Topics: open data

Article by Margaret Talbot: “If you have spent time on Wikipedia—and especially if you’ve delved at all into the online encyclopedia’s inner workings—you will know that it is, in almost every aspect, the inverse of Trumpism. That’s not a statement about its politics. The thousands of volunteer editors who write, edit, and fact-check the site manage to adhere remarkably well, over all, to one of its core values: the neutral point of view. Like many of Wikipedia’s s principles and procedures, the neutral point of view is the subject of a practical but sophisticated epistemological essay posted on Wikipedia. Among other things, the essay explains, N.P.O.V. means not stating opinions as facts, and also, just as important, not stating facts as opinions. (So, for example, the third sentence of the entry titled “Climate change” states, with no equivocation, that “the current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution.”)…So maybe it should come as no surprise that Elon Musk has lately taken time from his busy schedule of dismantling the federal government, along with many of its sources of reliable information, to attack Wikipedia. On January 21st, after the site updated its page on Musk to include a reference to the much-debated stiff-armed salute he made at a Trump inaugural event, he posted on X that “since legacy media propaganda is considered a ‘valid’ source by Wikipedia, it naturally simply becomes an extension of legacy media propaganda!” He urged people not to donate to the site: “Defund Wikipedia until balance is restored!” It’s worth taking a look at how the incident is described on Musk’s page, quite far down, and judging for yourself. What I see is a paragraph that first describes the physical gesture (“Musk thumped his right hand over his heart, fingers spread wide, and then extended his right arm out, emphatically, at an upward angle, palm down and fingers together”), goes on to say that “some” viewed it as a Nazi or a Roman salute, then quotes Musk disparaging those claims as “politicized,” while noting that he did not explicitly deny them. (There is also now a separate Wikipedia article, “Elon Musk salute controversy,” that goes into detail about the full range of reactions.)

This is not the first time Musk has gone after the site. In December, he posted on X, “Stop donating to Wokepedia.” And that wasn’t even his first bad Wikipedia pun. “I will give them a billion dollars if they change their name to Dickipedia,” he wrote, in an October, 2023, post. It seemed to be an ego thing at first. Musk objected to being described on his page as an “early investor” in Tesla, rather than as a founder, which is how he prefers to be identified, and seemed frustrated that he couldn’t just buy the site. But lately Musk’s beef has merged with a general conviction on the right that Wikipedia—which, like all encyclopedias, is a tertiary source that relies on original reporting and research done by other media and scholars—is biased against conservatives.

The Heritage Foundation, the think tank behind the Project 2025 policy blueprint, has plans to unmask Wikipedia editors who maintain their privacy using pseudonyms (these usernames are displayed in the article history but don’t necessarily make it easy to identify the people behind them) and whose contributions on Israel it deems antisemitic…(More)”.

Article by Jessica Hilburn: “This land was made for you and me, and so was the data collected with our taxpayer dollars. Open data is data that is accessible, shareable, and able to be used by anyone. While any person, company, or organization can create and publish open data, the federal and state governments are by far the largest providers of open data.

President Barack Obama codified the importance of government-created open data in his May 9, 2013, executive order as a part of the Open Government Initiative. This initiative was meant to “ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration” in furtherance of strengthening democracy and increasing efficiency. The initiative also launched Project Open Data (since replaced by the Resources.data.gov platform), which documented best practices and offered tools so government agencies in every sector could open their data and contribute to the collective public good. As has been made readily apparent, the era of public good through open data is now under attack.

Immediately after his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders, many of which targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) for removal in federal government operations. Unsurprisingly, a large number of federal datasets include information dealing with diverse populations, equitable services, and inclusion of marginalized groups. Other datasets deal with information on topics targeted by those with nefarious agendas—vaccination rates, HIV/AIDS, and global warming, just to name a few. In the wake of these executive orders, datasets and website pages with blacklisted topics, tags, or keywords suddenly disappeared—more than 8,000 of them. In addition, President Trump fired the National Archivist, and top National Archives and Records Administration officials are being ousted, putting the future of our collective history at enormous risk.

While it is common practice to archive websites and information in the transition between administrations, it is unprecedented for the incoming administration to cull data altogether. In response, unaffiliated organizations are ramping up efforts to separately archive data and information for future preservation and access. Web scrapers are being used to grab as much data as possible, but since this method is automated, data requiring a login or bot challenger (like a captcha) is left behind. The future information gap that researchers will be left to grapple with could be catastrophic for progress in crucial areas, including weather, natural disasters, and public health. Though there are efforts to put out the fire, such as the federal order to restore certain resources, the people’s library is burning. The losses will be permanently felt…Data is a weapon, whether we like it or not. Free and open access to information—about democracy, history, our communities, and even ourselves—is the foundation of library service. It is time for anyone who continues to claim that libraries are not political to wake up before it is too late. Are libraries still not political when the Pentagon barred library access for tens of thousands of American children attending Pentagon schools on military bases while they examined and removed supposed “radical indoctrination” books? Are libraries still not political when more than 1,000 unique titles are being targeted for censorship annually, and soft censorship through preemptive restriction to avoid controversy is surely occurring and impossible to track? It is time for librarians and library workers to embrace being political.

In a country where the federal government now denies that certain people even exist, claims that children are being indoctrinated because they are being taught the good and bad of our nation’s history, and rescinds support for the arts, humanities, museums, and libraries, there is no such thing as neutrality. When compassion and inclusion are labeled the enemy and the diversity created by our great American experiment is lambasted as a social ill, claiming that libraries are neutral or apolitical is not only incorrect, it’s complicit. To update the quote, information is the weapon in the war of ideas. Librarians are the stewards of information. We don’t want to be the Americans who protested in 1933 at the first Nazi book burnings and then, despite seeing the early warning signs of catastrophe, retreated into the isolation of their own concerns. The people’s library is on fire. We must react before all that is left of our profession is ash…(More)”.