
Politically motivated climate data deletions - okket
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/arctic-researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations
======
ada1981
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
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
RTFA - Data is actually being deleted, along with citations.

~~~
throwaway2016a
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.

------
Robadob
They don't actually make clear where the information has been deleted from.
But to me it sounds alot like the big fuss at the inauguration when Obama's
Whitehouse website was archived and replaced with Trump's.

The stated 'The US National Strategy for the Arctic' and 'Implementation Plan
for the Strategy', both sound like Obama policy which would have subsequently
have been archived.

Blaming Trump for this is facile at best.

[http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/obama-white-
house...](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/obama-white-house-
website/)

~~~
ItendToDisagree
What is the functional difference between 'deleted' and 'archived but not
available for anyone to view' or is there one?

~~~
Turing_Machine
The entire Obama Whitehouse site is still available for viewing at
[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/)

The Obama administration sites were moved to the National Archives and Trump
started over with new sites. That's exactly the same thing that happened when
Bush II and Clinton left office (Clinton was the first to have a web site, so
we don't have any precedent before that). Nothing has been "deleted".

Oddly, no one seemed to screech when Obama "deleted" all the material from the
Bush II administration. Why not?

------
pvaldes
Big bonfire of burning books: done

What's the next thing in the manual?

~~~
mtreis86
Round up the writers and dissidents

~~~
mtreis86
If anyone has not yet read The Gulag Archipelago, please brace yourself
mentally and do so. A very realistic look at how these things happened at a
certain point in recent history.

------
refurb
Exactly what was deleted? On what website? I can't tell from the article.

------
patrickg_zill
so... they're not her citations in the sense of "things that I have written"
but instead, changed or modified websites that now have dead links, with no
pointers to the data.

I had the same problem this morning in looking for some old Mac software...

~~~
throwaway2016a
Thank you for being one of the only people to bring up the point of the
article. It means the actual citations not the work being cited.

However, as the article points out, it is possible (perhaps even easy) to hunt
down updated links to the research. Instead they were deleted.

If that was done to a Wikipedia article the article would be flagged and
either the text deleted or the link fixed. So in a sense Wikipedia has much
higher standards.

If anything this is a fable of SEO. Why you should always make sure your
legacy URLs provide proper 301 redirects.

------
sundvor
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to
make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

I have no words.

------
asdfologist
Can the Trump supporters here explain why this is a good idea? I'm genuinely
curious.

~~~
shepardrtc
The neocon (or alt-right, or whatever) attitude is that the planet is too
massive and powerful for us to affect it. They believe that climate
researchers and scientists have an agenda to push their liberal viewpoint
about the world on people and control businesses that would otherwise prosper.
The so-called "data" is - in the best case scenario - simply opinion, or - in
the worst case scenario - faked. They believe that if you get rid of the
"data", you can stop the liberals with their bullshit agenda.

And now one of their zealots is whispering in the ear of the President.

~~~
bdavisx
>The neocon (or alt-right, or whatever) attitude is that the planet is too
massive and powerful for us to affect it

Not exactly, that's the idea that's been pushed on the people who don't think
for themselves, and so those people believe it, just like they believe other
fake news.

The "leaders" that actually pushed the idea know that global warming is
happening, and that humans are (at least a part of) the cause; they just don't
care, profits are more important.

------
muninn_
So is he sitting there pressing the delete key himself?

~~~
kapauldo
Don't be a defender, you're making it worse.

~~~
muninn_
Nah

