3 ms·

This seems to be happening with enough frequency that we citizens of the world ought to create a third party mirror of all gov data so as to withstand leadershi

by ada1981 10y ago

This seems to be happening with enough frequency that we citizens of the world ought to create a third party mirror of all gov data so as to withstand leadership transitions and politically motivated deletions. I'd say someone like the UN should coordinate this, but it would probably be better done by a Wikipedia style outfit. Maybe on the block chain. Perhaps we need a DataCoin that fuels keeping this stuff alive. I'm curious how much data we are talking about and how difficult it would be for us to automate backing it up so this sort of issue isn't as devastating. Might also be a way for us to cite data in such a way that it automatically triggers archiving. Ie. Using http://dataarchive.org/govagency.gov/data/numbers http://dataarchive.org/govagency.gov/data/numbers would automatically store the source info as well as last accessibilily information. Ideas?

throwaway2016a 10y ago
Replying to you to clarify the article since you are the top voted comment and I think it might lend itself to other people making conclusions they shouldn't without reading the article. While I agree with you, I'm not sure that is the case here. The research is not deleted in this case, just literally the citations. Here it sounds more like: Either A. People editing citations in articles need to be less lazy and relocate missing sources or B. Research sites need to follow proper SEO best practice and use 301 redirects when they move files
- mdekkers 10y ago
  RTFA - Data is actually being deleted, along with citations.
  - ada1981 10y ago
    Right this seems like what is going on. Or at the least, things were publicly accessible and now are not so there is no way of knowing if these data sets are alive somewhere.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    I did RTFA and this paragraph threw me off: > All in all, emails about defunct links of sites that weren’t saved are annoying, but harmless. Finding archived materials to replace them add maybe 20 minutes of internet searches to my day – and a bit of anger at the state of the country. The way I read that was that the articles still existed elsewhere. But reading the article again I can see they are referring to other people's citations of the things that are deleted. Also, the title itself: > I am an Arctic researcher. Donald Trump is deleting my citations Citation is defined by the dictionary as: > "a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work." Not the source data. So my apologies. I misread what the author was intending to say. But in defense if the author was intending to say that then the word citation in the title is used completely wrong. (or scientist have a different definition which I find odd) Actually readying the article again. I am still not sure I was not right the first time. Deleting a citation is NOT deleting the source material. Deleting "cited material" is.

by ada1981 10y ago

throwaway2016a 10y ago

Replying to you to clarify the article since you are the top voted comment and I think it might lend itself to other people making conclusions they shouldn't without reading the article. While I agree with you, I'm not sure that is the case here. The research is not deleted in this case, just literally the citations. Here it sounds more like: Either A. People editing citations in articles need to be less lazy and relocate missing sources or B. Research sites need to follow proper SEO best practice and use 301 redirects when they move files

mdekkers 10y ago
RTFA - Data is actually being deleted, along with citations.
- ada1981 10y ago
  Right this seems like what is going on. Or at the least, things were publicly accessible and now are not so there is no way of knowing if these data sets are alive somewhere.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  I did RTFA and this paragraph threw me off: > All in all, emails about defunct links of sites that weren’t saved are annoying, but harmless. Finding archived materials to replace them add maybe 20 minutes of internet searches to my day – and a bit of anger at the state of the country. The way I read that was that the articles still existed elsewhere. But reading the article again I can see they are referring to other people's citations of the things that are deleted. Also, the title itself: > I am an Arctic researcher. Donald Trump is deleting my citations Citation is defined by the dictionary as: > "a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work." Not the source data. So my apologies. I misread what the author was intending to say. But in defense if the author was intending to say that then the word citation in the title is used completely wrong. (or scientist have a different definition which I find odd) Actually readying the article again. I am still not sure I was not right the first time. Deleting a citation is NOT deleting the source material. Deleting "cited material" is.