Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government United States Wikipedia

US National Archives Will Upload All Its Holdings To Wikipedia 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US National Archives Will Upload All Its Holdings To Wikipedia

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Deleted (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29, 2014 @06:40PM (#47346625)

    Notability is the word you're looking for:


    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 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29, 2014 @07:18PM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @08:02PM (#47346927) Homepage Journal

    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Sunday June 29, 2014 @08:43PM (#47347079) Homepage Journal
    Do you have a link to the discussion on Articles for deletion?
  • Re:Deleted (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29, 2014 @08:46PM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DG ( 989 ) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @11:32PM (#47347741) Homepage Journal

    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eyrieowl ( 881195 ) on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:53AM (#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.

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito