UN Makes Its Statistical Data Free and Searchable 79
NorseWolf writes "Since its foundation, the United Nations system has been collecting statistical information from member states on a variety of topics. The information thus collected constitutes a considerable information asset of the organization. However, these statistical data are often stored in proprietary databases, each with unique dissemination and access policies. As a result, users are often unaware of the full array of statistical information that the UN system has in its data libraries. The current arrangement also means that users are required to move from one database to another to access different types of information. UNdata addresses this problem by datapooling major UN databases and those of several other international organizations into one single Internet environment. The innovative design allows a user to access a large number of UN databases either by browsing the data series or through a keyword search."
Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to knock this applaudable achievement, but what exactly makes this solution innovative? Or has the meaning of this word simply been diluted more than I thought.
That aside, interesting project
Re:Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Without such information, you cannot ascertain the accuracy of the data & you cannot compare it to any other data sets.
Where are the links to the source reports?
Drugs (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny you should say that (Score:5, Insightful)
For most countries, statistical information is really wishful thinking. If you can't control your borders, tax your citizens effectively, or provide infrastructure, you can't collect accurate statistics. Indeed, even for developed countries statistics may be suspect, especially trade data.
However, as people like to say, even bad data is better than no data.
What about all the others? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Funny you should say that (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever says that deserves the bad policy they get that was based on that bad data. You can never achieve 100% accuracy but it is a goal that still should be attempted. To accept otherwise is not only foolish but also dangerous. It leads to such stupidity as the US is currently experiencing with global warming and evolution. Screwing up the data bad enough gives the opposition to proper policy the ammunition to call "junk science" on that policy. So no, it isn't better to have bad data over no data.
Re:Funny you should say that (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Innovation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'm not sure why the per capita really comes into play without population density.But either way, the problem is supposedly Co2 not Co2 per person. Take a look at Australia when I add it to the ops chart. [un.org] Notice how AU is listed at 15 or so and produces less Co2 then the UK as to the previous chart. Well hell, even India is misleading. It is the lowest with 1 on the per capita chart and they produce more Co2 then the UK and AU put together.
Now I am going to suggest something that most people want to ignore, look at the countries on the lists with a low per capita rating and think about the standard of living compared to the higher ones. And I don't mean how rich people charter choppers to goto their kids little league softball game. I mean the person at the poverty line who has a car, TV, cell phone, Air conditioning, Cable TV in some cases, compared to people living in those low emission per capita countries.
Re:Innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)