This is a weird one. Bear with me. From !dataisbeautiful@lemmygrad.ml:

So I said to myself, “that’s a little bit weird. The US one going up, I can actually believe, but the North Korea one being lower is definitely wrong.”

I think Our World In Data is just being shoddy, as they often do.

https://www.wfp.org/countries/democratic-peoples-republic-korea

https://www.statista.com/statistics/269924/countries-most-affected-by-hunger-in-the-world-according-to-world-hunger-index/

The thing I found funny, and why I’m posting here, comes from observing why it was that they started their graph at 2003 and exactly at 2003.

I feel like you could use this as a slide in a little seminar in “how to curate your data until it matches your conclusion, instead of the other way around.”

And also, I don’t think the hunger rate suddenly dropped from epic to 0 exactly in 2003, I think more likely Our World in Data is just a little bit shoddy about their data.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOPEnglish
      19·
      2 months ago

      And everything needs to be “contextualized.” Meaning, they can decide what your sources actually mean, even if it’s something different than what they say.

      “Can I do that to your sources too?”

      “Don’t be ridiculous. I don’t even have sources. Are you sealioning again?”