×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

US National Archives Will Upload All Its Holdings To Wikipedia

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the promise-or-threat dept.

Government 108

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wikipedia != wikimedia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346573)

retards

Movement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346575)

Movement :>

Deleted (5, Funny)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 6 months ago | (#47346577)

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

Re:Deleted (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346625)

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 (2)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47346685)

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 (3, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#47346765)

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 (4, Interesting)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 6 months ago | (#47346927)

Speaking of that, my favorite "contrary to public opinion" was the term MGTOW [mgtow.com] . 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. [lmgtfy.com] But still deleted, over and over and over.
So what did the feminists do? They created page called MGTOW [wikipedia.org] for maximum gross take off weight that is just a REDIRECT to mgtow. The actual term is MTOW [wikipedia.org] 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 [wiktionary.org]
Limited history due to many deletions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_takeoff_weight&offset=&limit=500&action=history [wikipedia.org]

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 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47347087)

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 (1)

geniice (1336589) | about 6 months ago | (#47349551)

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 (1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 6 months ago | (#47350101)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47351009)

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 (-1)

bob_calder (673103) | about 6 months ago | (#47347169)

Not notable is certainly not right. Deleted because stupid.-- much better

Re:Deleted (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 6 months ago | (#47347963)

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 (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#47348257)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47348871)

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 (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#47352117)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47348885)

Yeah, yeah. I'm sure this was all a "feminist" plot. All just a conspiracy against the male gender. I'm guessing that in your wold view there is a giant global conspiracy involving a syndicate of powerful woman and led by the cigarette smoking lesbian.

Re:Deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47351271)

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 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346781)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346827)

Yeah I call BS. You're full of shit.

Re:Deleted (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47347079)

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

Re:Deleted (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 6 months ago | (#47347541)

Jesus, shut the fuck up. It's assholes like you that drive people away from Wikipedia.

I was only trying to help (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47347659)

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:I was only trying to help (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47347709)

So you're proposing to fight a horribly broken and ridiculous bureaucratic fuckup by throwing more horribly broken and ridiculous bureaucracy at it? Come on, spare us the bullshit, tepples.

Re:Deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47351059)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47350683)

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 (1)

DG (989) | about 6 months ago | (#47347715)

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 (1)

odie5533 (989896) | about 6 months ago | (#47347755)

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 (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 6 months ago | (#47347973)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47348407)

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 (1)

DG (989) | about 6 months ago | (#47349357)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47350737)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47351547)

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 (1)

odie5533 (989896) | about 6 months ago | (#47353635)

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 (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47348985)

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 (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 6 months ago | (#47351419)

My post about my cousin Toy Caldwell contained four sources, but the deltionists in Dec 2006 still deleted his page.He had ssix gold recoordsssssssssssssss and aaaa platnium one. They don't even follow their own policies.

Sorry about the reattttted cchaaaaracters. I'm usng Micrrrrrrrosoft's remmote desktttttttttop garbage that repeats characters.

Moderators on drugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47354087)

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

Re:Deleted (4, Funny)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 6 months ago | (#47346795)

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

Re:Deleted (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 6 months ago | (#47347605)

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 (3, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | about 6 months ago | (#47348031)

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 (3, Interesting)

eyrieowl (881195) | about 6 months ago | (#47348145)

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 (1)

geniice (1336589) | about 6 months ago | (#47349567)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47350209)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47347635)

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 (5, Interesting)

DG (989) | about 6 months ago | (#47347741)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47348927)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47353305)

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 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346873)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346895)

> 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 (1)

DG (989) | about 6 months ago | (#47347749)

Says the "Anonymous Coward".

Oh, the irony.

DG

Re:Deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47348065)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47347105)

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

Re:Deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47348079)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47349023)

Just say his name and be done with those riddles.

Re:Deleted (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about 6 months ago | (#47350711)

Woosh!

Re:Deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47348111)

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

Re:Deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47348205)

> 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 (1)

geniice (1336589) | about 6 months ago | (#47349507)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47352143)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346681)

In this day and age, rancid assholes are hip & cool. And guess who has the rancidest asshole of all!? It's me! I'm Rancid Man! My asshole is not only foul, but it's filled with parasite-infested feces! Furthermore, if you jam your fetid cock into the deepest reaches of my bayer aspirin hole, your disgusting cum and my diseased feces can combine to create delectable rectum soup! My smelly, smelly asshole is open to you, my dear sir.

What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you? What say you?

Re:Deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346707)

Awww. somebody deleted your ego page :-)

Re:Deleted (-1, Flamebait)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 6 months ago | (#47346839)

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

Any information thats not progressive or trendy will be deleted also. Cant have conservative, right wing, religious, pro capitalism or anti-socialist propaganda. And if anything is any way slightly anti-feminist will be deleted on the spot.

They Who Write History Control History and thus Control the World....

"citation needed", post deleted due to wikpedia rules biased viewpoint. /s

Re:Deleted (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 6 months ago | (#47346905)

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 [conservapedia.com] .

Re:Deleted (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 6 months ago | (#47347655)

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

Re:Deleted (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 6 months ago | (#47347977)

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 (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 6 months ago | (#47349839)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47350885)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47352037)

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 (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 6 months ago | (#47348277)

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... [wikipedia.org] , in fact it lead to a whole portal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org] 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.

well, there goes my movie idea (0)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 6 months ago | (#47346579)

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

usable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346581)

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

Are they safe there? (0)

bogaboga (793279) | about 6 months ago | (#47346599)

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? (-1, Flamebait)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 6 months ago | (#47346639)

On the bright side, now anyone can amend the constitution. We can also finally remove that annoying comma from the 2nd Amendment.

Re:Are they safe there? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346649)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346657)

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? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47347295)

obnubilate

Thanks for the new word.

Read Only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346643)

Read only? I can only hope so.

why? (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#47346655)

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

Re:why? (2)

fizzer06 (1500649) | about 6 months ago | (#47346673)

The NSA already snagged all the available server storage?

Re:why? (3, Funny)

bswarm (2540294) | about 6 months ago | (#47346689)

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

Re:why? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 6 months ago | (#47347073)

. . . 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/... [economist.com]

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? (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 6 months ago | (#47347985)

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.

Re:why? (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47346693)

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? (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#47346851)

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

Re:why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346751)

> its not like they cant get nearly unlimited funding..

"Whee! Let's throw money at it! Whee! It's not like anyone is going to miss it. Whee! Free money! "

fuckin' liberals.

Re:why? (1)

Dominare (856385) | about 6 months ago | (#47346767)

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

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346893)

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? (4, Informative)

rgmoore (133276) | about 6 months ago | (#47346857)

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.

... at which point dickheads will vandalize it. (2)

EWAdams (953502) | about 6 months ago | (#47346803)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346859)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47346915)

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. (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 6 months ago | (#47348089)

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".

Slow clap (1)

mauriceh (3721) | about 6 months ago | (#47346861)

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

Cue the takedown notices! (1)

ALeader71 (687693) | about 6 months ago | (#47347055)

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

{{PD-USGov}} (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47347149)

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 [wikimedia.org] . 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}} (1)

The ed17 (2834807) | about 6 months ago | (#47347485)

You are correct. A lot of the holdings are documents and pictures, like this one [wikipedia.org] , 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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47347245)

This is going to be one big redacted mess.

How much is that? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 6 months ago | (#47347617)

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

In the true Wikipedia tradition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47347625)

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.

TIL Wikimedia has a newspaper... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47351177)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?