Wikipedia:Reliability of open government data/Intralexical's Response

In articles on other subjects with disputed or controversial figures, like wars and natural disasters, it is common to give a range of estimates and possibly elaborate in the article body on the entity making the estimate.

If RS say that the open government data may be fictitious, then that should also be mentioned in the article.

I tend to be of the opinion that where controversy or shortcomings in accuracy may exist, the safest solution is to simply increase coverage so that readers are aware of it. So if open government data is considered dubious but no viable alternatives exist for its subject, then I would consider that coverage about its reliability (such as in a dedicated, prominent section) should also be included where it is most relevant.

I suppose "official sources" in this context means the same as "government sources". It is not immediately clear to me what purpose a noticeboard for rating these would serve, or why that role is necessary. RSP assesses whether sources are *reliable*— Whether they can be assumed to report the truth. There's probably not much room for controversy in whether a source is "official" or not. That means that a noticeboard for "official sources" would probably serve to ascertain reliability, which may be redundant with existing mechanisms for assessing the reliability of sources.

Even if there are enough people with the backgrounds to generate statistically substantiated scores for sources of data, this may have issues with transparency. To me, trust in things I read on Wikipedia comes not just from the use of reliable sources, but also the fact that anyone can (in theory) see, look into, understand, and contribute to the process that aggregates those sources. Depending on a likely insular group of people with rather specialized skills risks undermining that.

Additionally, depending on how the scores are generated— Are they to be synthesized using the data from multiple peer-reviewed sources, or do they just report assessments made by the peer-reviewed sources?— This feels potentially a bit close to original research. Even if the scores are only copied from existing academic work, compiling them together such that the reader is likely to compare them to each other would be synthesis, in my opinion. Technically I guess it could be fine as it doesn't go into the articles themselves, but only the process, similarly to RSP. However, displaying the scores in the infoboxes in the article namespace definitely crosses into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, I think.

I'm also not convinced that this would actually improve the controversy or integrity of the process, compared to having an official source noticeboard based on discussion and consensus. There would still be choices to be made with respect to methodology. It may just restrict the controversy to those with the means to. Or it may just cover up a flawed process with the appearance of objectivity.

In general, I do think Wikidata seems underutilized

In my reading, the main argument for keeping open government data isn't just about reliability, but also significance and the lack of suitable replacements.

My sense is that "reliable" is part of the process, but "official" should be part of the content. "Reliable" is a behind-the-scenes definition that editors use to determine what is true about any given phenomenon. "Official" is a trait of that phenomenon itself, which, from the persepctive of the process, should not be any different from other traits like "happened on Tuesday".

I suppose the implication of that is that "official" should not be mistaken to be interchangeable for "reliable" in the process.

E.G.:


 * Bad: 1,234 people have been affected by COVID-19. [AutocraticRepublic.gov]
 * Okay: The Autocratic Republic has confirmed that 1,234 people have been affected by COVID-19. [AutocraticRepublic.gov][ReliableNewsOrAcademia.org]

Perhaps this possible distinction should be further discussed, commented on, and possibly communicated in policy, and cases where "official" sources are used as "reliable" sources should be found and rephrased?