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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Schmorgluck]

Woosh!

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

[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

[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).

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: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.

... 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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

{{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.

Re:Are they safe there?

[Anonymous Coward]

obnubilate

Thanks for the new word.

How much is that?

[tomhath]

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

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.

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.

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.