I do work with "open data" on a near-obsessive basis and -- friends, please do not trust "open data" portals to reflect reality accurately. The datasets are often curated, categories changed during the ETL processes, rows missing, and things like that. For example, Chicago's "crimes" dataset intentionally doesn't include all homicides. Can't remember the exact dataset, but I once had a conversation with Chicago's head of open data who told me that they intentionally removed many rows because they were concerned that the public was going to misinterpret the results... but didn't make it clear that rows were missing. So I guess everybody gets the opportunity to misinterpret the results!
FOIA is the better alternative because it gives you the original, pre-cleaned data. Open data is a lie.
This is super true. For my city’s portal as well. I’ve found one way around this by versioning the dataset - that is, committing the diffs in git. Credit to Simon Willison’s git-scraping technique.
Hah that's classic politics
"Hello John Q. Public, here's all our data! It speaks for itself"
John Q. Public: "Wow, you really improved last few years homicide-wise"
"And so you see, a third party unrelated to us has just confirmed what a great job we're doing with simple empirical, evidence-based governance!"
So that means what you want to do is specialize in identifying bias in these datasets and finding the smoking gun. Such a task can be an ugly business but necessary for the public good, pushing data sharers to either share good data, or not share, but not share tricksy data in this unethical way.
Having submitted thousands of FOIA requests, I get the impression that you haven't, actually, submitted many FOIA requests. I've received many, many, many, many non-PDF FOIA responses.
Share me some of the open data you've worked with and I'd love to poke at it and tell you where it's wrong and where assumptions about its data is wrong.
Thousands?! Do you have a public list on everything?
Have you had to fight a lot of malicious compliance which balloons up your request count? Or do they typically require an incredibly narrow request that you have up submit N entries per topic?
Not any different from being red-team'd, but you do you. But thanks for your input -- it makes more sense that your apparent reluctance to be challenged makes it clear why you think my take is odd.
Even still, I challenge you to challenge yourself to understand where your blind spots are. I've done it many times and have found significant problems with the open datasets I've worked with. If you think my take is weird, it's only because you're not looking or the data you're looking at is inconsequential.
To me, this stuff is literal life and death. If we make mistakes in our analysis because of misinformation from the source, then the lives and deaths of people we're trying to understand becomes tarnished. We can treat our neighbors better than that.
There are lots of reasons someone doesn't want to be "challenged" by some blowhard on the internet. One of them, true in my case, is I don't even work in this area anymore, as I said in my original post.
Can I ask why exactly you think my take is "very weird"?
Your original post was exceptionally dismissive, without explanation, and your comment on FOI was said so confidently probabilistic that it struck me that you misunderstood what I was suggesting. pardon my aggressive response. I get a lot of similar dismissiveness whenever I interact with government agencies, often where I'm told that something doesn't exist, or "Just look at the data portal", while the data portal is intentionally missing the information I look for. I don't expect you to answer my question, but I hope you can try to understand where I'm coming from in my thoughts and opinions on open data. My intent was only to get you to share your thoughts further.
Look, for starters, the stuff we're talking about covers a pretty broad spectrum. Your framing of the question about "intentionally missing" stuff suggests that you're interested in transparency-style data: data that gives you insight into the operations of the government body. And yes, if you are looking for data that might reflect poorly on the organisation, an open data portal is generally not the place to go for it.
This HN item for instance, is not about that kind of data. The datasets in question tell you about the transport network, the services, the patronage, the history, all kinds of interesting stuff.
So I find it "weird" that you would respond to a good-faith effort of sharing tons of information about a public transport network with this hostile approach of disparaging open data portals, and advocating instead an approach which is extremely resource-intensive for government bodies, when it's completely uncalled for.
Yeah, if you want to investigate a government cover-up, or shine light on some terrible mismanagement of resources, go for your life and submit FOI requests. Your mention of having filed thousands of FOI requests suggests you have consumed many tens of thousands of hours of public servants' time, and I really hope the results justify it.
Years ago during the pandemic early days, a harvard epidemiology student asked me to proof-read his paper that argued that covid-19 killed more white people than any other race. The dataset he used was the Cook County Medical Examiner dataset. There was a column in there for the race information. If you're curious how it's populated, I can share with you the information.
Previously, I'd FOIA'd the data and received many more columns of information including the names of the individuals who'd died which showed a very clear pattern that the race information on the open data portal was not always accurate for Hispanic-origin names. The details are complicated, and I'm happy to explain my fact checking methods, but the Harvard student's analysis was just flat wrong because it made assumptions that the race data was correct. It was not.
Their response was initially along the lines of, "even if it's 50% it's still going to be true". It ended up being more like 80%, showing that people with Hispanic-origin names were significantly more likely to die of COVID-19.
If you think your audience isn't academics at mega institutions who believe that open data is 100% accurate data, then you've made many incorrect assumptions and I encourage you to reconsider.
Where I grew up the data for murders is curated in such a way that anybody that dies 24 after being attacked is not considered a ‘murder’. Tehy do this to reduce the statistical murder rate.
Yes, of course there can be. But I cannot ignore the harms in doing so, by misrepresenting the data in a way that disallows others to understand what is or isn't there -- it happens regularly. These datasets are often used as a political tool and contracted with local universities to show that they're providing data... though not actually providing the accurate data. Simultaneously though, people who don't know data will champion the data as accurate because it comes from a university program.
Sometimes what can happen is that somebody inexperienced will try to make some assessment of the data and come to the exact wrong conclusion because they didn't know what not to trust. But it gets on the news anyway and damage is done.
FOIA is the better alternative because it gives you the original, pre-cleaned data. Open data is a lie.