag.

I hope that my work has "sufficiently updated" the article and I welcome improvements to the work I have done. -LWu22 (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. While an improvement, much more is needed.

I'm still not clear which are the BIO refs, and the article doesn't appear to be written around such references.

GA articles can be helpful, but it's no substitute for following policies, guidelines, and general consensus. --Hipal (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hipal, I followed the BLP policies/guidelines, and used the BIO refs. In addition, I referenced the Primer for women's bios (and GA article of a similar person as a guideline). My peer reviewer and I are unclear why you re-added the template tag. My teacher suggested that I ask about each issue in the template on the talk page and try to resolve them one by one. Here it is:

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (August 2023). Reviewing the edits that myself and others have made it seems this has been resolved. Please point out areas that still need to be fixed or remove the template for this.

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (August 2023) I agree that past edits read as though there was COI / UPE. We did some investigation with our teacher but couldn't find where an editor was found to be COI / UPE. We also reviewed the edit history. We couldn't find what User:Netherzone was referring to either. We did find where the artist uploaded images (clicked on the image and followed the username) and then changed their username, but not where the artist edited this article on herself under either username. Assuming good faith *and also recognizing previous problematic COI/UPE, it appears the edits that myself and others have made recently overcome previous potential COI/UPE edits. Please point out areas that still need to be fixed or remove the template for this.

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (August 2023) This was an issue with the major works section, so I re-wrote that section. Please point out areas that still contain an excessive amount of intricate detail or remove the template for this.

I am trying to improve this page through WikiProject Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon and get it to good standing where the template tags will be removed. LWu22 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've provided a diff of what I think is a fairly good version of this article to use in comparison. The subsequent three edits look fine, so this version is better.

@Netherzone:, could you address the COI/UPE questions?

A BLP article where WP:BIO-criteria references aren't clearly identifiable is a serious problem.

The main contributor to this article, the now blocked ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey, has demonstrated below a lack of understanding of what references are suitable for BLP articles per WP:BLPRS. That's a serious problem.

While we've made some progress, there's a lot more to be done. My recommendations from my starting this discussion still stand. --Hipal (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

My recommendations from my first response in the discussion below still stand.

I've removed the long list of museums where she's exhibited that was poorly referenced and inappropriate for the lede. A summary statement may be WP:DUE if supported by independent references that clearly demonstrate historical importance. --Hipal (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal, @LWu22, I've been totally slammed at work the past few weeks, and don't have as much free time for volunteering.

I haven't yet read thru all the changes that have been made since I was pinged, but can definitely agree with Hipal's suggestion that the article was much better when it was shorter (their suggestion of the "last good version": [2]) after it was cleaned up by @Possibly. In general, the article was easy to spot as being COI/promo, both by the edit history and the overall tone being unencyclopedic in a specific way that's fairly clear to spot after you've been editing a while. The excessive detail, spammy sources, ref-bombing repeated removal of the COI template w/o consensus and general promotional-style combined with the fact that the artist and SPAs and a sock have edited the article, and also added photos of their work to other articles is indicative of this as well, (a form of image-spam). That is how I first became aware of this article and the artist. I apologize if that sounds critical, as she is an interesting artist, so it was a shame that the article stood out that way. Glad to see there is this effort to clean it up.

I'll try to find some time today and/or tomorrow to review the changes and and read thru everything here, but please be patient. Many thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've done a read-thru of the the article for form/format (have not yet checked the sources, nor the quality thereof). IMO, there are still issues that need attention. I can go ahead and make the changes if there are no objections. Here are my thoughts; feedback is welcome:

• Reduce size or remove the bold-italic subheadings that are the titles of projects/works.  Done
• Both Regenerative Reliquary and The Heart of Evolution need further copy-editing for redundancy and tone. Also the former seems to be ref-bombed. They both could be shortened.  Partly done RR is ref-bombed and sourcing needs to be checked; HoE is sourced to an interview with her which is a primary source, a secondary source would be better.
• In general the article seems to be ref-bombed; an artist's full CV/resume of things written about them is not necessary to include and only adds to the promotional quality. The very best sources should be used. This can be a later conversation.
• There are multiple instances where certain terms are capitalized when they do not need to be.  Done
• There are a few instances of euphemisms being used rather than using direct, strait-forward encyclopedic terms, for example "passed away" ---> died; "around the world" --> internationally, "boundaries of creation" --> ?(not sure what that is)?, etc.
• Is she really the first artist to use AI? I don't know that that claim can be made in WikiVoice.
• Awards, and Distinctions and a couple of the more prestigious Residencies can be combined. (Normally residencies are not included, they belong on the artist's personal website, or their gallery's website). They don't need to be 3 separate sections, as they are all honors.  Done and removed non-notable ones; renamed as section "Awards and honors"
• The long laundry-list of exhibitions should be shortened to about 5 or 6 of the most prestigious, with an introductory sentence that mentions a selections of the countries where here work has been shown.  Done - moved to talk page, as the most important ones are already in the article.
• There is a lot of redundancy in the article that should be cleaned up.

Hope that is helpful! Netherzone (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Great suggestions! I'm very concerned about the use of Wikipedia's voice. The reference-bombing is a problem that makes it difficult to determine weight and presentation. Some of the terminology seems inworld, some redundant. --Hipal (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like at least some of the tags can be removed now that Netherzone has rewritten the article, but ref issue still remains. I updated the tag to reflect the current status of needing to weed out ref bombing and ref reliable sources 174.197.65.199 (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Article still requires cleaning up as it has been heavily edited by numerous SPAs and the artist. Please understand that maintenance tags are NOT a badge of shame, they are a way to notify unconnected editors to be aware of these issues, and ultimately are there for article improvement by unconnected editors. I'm also not sure that the "overly detailed" issues are entirely resolved. And the article is still heavily ref-bombed. I'll continue to work on it, but the references need to be gone thru one by one because many of them were being used to supposedly "support" content in the article but did not support the claims that were being made. This takes time. These are all indications of conflict of interest COI. This work takes time and analysis; please be patient. There is no deadline for these improvements to be made. Netherzone (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

WiG brief review

Posting in response to the request at WIG. I'm sorry to say that this is far from GA standards at the moment, and promotionalism is the most serious concern. The article needs a complete overhaul, and someone without a connection to the subject should do it. I suggest beginning by identifying sources with intellectually independent content, and using those to frame a brief draft; and then filling in only the most essential biographical detail with other sources. This may require a considerable shortening of the article, but a start-class page that is dispassionately written is far superior to a lengthy puff-piece, which this remains despite the good-faith effort put into it. Pruning will also help with tone issues, which are most obvious in the bits sourced to non-independent sources; but otherwise, I suggest reviewing usage of adjectives and adverbs in particular, and removing all that don't directly contribute to reader understanding. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Vanamonde93, thank you for this, and I agree with you it needs an overhaul, and is nowhere near GA status. @Hipal had pinged me about the COI/promo/advert issues (I had placed the COI tag some time ago), and I began doing some cleaning up today. I wrote up a checklist of items that need work in the section above called Talk:Amy Karle#Article needs to be rewritten. This checklist is by no means complete. I agree 100% that it would help if the article was pruned back to a short article, and all of the superfluous sourcing/ref-bombing (primary, blogs, press releases, etc.) trimmed. Netherzone (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your review @Vanamonde93 and for your checklist and updates @Netherzone. The review process and your checklist are very helpful, as is the information and discussions with the meetup.

The article still needs a lot of work and is not ready for a GA nomination next week. Before Netherzone, I had tried to update it to GA standards using Wikipedia guidelines. I made good faith edits to improve, but it seems the article was in too bad of shape before I arrived.

I would still like to help improve the article and eventually get it to GA status. Netherzone, I see you referred to a "last good version": [here] from before COI/promo/advert issues. I'd like to draw from this version to replace some of the removed content. The areas that I would like to review and re-add are the sections on: Residencies, Awards, and "The Heart of Evolution" in the Major Works section, and any other works were included in the "last good version". I'd double check all info, sources, and make any necessary updates before re-adding. What do you think about this? I would appreciate your advice and suggestions. Asking first and proceeding cautiously here since there is a lot going on with this page! LWu22 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Karle is an interesting artist, however the article still has several low-quality sources, and primary sources which should be cleaned up, and there is the matter of REFBOMBING to address. The article has a long history of COI editing, PR, promotional/advertorial tone and content. Not all of that is cleaned up. WP policy states that the encyclopedia is not an appropriate place for promotion. See WP:PROMOTION, in particular #4 on Self-promotion, and #5 on Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. It sounds like a lot of what you want to add back belongs on her personal website, not in an encyclopedia article. I would suggest being patient while unconnected volunteer editors proceed with clean up as their time is limited. There is no deadline. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The timeframe I referred to is from the edit-a-thon, I was in no way trying to impose that on other editors.

The content that I was referring to restoring was from what @Netherzone had referred to as a "last good version" from "before COI/promo/advert issues". From wiki BLP outlines and guidelines it appears that including major artworks, shows, residencies, and awards like how they were included on that "last good version" is standard to describe what the person does and has accomplished as long as they are notable, backed up by non-promotional quality secondary references, and are not in the long list like below. Is that correct?

From that version it seems like a big part of the artists way of working is participating in residencies and exhibiting but now that appears to have been completely removed. I would appreciate clarification on if these sections should be included for this and other pages that I edit. I am also an unconnected volunteer editor (feel free to do a checkuser) I don't need to edit this page if you don't want me to. I'd like to understand why these categories are allowed and included on other GA articles of similar people like Neri Oxman but not here when following same rules, and what should be included on articles like both of theirs. For example, there is a large section on Oxman's work as a professor, but not as Karle's work as a resident, though both appear to be a significant part of how they work from sources on them. Thank you in advance for your clarity and not biting the newcomer. LWu22 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I also asked about it here under Good article question to ensure the articles are accurate. I'm working towards GA status overall in all my editing. LWu22 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Tags from October

There are tags on the main article: problems with sources and close connection. At this point since Netherzone has rewritten the article, that tag should be placed on the talk page with the handles defined like on Talk:Stephen Barrett

174.197.73.31 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The article still needs additional clean up, and the sources too need to be analyzed and cleaned up. There is no calendar deadline for tag removal, it has to do with resolving the issues. Netherzone (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Copy on the source tag.

What is the issue with the COI tag that remains? Looks like you've re-written it. 174.197.64.112 (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Netherzone re-wrote the article in sept. coi tag added/re-added in oct. Netherzone said above he and Hipal acting in concert (under WiG > "@Hipal had pinged me about the COI/promo/advert issues") that behavior is showing up again now with Hipal and Netherzone right after each other timing with reverts. What's going on here? 80.149.170.9 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Best to focus on content.

Given the comments by Netherzone, there appears to be much more work to do. --Hipal (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Focusing on content, the issue that remains is to sort through the refs and clean those up.

The coi has been resolved by Netherzone rewriting. There is no longer any content issue related to coi.

Please stop reverting and re-adding the coi tag. That tag is not related to the content of the current article. If you believe that a coi issue remains please follow the proper channels and open an investigation. 24.7.42.20 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The tag is indeed related to the content of the current article. The COI/UPE issues in the content of the article have not yet been resolved, it is still in the process of clean up. The vast, vast majority of us editors on Wikipedia are unconnected, unpaid volunteers, so please be patient. What's the hurry? Netherzone (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that the COI template has again been removed against consensus. Hmmm, a fleet of anonymous IPs repeatedly removing a COI template - another mark of undisclosed paid editing. The obvious COI is obvious. Also paid branding [3]. And previously multiple articles being image spammed. Also WP:CITEKILL is still a problem. I've removed some of the SEO spammy content and references, but there is still a lot of work to be done in regards to the content in relation to the sources. I suggest you restore the template until this work has been completed. Netherzone (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Partial protection? --Hipal (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I had the same thought. Netherzone (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Following up on the tags.

[|Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest (COI) guidelines] do not explicitly require the addition of a tag in cases of suspected COI. It states "...In cases where the user does not say they have a COI, biased editing can be changed back to follow the neutral point of view policy", a principle which Netherzone has followed. This article has been almost completely rewritten since the tags were added. From June 22, 2023 to December 25, 2023 there were 266 revisions by 39 users[4] Only the following phrases seem to remain from the June 22, 2023 version:

1) "Amy Karle (born 1980) is an American artist bioartist and futurist whose work focuses on the relationship between technology and humanity, specifically how technology and biotechnology impact health, humanity, society, evolution, and the future."

2) "Karle combines science and technology with art and is known for using living tissue in her work."

3) "In 2019, she was named one of the BBC's 100 women."

4) "Karle was born with a rare condition, aplasia cutis congenita, missing a large region of skin on her scalp and also missing bone in her skull."

Regarding the NFT section, the sources are bad and it reads promotional. Would someone with editing status to do so review and remove or update? I don't have the status to remove the NFT section.

Netherzone would you consider removing the NFT section and removing this tag? @ing you as you appear active and constructive on rewriting the article.

If the COI no longer impacts the article's content, it may be time to remove the COI tag to avoid unnecessary conflict and ensure productive collaboration.

Would unaffiliated neutral admin / editors help with evaluating if the tags can now be removed?

205.220.129.27 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you have been helped on IRC by DF6-7 who gave you relevant information at length, therefore, I'm disarming the help tag - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

!P 205, please do not edit, delete or refactor other editor's talk page messages per WP:TPO. I have not yet had a chance to go through all of the sources to check whether they accurately reflect and support the claims and content being cited. There have been numerous examples, as can be seen in the article history where the sources were misrepresented. Netherzone (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

talk Sorry about that, it was an accident. DF6-7 mentioned the Smithsonian Article, so I updated that in the talk thread and I was trying to remove the help tag as I got help. Regarding the remaining issues in the article, the NFT section in the article looks problematic and promotional and I believe that can be removed. What do you think? Regarding the references in the article, the Sina Contemporary Art Chinese Article looks weak. A stronger article for this artwork could be this one from Popular Science https://www.popsci.com/lab-grown-bones-on-display/

The request for help is also in teahouse [[5]] What do you think about updating to Remsense suggestion: "I would remove the COI tag, but perhaps put a tag if you think it is still biased."?? 205.220.129.27 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, 205, it is suggested that you refrain from slinging around accusations of bias towards editors with whom you disagree whether or not a tag is to be kept or removed. Secondly, maintenance tags are not a badge of shame, why would you think that? They are a heads-up to the community that an article needs additional work. Thirdly, the sources still need to be checked against the claims for integrity sake. Lastly, could you please explain what the hurry is for you, and strangely, with the fleet of other IPs and SPAs insisting that the COI tag be removed? Karle is an interesting and notable artist, who IMO, deserves an accurate and succinct article; there is no deadline for this, so please stop trying to impose one. Netherzone (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the NFT section as requested on this talk page. The section on the work, Cyborg Fashion (2022–2023), is sourced to a blog, (blogs are not considered reliable source), and the blog does not contain the quotation in the article. What is the correct source for the quotation? Netherzone (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding replacing the Sina Contemp. Art citation with the Popular Science citation, that does not make sense. The reason is that it that the PopSci article does not back up the claim, It has been exhibited internationally. of which there is no mention. The section on Regenerative Reliquary (2016) is already excessively ref-bombed, with seven sources. One or two sources would be sufficient. What are the two strongest sources? Netherzone (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS Please check refs and add sources before removing information or undoing edits

Glad to see editors are eager to help update this page. I'm seeing edits being undone that had quality refs. Before removing information from the article, undoing edits, or removing vital information, please check through the refs on the article, the below refs, and/or search for supporting high quality sources and add supporting BLP quality refs as opposed to removing information or undoing edits. -ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that WP:BLP requires poorly referenced content to be removed. --Hipal (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS BLP Quality References:

In response to the template and to support editing, here are some WP:RS blp-quality references below. I'm seeing a number of WP:RS blp quality refs in early versions of this page and in the current article refs list. The challenge may be to sort through and lean on the highest quality refs then trim the rest. Here are some that stand out to me, please check through the refs on the main article as well and please add more that you find.

1. BBC, BBC News and BBC Cultural Frontline
2. Fast Company
3. Popular Science
4. Ars Technica
5. The Influential
6. 3D printing industry specific publications that seem to be established/reliable sources in that specific field.
7. Art and design industry publications like Design Milk, The Art Blog, Fahrenheit,
8. Art Books that Karle's work is included in
9. Ideas and the Matter: What will we be made of and what will the world be made of? Book
10. Creating Art Science Collaboration book
11. Religion and the Digital Arts book
12. Death and The Female Body: Representations of Death in Fashion and Femininity publication
13. There are a number of foreign reference sources which can be used as long as they are reliable. (+ more on main article ref list)

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lesliekatz/2024/01/18/how-will-you-live-on-after-you-die-consider-sending-your-dna-to-the-moon/?sh=ef39924c2b8e
2. https://www.radarmagazine.net/amy-karle-where-will-biotechnology-take-us/
3. https://hyperallergic.com/862162/bio-artists-face-an-uncertain-future/ 133.114.130.228 (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Smithsonian Magazine

   Why is this listed? Is the link incorrect? --Hipal (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

   oops,here is a corrected link: | Smithsonian Magazine and similar in Wired.

   Karle is mentioned in one sentence as an artist. There are a few sentences relevant to her in the article it links: Smithsonian Releases 2.8 Million Images Into Public Domain. --Hipal (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

   That should be enough to establish that she did that project and created that artwork etc.

1. USA Embassy / Consulate

   This is a press release, so a poor source that should be used with care if at all, unless paired with an independent, BLP-quality source. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

   Not clear that the US Embassy articles are press releases?

   Quickly found this related article from Polskie Radio: https://www.polskieradio.pl/5/3/Artykul/2118251,Kulisy-Kultury-tatuaze-z-chlorofilu-i-sukienka-z-glonow and other articles from the embassy:

   https://pl.usembassy.gov/incubator_eng/

   https://pl.usembassy.gov/arts-incubator-program-successfully-concludes-with-exhibition-at-copernicus-science-center/?_ga=2.40934562.1075549270.1692722056-1709417407.1692722054

2. Bloomberg Also in Bloomberg Art & Tech season 1 ep 7

   The first is an interview, the second a presentation by Karle. Both are primary sources. --Hipal (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

3. Vice

   Per WP:RSP, there's no consensus on the reliability of Vice. We'll have to make a case to use this or any other Vice articles. --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

4. A Mirror of Flesh: An Exploration of Materiality in Living Bioengineered Art research paper

   This is a doctoral thesis for a degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Art History. I'm not sure what the current consensus is for such publications. --Hipal (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

   I think this is ok as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP

5. Biopolitics in Future and the Arts: AI, Robotic, Cities, Life research paper

   This is a student research paper. The author appears to be https://goldsmiths.academia.edu/AnaFlores . I don't believe this meets BLP. --Hipal (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

   we have to check it against WP:SCHOLARSHIP

   Thanks for the link. Not usable according to it. --Hipal (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

6. The Path of the Modern Muses book

   Probably not reliable given it's independently published. --Hipal (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

-ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for collecting these. I hope you don't mind my adding numbering to them for reference purposes. --Hipal (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

All sources are in question until we've determined different. --Hipal (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

References