Why the wealthiest countries are also the most open with their data
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
That does not sit well with me. I'm from Canada and have spent a decade making use of gov't data and while Canada does open up a bunch of it, 90% of what they open is benign. The important data, or rather the data which would expose problems, is kept from the public.
These wealthy countries also have other ways to hide even the open data from prying eyes, they simply charge high prices for the data. This easily prevents the general public, who would use the data more critically, from actually using the data.
P.S. I was interrupted by a phone call. The other point I wanted to make, building off of the above, is that humans have created more and more complex results through cooperation than competition alone. I view cooperation as an essential part of modern society and progress.
This is an open data metric conceived by the creators of Sim City. What's important is what data they have, not what data a primitive city-state might have. And the resultant list is a complete farce: the UK and US is at the top next to Denmark. Russia has a score in openness about government spending that is 7-fold higher than Norway.
I can see various initiatives they have undertaken that would get them moving in the right direction such as joining the Open Development Technology Alliance (ODTA) - but I can't figure out the underlying reasons for success.
Even if you had a point (I'm not claiming anything one way or the other) that point is poorly served by a flippant passing comment. Why would being a wealthy country make someone more adept at misleading their populace? If they were, what would be the benefit?
As a PhD student doing research in data analysis, I support governments being open with data whole heartedly. UK government schemes like this [1] are invaluable.
[1]: http://data.gov.uk/
Do you often find yourself taken by surprise?
1. Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire.
My comment was definitely not inflammatory in nature. Being the author of my comment, I'm pretty sure I have higher authority than you to be the judge of this. It was meant to be thought-provoking, in a very casual way. But that doesn't seem to be appreciated on HN (my general impression) Hint: don't take everything so seriously.
"Why would being a wealthy country make someone more adept at misleading their populace? If they were, what would be the benefit? As a PhD student..."
A wise man once said (can't remember where the quote originates from), "The purpose of doing a PhD is learning how to learn" (paraphrased). I hope that the experience will help you answer your own questions, in a few years. For now, just use your imagination...
Arguing that, as the author of your comment, you are more capable of judging how inflammatory it is than the comment's readers is a logical fallacy. How inflammatory something is would be entirely dependent on how it is received by its audience.
Furthermore, responding to my questions by patronisingly telling me to "use my imagination" conveniently avoids those questions. Hint: DBAD ;)