Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Fight To Save the Australian Digital Archive Trove (abc.net.au)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the cherish-your-treasures dept.

Slashdot reader sandbagger writes: A digital archive and research tool developed by the Australian National Archives may be the victim of upcoming budget cuts. Used by an estimated 70,000 users per day, the system may be eliminated thanks to a $20 Million (AUD) budget cut to the agency's budget. Since its 2009 launch, Trove has grown to house four million digitised items, including books, images, music, historic newspapers and maps. Critics of the cuts say that such systems should be considered national infrastructure because there's literally no replacement service.

48 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. National Library of Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Trove is a National Library of Australia project, not the National Archives of Australia.

  2. Anti intellectual government. by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This should be no surprise to anyone watching the current conservative governments attack on research and academia in australia.

    The world renowned CSIRO has been gutted with climate research all but abandoned along with oceanographic research, which is a *big problem* when your an island nation entrusted to the care of the dying barrier reef. The government has stripped funding out of education and universities, removed scientific advisors from all levels of government, and often replaced them with spiral eyed religious idiots who see more value in quoting the bible than quoting peer reviewed research.

    And now they are going after the history archives.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    1. Re:Anti intellectual government. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      which is a *big problem* when your an island nation entrusted to the care of the dying barrier reef.

      Not to worry, it'll stop being a problem in another few years. Of course the fictional "climate change" Hippy Illuminati conspiracy won't be to blame, it'll be some other thing that doesn't offend Slashdotters.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:Anti intellectual government. by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Nice way to engage in a political diatribe, but it is the liberals who are cutting the funding and stopping more content coming online.

    3. Re:Anti intellectual government. by MercTech · · Score: 1

      Trove looks similar to the U.S. repository at www.archive.org which is administered by the Smithsonian Institution.
          I wonder if Trove could get funding as Archive.org does with a mix of public monies from a few branches and private funds like the Prelinger Grant for their digitized film library?

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    4. Re:Anti intellectual government. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If all of that is so important to you, donate money to the organization.

      Otherwise, you are just bitching about how other people's money is being spent.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Re:You are stupid, potch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    saitama_OK.jpg

  4. All Just Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are no quotes from anyone with authority to back this claim. No Government representatives, no links to authoritative sources, no media quotes - absolutely nothing.

  5. Standard bureaucrat protection technique. by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Much more likely, this is a move by the bureaucrats controlling this area, who are having their budgets squeezed because central government (rightly or wrongly) feel they need to spend less, so are planning to cut the most newsworthy part of their service to get attention and protect their budgets.

    That is how these things usually go. Publicly funded hospitals always cut patient services before anything else, Schools increase staff/child ratios, Transport cuts services at peak times, etc.

    The only thing worse is unionised public servants, who really are on the double-take, since there is little downside to their bosses paying them more as it is 'free' money, and they get the double whammy of working for a votes government, AND having union muscle.

    Welcome to another facet of the bleeding dry of the working middle class.

    1. Re:Standard bureaucrat protection technique. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That is how these things usually go.

      In America, it is called the Washington Monument Syndrome.

      Schools increase staff/child ratios

      In my school district, the first thing they cut was the school buses. The result was maximum inconvenience for parents, and congested roads for commuters even without school aged kids.

    2. Re:Standard bureaucrat protection technique. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Much more likely, this is a move by the bureaucrats controlling this area, who are having their budgets squeezed because central government (rightly or wrongly) feel they need to spend less, so are planning to cut the most newsworthy part of their service to get attention and protect their budgets.

      Disclaimer - I work in the Australian Public Service

      As I understand it the prototype and early work on TROVE were funded from the NLA's own budget not as an NPP (New Policy Proposal).

      TROVE has become part of the NLA's strategy (https://www.nla.gov.au/corporate-documents/annual-report/2014-2015/strategic-direction-two-make-the-librarys-collections-and-services-accessible-to-all), however the government have never decided to directly funded it and it doesn't appear Government feels it's an explicit part of the NLA's core mandate (the latest NLA KPI's I could find are here https://www.nla.gov.au/corporate-documents/annual-report/2014-2015/cross-agency-key-performance-indicators).

      I personally find TROVE to be a valuable tool and feel that disbanding the group who update it's data is a poor decision. However, rightly or wrongly if you are cutting services as part of your Efficiency Dividend the projects that have a large cost and are not directly connected to a core KPI would have to be your first option, even if it does interfere with your current strategic plan.

  6. This 'story' is from March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fuck me, this so called 'story' is from March.

    Just a few things have changed since then, like the double dissolution and re-election of the entire house of representatives and Senate.

    Maybe EditorDavid should lookup what SandBagger means before posting her shit as news?

  7. Um, what else do you cut? by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Man am I sick of the myth of bureaucratic waste. Did it ever cross your mind that the reason cuts start in those places is that there were most of the cost is? There's this belief (instilled by right wing think tanks looking to gut the commons for their own profit) that there's this magic "waste" that can be cut without impacting the quality of service and life.

    The worst words I've ever heard are "I'm from the gov't and I'm hear to help". It wasn't a man from the gov't saying those (one of those paid my friends insulin to treat his type 1 diabetes), it was a right wing politician looking to cut some billionare's taxes and pushing more bullshit austerity for everyone but themselves.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um, what else do you cut? by bloodhawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a massive amount of government waste, I see it everyday while working within various government departments. The problem is the cuts are usually generic and don't target the real waste and simply usually say, here take a 2%, 5%, 10% cut across the board while wasteful practices aren't targeted or touched. e.g. spending surplus budget before EOFY as they know if they don't they might get less the next FY, I see this every year, sometimes the waste is in the millions where they will buy services, hardware and software that never get used or touched just to ensure they don't have surplus. You have government employees with "safe" comfortable positions that don't mandate performance and have no consequences for lack of performance as they are heavily union protected, Their is massive Machinery of Government spending purely to reward ministers with bigger portfolios to match ego's (some of this spending is absolutely insane and how the fuck it is ever justified to spend X million just to make a ministers portfolio bigger is beyond me).

    2. Re:Um, what else do you cut? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a massive amount of government waste, I see it everyday while working within various government departments.

      And there's a massive amount of waste on the private sector too. I see it every day in all jobs but my own. The reason is that I only see the surface of those other jobs from the outside. Every single time I've tried to do one, I've found out that there simply isn't any better way to do it - any possible speedup requires taking risks or shortcuts which will come back to bite you.

      The problem is the cuts are usually generic and don't target the real waste and simply usually say, here take a 2%, 5%, 10% cut across the board while wasteful practices aren't targeted or touched. e.g. spending surplus budget before EOFY as they know if they don't they might get less the next FY, I see this every year, sometimes the waste is in the millions where they will buy services, hardware and software that never get used or touched just to ensure they don't have surplus.

      It is ironic that the push for efficiency can lead to the opposite result. But the solution is not to push harder, but lighter. Let the department carry over their unused budget to the next fiscal year, and now they have an actual motive to save money because it's now "their" money - and it also means they can build up savings to use for emergencies and larger projects.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re: Um, what else do you cut? by chentiangemalc · · Score: 1

      Yep this waste exists in private sector, but multiply by a factor of 1000 to get government style waste

    4. Re:Um, what else do you cut? by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Budget burning as it is called is still wasteful if they keep the funds rather than send it back. For instance if your department has a 1 million surplus, that million can be used more effective either doing something else government should be doing or staying in the hands of taxpayers who will increase economic activity and thereby increase future revenue. But if it sits in an account because you didn't need it, neither will happen and your department will simply be over funded yet again the next year making it a hoarding situation.

      What needs to happen is accurate budgeting and the ability to justify going over budget. If your budget more than needed, justify the difference as a one time thing and not have a cut on the next year's budget. But if the surplus is permanent like say technology allows two process to be combined into one or the demographics of the area changed and not as many people are using your department, there is no need to maintain the surplus amounts and there should be a cut.

    5. Re:Um, what else do you cut? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Government waste is only exceeded by waste in successful corporations. Sure, little scrappy companies are fast, lean and efficient, but when a corporation reaches 10K employees and years of consecutive growth, take a look on the inside and see how many "Wally"s the place has, how much structural BS exists for no particular reason other than "that's how it's done here."

      Government waste is continually scrutinized by the taxpayers, but when a corporation has been "exceeding shareholder expectations" for a decade or more - you'd be amazed at the colossal waste that goes on inside.

    6. Re:Um, what else do you cut? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      The problem is the cuts are usually generic and don't target the real waste and simply usually say, here take a 2%, 5%, 10% cut across the board while wasteful practices aren't targeted or touched. e.g. spending surplus budget before EOFY as they know if they don't they might get less the next FY, I see this every year, sometimes the waste is in the millions where they will buy services, hardware and software that never get used or touched just to ensure they don't have surplus.

      A lot of it is dysfunction to combat dysfunction because if any process is delayed you can't say the $100k we budgeted for servers this year we'll need in February next year. Those money will go away and because you overbudgeted last year, we'll actually not just cut the $100k but we'll give you $150k less and you'll be stuck with extra old out of support servers because there was a delay in procurement. Sure, every company has to replan their portfolio and cancel projects sometimes. But they don't go nuclear every year and make every project and every department start over the allocation process.

      The theory is of course that all the money will go back in a big pool and be spent where they're most needed. The reality is that when you've finally got approval to do something in one budget process, then no matter what you'd rather spend it than taking that fight all over again. I actually think you'd see much less waste in practice if you could get a spillover-account where you could have at most 10% of the budget but it's still "yours", sure more money would be stuck down in the system but it wouldn't accumulate and you could flex schedules more. It's the "use it or lose it" process that is the real problem.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Um, what else do you cut? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Government waste is only exceeded by waste in successful corporations. Sure, little scrappy companies are fast, lean and efficient, but when a corporation reaches 10K employees and years of consecutive growth, take a look on the inside and see how many "Wally"s the place has, how much structural BS exists for no particular reason other than "that's how it's done here."

      Government waste is continually scrutinized by the taxpayers, but when a corporation has been "exceeding shareholder expectations" for a decade or more - you'd be amazed at the colossal waste that goes on inside.

      BS, I work for one of those massive corporations and I am usually contracted into various government agencies. I am very familiar with the waste and inefficiencies in BOTH sectors. corporate waste doesn't come even close to what is wasted in government and most companies have regular Targeted crackdowns on waste and inefficiencies, though they will always have some, highly successful fast growing companies tend to have a lot more waste as they can get away with it while on that trajectory but as soon as growth isn't high double digit then they tend to quickly focus on cleaning it up (at least those that want to survive). I would say the waste is orders of magnitude higher in government and given the source of government money I think government has a much higher responsibility to be prudent in its spending.

    8. Re:Um, what else do you cut? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      The problem is the cuts are usually generic and don't target the real waste and simply usually say, here take a 2%, 5%, 10% cut across the board while wasteful practices aren't targeted or touched. e.g. spending surplus budget before EOFY as they know if they don't they might get less the next FY, I see this every year, sometimes the waste is in the millions where they will buy services, hardware and software that never get used or touched just to ensure they don't have surplus.

      A lot of it is dysfunction to combat dysfunction because if any process is delayed you can't say the $100k we budgeted for servers this year we'll need in February next year. Those money will go away and because you overbudgeted last year, we'll actually not just cut the $100k but we'll give you $150k less and you'll be stuck with extra old out of support servers because there was a delay in procurement. Sure, every company has to replan their portfolio and cancel projects sometimes. But they don't go nuclear every year and make every project and every department start over the allocation process.

      The theory is of course that all the money will go back in a big pool and be spent where they're most needed. The reality is that when you've finally got approval to do something in one budget process, then no matter what you'd rather spend it than taking that fight all over again. I actually think you'd see much less waste in practice if you could get a spillover-account where you could have at most 10% of the budget but it's still "yours", sure more money would be stuck down in the system but it wouldn't accumulate and you could flex schedules more. It's the "use it or lose it" process that is the real problem.

      well aware of why it happens and the mentality behind it. It doesn't make it less appalling watching a department deliberately flush millions down the toilet just to ensure it doesn't affect how much they get the following year. I have even been the beneficiary of this broken system in past years where they prepaid my contract for a year in advance just to help empty their budget and I am still completely against it as they are just gaming a broken system which is especially bad when the country is in debt with every department complaining they are underfunded.

    9. Re:Um, what else do you cut? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The major difference for me between government and corporate inefficiency is that we _usually_ have to option to not deal with an inefficient corporation. Of course, government has told me several times "if you can't get a job here, move", so I suppose we also have the option of changing countries if we can find one with a government we like better? /sarc

    10. Re:Um, what else do you cut? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Budget burning as it is called is still wasteful if they keep the funds rather than send it back. For instance if your department has a 1 million surplus, that million can be used more effective either doing something else government should be doing or staying in the hands of taxpayers who will increase economic activity and thereby increase future revenue.

      No, because money is not a limited resource. Having 1 million dollars sitting in your account means you have authorization to spend actual, limited resources if needed; it doesn't mean you're sitting on those resources themselves. Nothing whatsoever is stopping anyone from using those resources in whatever way they see fit. On the other hand, micromanaging a department's budget does use resources for pointless bureaucracy.

      The limit to government spending is inflation, which is caused by inelastic demand exceeding the supply and ending up making ever higher bids for the same resources. Money sitting in accounts can not affect it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  8. Re: Happy Birthday to The United States of America by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2

    How democratic the US may be in practice is a complex question. The biggest problem (greater than voter apathy) is the way the electorate is misinformed and manipulated.

    When people face a hefty fine for not voting, as in Australia, it is not surprising that voter turnout is high,

  9. #fundTrove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Check out #fundTrove on Twitter and the FB page https://www.facebook.com/fundtrove/ for more information about the campaign to save Trove.

  10. 400,000,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not 4 million objects, 500 million objects - "Find and get over 499,794,678 Australian and online resources:
    books, images, historic newspapers, maps, music, archives and more"

  11. Re: Happy Birthday to The United States of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah but then they put in votes for House Party, Techno Party, Dress-up Party, and After Party

    Forcing people to 'vote' is pointless. If they're that disenfranchised that they wouldn't be arsed to turn up to the polling booth without threat of a fine, then they're going to express their frustration on the ballot.

  12. Re:You are stupid, potch by davester666 · · Score: 2

    I like the cow guy better. The moo'ing makes me feel more optimistic about how the day will go.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  13. Re: Happy Birthday to The United States of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    $20 is not exactly hefty but is annoying:

    http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm

    Look for "What happens if I do not vote?" - if you choose not to pay it can cost a lot more once you're taken to court.

  14. Re:You are stupid, potch by Barny · · Score: 1

    And now I want a milkshake...

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  15. Announce the death of animals at a zoo by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    In the early days of the Thatcher cuts of the 1980s, London Zoo announced that due to government cuts they would have to cull many of their animals.

    They got the money....

    The name for this in the bureaucratic game is 'bleeding stumps'; you announce cuts that will upset people to force the government to spend more. Just occasionally it can go wrong, when the government toughs it out and you have to go ahead, though this is unlikely as an alternative plan can usually be found.

  16. Civil service pensions aligned with inflation by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    The decision of the UK parliament on a quiet day in the late 60s to index civil service pensions to inflation is believed to be the most expensive decision ever made by the government. It also removed the incentive for civil servants to encourage policies that limited inflation.

  17. I'll host it for free by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

    If I can put up banner ads. Seriously I don't see how that thing is worth $20M. And yes I realize we're talking about AUD.

    1. Re:I'll host it for free by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I can put up banner ads. Seriously I don't see how that thing is worth $20M.

      Obviously you didn't read TFA. And I'm not sure the submitter who wrote the "summary" understood what it said either. A couple clarifications:

      (1) The $20 million refers to budget cuts to a number of cultural institutions, which include the library. The library cuts are only one portion of this $20 million, and I'm assuming that this Trove thing is only a small portion of the total library cuts. The real problem, as explained in TFA, is that the library is cutting 22 staff positions.

      (2) Now, you might say, "but why do they need 22 staff positions to maintain an online archive?" They don't. And that's the second misleading thing here: No one appears to be talking about eliminating the online archive completely. TFA explicitly explains that all they will do is cease to add new materials. Basically, the library has to eliminate staff due to budget cuts, so they can't afford to keep the people that ADD new stuff to this archive and update it:

      Although Trove, which was launched in late 2009, is funded by the library's budget, without government funding the library will not be able to update the material in the database.

      So there's no need (at least at this point) for people to go around offering to host or creating torrents or whatever.

      TL;DR -- TFS is BS. NOBODY is talking about elimination of material already in the archive. Budget cuts may just prevent adding future materials.

  18. Re:$20M for 22 employees? by Calydor · · Score: 1

    Wages, electricity, power, perhaps rent for the office area, server maintenance, pensions, health insurance ...

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  19. Re:$20M for 22 employees? by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

    >health insurance ...
    not in Australia...

    --
    We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
  20. perfectly in line by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 1

    with the Australian fascist government/nanny state... burn/vanish culture... good job mates.... :/

  21. Re: Happy Birthday to The United States of America by ultranova · · Score: 2

    How democratic the US may be in practice is a complex question. The biggest problem (greater than voter apathy) is the way the electorate is misinformed and manipulated.

    This is the Age of the Internet. If the electorate is misinformed, it's because they choose to be. They aren't helpless victims but active participants in and consumers of deception. Voting based on fantasies or party identity is probably not going to end well, but the cause is lack of sanity, not lack of democracy.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  22. Re:$20M for 22 employees? by Calydor · · Score: 1

    Got public health insurance in Australia, or does no employer want to get the bill for the insurance?

    The point of my list wasn't accuracy anyway, but pointing out that each employee wasn't getting nearly a million AUD per year.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  23. Re: Happy Birthday to The United States of America by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    and which news website can you honestly say provides true and unbiased reporting of political information? many of the news sites are WHY voters are misinformed. I am pretty damn good with the interweb thingy and be buggered if I know of a good site that I would recommend someone use for truly informed voting. The reality is you have to filter through 100 tons of shit to find 10 grams of gold and much of this is a result of how websites are funded today through clickbait journalism, the majority of people aren't motivated or capable of sifting through that.

  24. Re:You are stupid, potch by Maritz · · Score: 1

    I was going to ask if you're including yourself, but of course you must be. I feel better about it now. At least we can be stupid together.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  25. Re: Happy Birthday to The United States of America by HiThere · · Score: 1

    If you don't want to vote, you may be saying there's no decent candidate who has a chance. Or you may not care. Those are very different statements, with the same exterior symptoms.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  26. Re: Happy Birthday to The United States of America by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Well, that may be an explanation for Trump, I haven't checked, but have you investigated how Hillary became the Democratic candidate? When Sanders started his campaign Hillary already had a large lead in committed delegates, and not a single primary had been held. It's my opinion he was selected by the party as the "designated loser" to provide the illusion of a popular contest, and he was willing because he wanted to promote his position, and for the outside chance that he might win anyway.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  27. Re:One word: Clitoral College by HiThere · · Score: 1

    It's not so much that Gore had more votes, as that he apparently actually won the election, if you discount fraudulent results. One can't tell, of course. The Florida results have been legally sealed, e.g., and in most cases there wasn't even a challenge.

    This is not to assert that the Democrats don't also rig elections. While the Republicans have been more blatant about it (can you say "Dibold"?), the Democrats also do it. Neither side has been willing to fix the electronic voting machines. (Well, you could plausibly claim that California did, as the current model maintains a paper trail, but I've never heard of a manual count being done. And it's possible that other states have done similar things, and I just haven't heard about it.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  28. National Treasures by andrewa · · Score: 1

    Save these treasures like "I Want to Hump my Bluey" before it's too late!

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  29. Re: Happy Birthday to The United States of America by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    As a person from the US, I use BBC, as I know their bias will have nothing to do with the GOP or Democratic Party.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  30. Re: Happy Birthday to The United States of America by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    The Democratic party has something called Super Delegates which are decided by the party elite as to how they want them to vote. Bernie actually did amazingly well considering he had to fight for every delegate, unlike Hillary who was given all those votes off the bat.

    The GOP is actually far more "Democratic" than the DNC in how they choose their candidate, and so it is much more influenced by popularity. Unfortunately, the popular vote doesn't mean the best candidate, as neither party has a particularly good candidate this election.

    I will be voting for Johnson, not because I agree with his policies, but because every vote for a third party increases the chances of a third party actually being viable next election. This happens because the government funds that go towards the campaigns are allocated by percentage of the vote, so the higher percentage, the more funds the third party has to buy commercials and campaign.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  31. Re:One word: Clitoral College by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Except that he didn't win the election, and research and recounting after the Supreme Court made the final determination found that Bush had a lead.

    Keep railing at poor Gore's loss to Bush though, I am sure it will help your party out.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?