US National Archives Will Upload All Its Holdings To Wikipedia

An anonymous reader writes The U.S. National Archives has revealed to Wikipedia newspaper The Signpost that it will be uploading all of its holdings to the Wikimedia Commons. Dominic McDevitt-Parks told the Signpost that "The records we have uploaded so far contain some of the most high-value holdings ... However, we are not limiting ourselves ... Our approach has always been simply to upload as much as possible ... to make them as widely accessible to the public as possible."

Comments

Deleted

[wisnoskij]

If Wikimedia Commons works anything like Wikipedia, it will probably all be deleted in a week as "not important enough".

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Notability is the word you're looking for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

I created a page for my uncle who is a multi-platinum recording artist, and it was deleted for not being notable enough. This was the week after he was on three national talk shows.

Re:Deleted

[tepples]

I created a page for my uncle who is a multi-platinum recording artist, and it was deleted for not being notable enough.

To prove that a topic is notable enough for an article, you need to cite three different articles in three different reliable sources. Which sources did you cite in the now-deleted article?

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww. somebody deleted your ego page :-)

Re:Deleted

[Mashiki]

I personally like it when editors remove fully sourced information that's contrary to their PoV, and then you get a assload of brigading on the topic because it's "contrary to popular opinion."

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

I cited a couple of books including The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, two other Wiki pages that mentioned him, the band's web site, a couple of reviews, three local newspaper articles, two NY Times articles, an article on cmt.com, his label's web site, an allmusic.com review, and a page about him on answers.com. I spent a lot of hours working on the content so I was dismayed to see it get deleted and my account banned.

Re:Deleted

[wiredlogic]

Hey but you can learn about all the Pokemon and Transformers trivia you could ever want to know.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

I created a page for my uncle

OK, tell you what. Since we're dealing with anecdotal evidence here, let's just go ahead and put it on the table.

Tell us who your uncle is, which "multi-platinum" recordings he's made, and which "national talk shows" he was on and we'll decide if he's notable enough. Let the court of Slashdot public opinion, (aka "Judge Nerdy") decide. The People's Court, FTW!

Also, as someone else here has noted, cite three different articles in three different reliable sources about your uncle. That's Wikipedia's standard. You do that, and we'll make sure he gets in Wikipedia.

There has to be some cut-off, you know. I tried to create a Wikipedia page for my old dog, Smokey, who was beloved by dozens of people and about whom I have written numerous reliable blog posts on my blogspot page, as well as many Facebook and Google+ posts and a heart-rending essay when I was in the fourth grade. And that fucking Wikipedia tried to tell me it wasn't notable. So I fixed them, I found an article about Chinese opera in the 1920s and just inserted a few paragraphs about old Smokey. It's been up there for going on four months now.

So you see, I've got a very personal axe to grind with those selfish, leeching monsters who line their pockets working for Wikipedia and I would be happy to help you in your righteous cause to get your uncle a Wikipedia page so your aunt might write you into the will.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

> I created a page for my uncle who is a multi-platinum recording artist, and it was deleted for not being notable enough. This was the week after he was on three national talk shows.

Oh, what complete and utter bullshit.

Why so coy? As an AC, shirley you can say who the dude is... if it were true, which it obviously is not.

The casualness with which people lie these days is scary. WTF is wrong with people?

Re:Deleted

[Trepidity]

Cant have conservative, right wing, religious, pro capitalism or anti-socialist propaganda.

Fortunately for you, there are some wiki-based online encyclopedias that are based on exactly the opposite principle! Enjoy the god-fearing, American-flag-loving truth bombs at Conservapedia.

Re:Deleted

[BrookHarty]

Speaking of that, my favorite "contrary to public opinion" was the term MGTOW. Men going their own way
This MGTOW motto is the main motto picked up by most mens rights groups. The MGTOW page was deleted multiple times by feminists who said it wasnt notable, even though it was referenced in main stream press and published books and then the numerous websites and groups. But still deleted, over and over and over.
So what did the feminists do? They created page called MGTOW for maximum gross take off weight that is just a REDIRECT to mgtow. The actual term is MTOW in aviation, so why the redirect and fight in the talk page? Politics.

This was almost 10 years ago since this happened, and still happens today.

History only goes back to 2009, but this MGTOW war is good example of the feminists of wikipedia fighting mens rights. Lucky now that enough mens rights groups and non profits using the term, almost 600,000 websites returned with a simple google search.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:MGTOW
Limited history due to many deletions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_takeoff_weight&offset=&limit=500&action=history

There are more wikipedia censoring going on than this one topic, but I'd say this is the perfect example of editors censoring. Also why I think they dont deserve government money with these oppressive and biased editors that seem to be backed by the foundation.

I think my favorite comment by an editor on wikipedia was "we dont have the room for a mens rights page, we cant have a page for everything". Amusing when every episode of very popular shows does.

The more you know!

Re:Deleted

[tepples]

Do you have a link to the discussion on Articles for deletion?

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Concur. Even as a feminist who thinks most mens' rights groups are utterly misguided, I still think they have the right to be represented fairly. Wikipedia is a horrible distortion of the truth because there is so much special interest wrangling going on - an MMORPG where the side with the most copious spare time wins. I like MMORPGs as much as the next geek, but I'd be very worried if people started using WoW as a source for information about the world.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you haven't named a name, you're full of shit.

Re:Deleted

[Frosty Piss]

Hey but you can learn about all the Pokemon and Transformers trivia you could ever want to know.

It's not "trivia", that's not allowed. It's "In Popular Culture". Much more encyclopedic.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. Should it really be surprising that articles on controversial topics, or on topics which are, shall we say, objectivity-challenged, more likely to be deleted or lock? And edits more closely scrutinized, with all that implies--like increased change for poor judgment on the part of editors?

Articles on TV trivia abound because there's little to argue about, and achieving some semblance of objectivity is much easier. And, frankly, I find those articles useful. Obviously all you people who complain about them find them useful as well because you wouldn't know they existed if you hadn't Google those topics. Although if they were all removed I wouldn't cry about it, either.

IMHO, Wikipedia is uniquely unbiased and objective. But I say that with an understanding that our entire world, particularly our written world, and including our academic world, suffers from intense problems with bias and contingent evolution. And Wikipedia is not immune from that. But it's a gargantuan project of historical proportions, so there are endless things to gripe about.

But when I look at our modern landscape of material, including how even prestigious academic journals are turning into places for academics to publish half-baked conjectures and interjections with a gloss of respectability, Wikipedia continues to look better and better by the day.

Re:Deleted

[MightyYar]

LOL, awesome. "Evolution is a Religion and Not Science" is one of the headings on the "Evolution" page :)

Re:Deleted

[DG]

Let me guess, you're a Wikipedia moderator, right?

It continually amazes me how, in a world where storage is effectively free, where there is literally no cost to hosting articles, that there exist people who seek to suppress knowledge because it doesn't meet their arbitrary standard of "notable".

Give a man the power to say "no", and he says "no" - a lot.

DG

Re:Deleted

[DG]

Where Wikipedia fails HARD though is the article deletion process.

There are people out there who get a weird thrill from deleting articles.

An article that has been in place for *10 years* can be snuffed out just because a motivated moderator decides it isn't "notable" and sets up a "speedy delete".

Notice 6 months after the fact, try and put it back, and the whole friggin' WORLD descends on you.

Wikipedia is ruled by a group of petty, self-nominated bureaucrats. And the system - as horribly broken as it is - cannot be reformed, because there are too many vested interests who want to see it STAY broken.

 

Re:Deleted

[DG]

Says the "Anonymous Coward".

Oh, the irony.

DG

Re:Deleted

[odie5533]

You don't need to host every piece of information on Wikipedia. People are free to put up their own websites to post personal opinions, trivia facts about their favorite tv shows, or new medical curatives they've discovered. Wikipedia just isn't the place for it.

You seem to be arguing for including everything in Wikipedia, and I think most contributors there would disagree and say that it's not the place for everything, and some stuff shouldn't be included.

Re:Deleted

[Electricity Likes Me]

Wikipedia is built on a foundation which works "on average". If you want a different system, you're asking for a different type of thing. It's always going to be a problem.

Re:Deleted

[Electricity Likes Me]

Moreover, Wikipedia's stated goal has always been to be an encyclopedia, not an archive of content.

Encyclopedia's are meant to present a reasonably concise overview of all topics, with links to further in-depth information. They're a starting point not the totality of one.

Re:Deleted

[Electricity Likes Me]

You should probably go read the article of "objectivity". If you need to start out labelling your informtion as "something-ism" then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Re:Deleted

[alvinrod]

The problem is that it appears to be rather arbitrary. What objective criteria is used to determine what popular culture is popular enough to warrant a Wikipedia page and what popular culture isn't popular enough so everything must go? In reality I think it comes down to whether or not it is more liked or more hated by editors who hold the power there.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I was wrong. He was a five time gold-record artist, one-time platinum artist. According to Wikipedia, that is grounds for the contributors banning. I attempted to post a page about them once, but that got me banned.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the information he posted and the fact that Wikipedia deleted information about this well-known person, it is obvious who he is talking about. I find it embarrassing that Wikipedia deleted the page about this famous person.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

I did name him, so you're full of shit.

Re:Deleted

[eyrieowl]

Indeed, the system is structured such that the deletionists are far more likely to hold sway. I think the rules would have to be set up rather differently for the inclusionists to be able to win out. A shame, really. Why wikipedia would want to shackle itself to some definition for "encyclopedia" based on what was possible with dead trees is beyond me. It's a small minded parochialism which does the project and the world a disservice.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

> I did name him, so you're full of shit.

So far, I havent come across the name so ... no. You're just a troll.

Re:Deleted

[Mashiki]

Wikipedia is built on a foundation which works "on average".

In other words, if it doesn't fit someone narrow view of what's acceptable, piss off. They'd be happier with their echo chamber filled with groupthink.

Re:Deleted

[rtb61]

Well put in the hard yards and you to can be a wikipedia editor. Donate money, promote wikipedia, write well crafted articles including references, ensure accuracy and have sound links and references to other articles. Make sure people look it up and read it, make contributions to other articles, join in discussions and be prepared to make wikipedia your life or at the very least a substantial portion of it. Never forget though "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."(Stephen Colbert). I am sorry but I can't help you with that, and no a conservative lie does not deserve equal time with a truth just because that truth presents a fact that can be interpreted as being liberal. OHH look a religious article on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R..., in fact it lead to a whole portal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... all of it's own (with a huge number of articles), it would appear your comment has a disingenuous conservative bias based upon lies, it would be mercilessly deleted from wikipedia.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, Wikipedia is chock full of trivial facts about TV shows. As in a page for every single episode of some popular shows when there are already plenty of other sites with that info.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, if it doesn't fit someone narrow view of what's acceptable, piss off. They'd be happier with their echo chamber filled with groupthink.

In other words you're more egotistical than the people you claim to be ignoring you. The editors are keeping the marketing parasites and the loons largely off wikipedia. That and the political parasites who feel they are entitled to impose their warped views on others. For those reasons alone the editors great. I strongly suspect most of the anti-wikipedia feeling expressed here is those groups and if so that's wonderful. The marketing parasites in particular can take a running jump off a tall cliff.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

An article that has been in place for *10 years* can be snuffed out

So what? How long it's been there is not relevant to whether the article should be deleted. That's not a failure at all

Re:Deleted

[tepples]

Let me guess, you're a Wikipedia moderator, right?

If by "moderator" you mean "participant", then yes, I've been helping to improve Wikipedia since before it used MediaWiki. If by "moderator" you mean "administrator", then no, my account doesn't have The Mop.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Just say his name and be done with those riddles.

Re:Deleted

[DG]

Indeed.

Print encyclopedias had to be picky about editing, because even edited down they were still 100lbs and took up feet of shelf space.

A digital encyclopedia has no such constraints. It can be a repository for everything, at no cost.

The "not notable" constraint is totally artificial and serves only as an outlet for the petty-minded to exert some small degree of power.

DG

Re:Deleted

[geniice]

I seem to recall this case. If its the one I think it is "multi-platinum recording artist" turned out to mean "had some minor roles on other people's albums that the reviewers generaly hadn't noticed". Think Clare Torry but without the same level of fan obsessiveness.

Re:Deleted

[geniice]

The problem is that untill very recently (at the end of the day Elliot Rodger had an impact) there was very little in the way of third party reliable sources covering the mens rights movement and related groups.

Re:Deleted

[geniice]

Enough third party reliable sources to write a neutral article. In fact TV triva isn't what it used to be. Astroidcruft on the other hand.....

Re:Deleted

[Aryden]

So an article describing Facism, it's role pre- and during WWII, and how it affected the WORLD, shouldn't have a page?

Re:Deleted

[DNS-and-BIND]

Uhh...if you're a feminist then it's perfectly acceptable to censor viewpoints you don't agree with. It's sexist and therefore deserves to be deleted. I honestly don't know how you call yourself a feminist and don't know this. Thankfully on campus your sisters are not as misguided as yourself. Men raise issues at their own peril.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

But they're selective about it. I recall a few years ago a TV show was stripped away, The Simpsons? Some "editor" decided there were other sites that had the info (not given) and want on a purging-fest.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me say that I have no stake in Wikipedia whatsoever. I use it to look stuff up, but I've never edited an article or such, so I'm not invested there.

To me, it seems you're making up a story here for trolling purposes. Making "butthurt" style complaints and then refusing to come up with evidence that is extremely easy to present (you certainly know your uncles name: no need to look up links, just state it, everyone who cares can search), that's just trolling. So yeah, you don't have an uncle with the properties you stated.

Re:Deleted

[Schmorgluck]

Woosh!

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

The "not notable" constraint is absolutely necessary, otherwise you'd end up with Instagram pictures of what my neighbour ate last evening. We can argue about where to draw the line though.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statement and GP's statement have little to do with each other.

According to GP (and Wikipedia rules), if you write an article about turnips, but the content is sexist, or fascist, or even facist (whatever that means), then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
According to Wikipedia rules, if you write an article about Fascism, and the content is objective, then that's fine, like the other millions of articles.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh...if you're a feminist then it's perfectly acceptable to censor viewpoints you don't agree with. [...] Thankfully on campus your sisters are not as misguided as yourself.

You contradict yourself. First, you say I should find it perfectly acceptable to censor stuff I disagree with, just because I am a feminist. Then without skipping a beat, you praise feminists who are not me because they don't do that kind of thing.

What?

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

I can honestly say with 100% certainty that it is not "assholes" like tepples that will drive me away, but rather assholes like you with your "cites? I don't need no fucking cites. You should just trust that I am right" attitude that will drive me away.

Because when you tell someone who is just trying to get to the bottom of something that they are an asshole for trying to do so, you are telling us all that you think cites are for pussies.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally like it when editors remove fully sourced information that's contrary to their PoV, and then you get a assload of brigading on the topic because it's "contrary to popular opinion."

You mean when they delete bogus sources that are themselves not sourced? Yes, we do that.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice straw man. No one is claiming that we want that type of garbage on Wikipedia. It's the deleting of pages at random that is the problem. If you look at greenwow's comment, he gave a specific example of at a page with four sources for a platinum recording artist that the deletionists attacked and deleted. That is the problem.

Notice that the page now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Caldwell_(musician)

Only contains a single citation. The deletionists aren't following their own destruction of knowledge rules here. They deleted a page with four citations, but they didn't destroy the page with a single citation. This page should be deleted according to their own rules, but they refuse to enforce their rules. Also, they maliciously deleted a page that followed the rules. It's this garbage that is destroying Wikipedia. So many people contribute then get attacked by the deletionists for being pro-knowledge so they never contribute again.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone ever labels their own content as whatever-ist. People do that for them so they can reject it out of hand without evaluating its accuracy. Sometimes, perhaps even most of the time, it's horrible nonsense, but the fact that people are encouraged not even to consider ideas is always a bit disturbing to me. After all, the things that are wrong will remain wrong even after being considered, but more than a few people attach ideological labels to things even when they're true, but against some group's interests.

Re:Deleted

[Mashiki]

Pretty bold claim from an AC, would you like to go into an in-depth analysis of that statement? After all, anyone who can look at something objectively already knows that groupthink is a common theme at wikipedia.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

In the example given above, the person was a founding member, bass guitarist, and part-time lead singer of the group with three platinum records (according to allmusic,com, some jerk edited the Wiki page to claim they only have one) and nearly a dozen gold records. That isn't the minor role like you claim. Stop trying to mislead people.

The sadder thing is that I noticed the deletionists were successful in keeping the page about the guy that was that band's lead singer from existing until recently. He became the lead singer 42 years ago and wrote several songs that made the Billboard chart so deleting his page over and over again over a period of several years is just going over the top in the quest for knowledge destruction.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is ruled by a group of petty, self-nominated bureaucrats. And the system - as horribly broken as it is - cannot be reformed, because there are too many vested interests who want to see it STAY broken.

The other problem with it is that anybody who would want to reform it would rather just avoid it. Heck, they punish people just for being critical of Wikipedia on other websites where the criticism can't be deleted...

Re:Deleted

[odie5533]

It's not a straw man. You can't argue for zero standard, then call straw man when people draw perfectly logical conclusions of such an argument. Either you have a line as to what is allowed, or you don't have any such standard. Do you believe there should be some standard or threshold for notability?

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reply doesn't change the fact that this constraint is necessary. And calling something a straw man doesn't make it so, if anything, it'd be a slippery slope fallacy... but it isn't.
So then you're moving the goalpost by omitting the notability constraint in your reply and instead claiming that the actual problem is deletion.

Good example link though, but getting back to notability: you still can't get more out of this than arguing where the line should be drawn.

Re:Deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently BrookHarty upthread saw the need to label content he'd like to see on Wikipedia as "whatever-ist" (specifically capitalist, anti-socialist and anti-feminist). So that's one at least, and the next comment by Electricity Likes Me addressed that. Then Aryden posted something, which has little to do with the discussion so far. Now your AC reply goes off on a tangent that has little to do with what came before... and is based on a false premise (first sentence).

Re:Deleted

[Mashiki]

You mean when they delete bogus sources that are themselves not sourced? Yes, we do that.

You mean when they delete sourced information that comes from scholarly journals, or peer reviewed information. Yes, they do that.

Re:Deleted

[tlhIngan]

Wikipedia is ruled by a group of petty, self-nominated bureaucrats. And the system - as horribly broken as it is - cannot be reformed, because there are too many vested interests who want to see it STAY broken.

Wikipedia illustrates the pitfalls of communism, in the end. It's just the latest example and one we've been able to observe in a rather short timeframe. It doesn't mean it doesn't work, but well, there are things to avoid.

Remember Animal Farm? You start with "everyone is equal", then as things happen, you then add "but some are more equal than others".

Everyone starts out equal. Then miscreants start to figure out that they can do bad things. Then rules are implemented by those to prevent the bad things. Then miscreants figure out they can misuse the rules to do even more bad things. Then you elevate a few above to help control things. And then they can go power tripping ("Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely").

Wikipedia is, literally, a study in the rise and fall of communism. Eventually it'll morph into some other system, democratic, dictatorship, or otherwise (as Linux has shown, dictatorships aren't ALL bad).

well, there goes my movie idea

[turkeydance]

now i need to work on the 'woman pregnant with an ET' treatment.

usable

[Anonymous Coward]

Are these records copyrighted? Because if they are, Wikipedia cannot use them.

Are they safe there?

[bogaboga]

I mean, Wikipedia is editable by anyone.

This makes its content prone to manipulation as some folks may choose to intentionally mask the truth...

Or conflate ideas...

Or confuse facts...

Or obnubilate issues...

Or bedevil matters...

Or stupify knowledge...

Or mix-up the obvious...

Should I go on?

Re:Are they safe there?

[Anonymous Coward]

So far the comments have been nothing but ignorant.
Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free (as in freedom) media. Mostly photos, but lots of other stuff too.
The National Archives and Records Administration, according to Wikipedia, "is an independent agency of the United States government charged with preserving and documenting government and historical records and with increasing public access to those documents".

These are federal government records and documents, so automatically in the public domain. Wikimedia Commons is the perfect place to mirror them.

Re:Are they safe there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. I'm totally going to Photoshop a UFO onto the oldest picture of the Washington Monument that I can find.

Re:Are they safe there?

[Anonymous Coward]

obnubilate

Thanks for the new word.

Read Only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read only? I can only hope so.

why?

[nurb432]

Why cant they just host this on their own? its not like they cant get nearly unlimited funding..

Re:why?

[fizzer06]

The NSA already snagged all the available server storage?

Re:why?

[bswarm]

In case their hard drive crashes like the IRS's did.

Re:why?

[tepples]

To use a US Government-created, pre-1923, or otherwise free image in a Wikipedia article, you need to upload it to Commons first. The National Archives doing this on its own will save people a step.

Re:why?

[Dominare]

Yeah how inconsiderate, don't you know they need that money to blow up some tents in a desert somewhere.

Re:why?

[nurb432]

Thanks for the only serious answer i got, to a serious question.

Re:why?

[rgmoore]

They do already host this on their own, but putting it on Wikimedia Commons makes it easily accessible to people who want to use it for articles in any of the Wikimedia sites (e.g. Wikipedia, Wikiquote, etc.). Also, by doing an official upload, they reduce the chance of somebody claiming the files are illegitimate. This is basically a courtesy to Wikimedia.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of money that has been spent for projects of almost no real value to pretty much anyone is enormous on this planet. Only to keep a few people busy most of the time. I mean, what's in unlimited funding really? Just imagine the possibilities, and then face yourself with this reality here on earth. :/ Luckfully, there is way to go. :/

Re:why?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . but, as "The Economist" pointed out, are they safe from being eaten by dogs there . . . ? The IRS scandal: A dog ate my e-mails http://www.economist.com/news/...

On the serious side of things, wouldn't it be better for some independent organization archive government emails? I mean, the Nixon administration investigating the Nixon administration should have taught us something. If an organization separate from the IRS archived the emails, the IRS wouldn't have to say their disks crashed. The independent organization lost them, and we could believe them. With the IRS losing their own emails . . . well, that has a bit of a stench to it.

Knowing that the NSA, IRS or whoever could not simply erase their own tracks of illegal activities would restore more confidence in the US government.

Re:why?

[Electricity Likes Me]

So we'll spend some or your tax dollars on this which will help us ensure the tax department is efficient and TAXES? TAXES ARE THEFT. DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT!!!

These problems don't just happen, and don't require conspiracy. It's been plainly obvious the IRS is underfunded since it returns 7-to-1 on recovered revenue when they get a budget increase.

... at which point dickheads will vandalize it.

[EWAdams]

Why not put it on government servers that at least have to be hacked into rather than letting random Russian assholes trash it seconds after it goes up?

Re:... at which point dickheads will vandalize it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying it as if russians are the only assholes hating on the US, and US didn't give any reason to anyone else to hate them by going hyper world policeman

Re:... at which point dickheads will vandalize it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the time for real and solid archives (perhaps proper and secure/stable sftp servers that require unique login credentials) is long overdue. With the necessary planning involved first, of course. I was referring to retrievable science publications, basic knowledge as seen on wikipedia/commons, and the likes. Basically whatever is required to ensure a functioning information-society. But then, we have; this .... which certainly is an alternate way of existing. I mean, I know the other side of it too, I kind of lived thru it. And then, I slowly and steadily watched commerce and the "system" turn a more or less usable infrastructure into today's web. I would have loved to pull off my hat to this development and to everyone that did and did not contribute. :/

Re:... at which point dickheads will vandalize it.

[penguinoid]

Why not put it on government servers that at least have to be hacked into rather than letting random Russian assholes trash it seconds after it goes up?

They already did. And now they will also put it up in wikimedia, and it will have "uploaded by the US government" or something like that, rather than "uploaded by random stranger".

Re:... at which point dickheads will vandalize it.

[EWAdams]

Nah, I picked them at random.

Slow clap

[mauriceh]

See?
People ARE eventually "getting it".
Except, perhaps, for some of the commenters ( haters?) here..

Cue the takedown notices!

[ALeader71]

If Wikimedia Commons can handle this onslaught, will all of the content pass muster with our never ending corporate copyright regime?

{{PD-USGov}}

[tepples]

I'm under the impression that a lot of the "holdings" are works of the United States Government, which enter the public domain upon publication. Works created by a government contractor still have a copyright, but I'm not sure to what extent the "holdings" include those.

Re:{{PD-USGov}}

[The ed17]

You are correct. A lot of the holdings are documents and pictures, like this one, that were created as part of a US government employee's official duties, meaning that they entered the public domain as soon as they were written or taken.

Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going to be one big redacted mess.

How much is that?

[tomhath]

All of the holdings of the National Archives...how much is that in Libraries of Congress?

In the true Wikipedia tradition...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to delete all of it en-mass as it's probably contrary to my lesbian anarchist vegan principles.

And when you revert my delete, I shall delete it again.

I was only trying to help

[tepples]

Really? All I wanted to do was help by taking it to deletion review. But to do that, I need a link to the deletion discussion so I can see whether it'd have a chance.

TIL Wikimedia has a newspaper...

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I thought that Wikinews was the "official Wikimedia news outlet."

Moderators on drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posts defending the deletionists get voted up, but a post with an example of their abuse gets hammered down into oblivion. Nice work mods.

just put the census

[Anonymous Coward]

on archive.org and i'll be happy

Is it possible to write a verifiable article?

[tepples]

Claims made in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable. Notability just means whether or not it's even possible to write a verifiable article.

Deleted

[gronofer]

Notability isn't required on Commons.