5 ms·

The internet now exists and easily surpasses the value of this static publication.

by themafia 9mo ago

varun_ch 9mo ago
The World Factbook was a really useful resource on the internet.
MattGaiser 9mo ago
This is an odd thing to say for something heavily used on the internet. It was not just a physical book.
- themafia 9mo ago
  > It was not just a physical book. It was. You were able to access a copy on the internet. It was neither edited nor published there. As such it simply couldn't compete with resources that are.
  - simonw 9mo ago
    Incorrect. The website was updated weekly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook#Frequency_of_updates_and_availability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook#Frequency_o...
  - psyklic 9mo ago
    What is this then: https://web.archive.org/web/20260203163430/https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260203163430/https://www.cia.g... It clearly states on the page that the Factbook was continuously updated, with "new data uploaded this week".
tombert 9mo ago
Has it though? Isn't one of the concerns of information on the internet (regardless of political affiliation) that a lot of it is total bullshit? I've seen so many responses from AI and AI "Summaries" that source claims from 20 year old unsourced forum posts. For that matter, people just make shit up, all the time, often for no apparent reason. It's upsetting that it took me until my 30's to realize that, but regardless I think there is value in canonical, well-funded sources, even with the internet.
- cyberge99 9mo ago
  I think the quality of internet content depends on where you lurk and contribute.
  - mmooss 9mo ago
    in what social venue do you find high-quality content? I don't know of any that come close to matching serious publications, IME.
thaumasiotes 9mo ago
The existence of secondary sources doesn't reduce the need for primary sources. Before something can be published everywhere, it has to be published somewhere.
- throwawayq3423 9mo ago
  Not if everything is made up on the spot for clicks and views, which is where we're heading.
- themafia 9mo ago
  The CIA was a secondary source. This bulk of this material is all drawn from other publications. Which you can now access in ways you could not before.
  - anigbrowl 9mo ago
    We get it, you can't see any utility in having this information aggregated anywhere in a consistent format.
- arrowsmith 9mo ago
  The CIA World Factbook is a tertiary source.
  - hulitu 9mo ago
    But treated by Wikipedia as _the_ primary source. /s
    - red-iron-pine 9mo ago
      it is an official release put out by an organ of the US government responsible for creating intelligence. presumably their facts are undergoing vetting and validation.
      - thaumasiotes 9mo ago

The internet now exists and easily surpasses the value of this static publication.

varun_ch 9mo ago

The World Factbook was a really useful resource on the internet.

MattGaiser 9mo ago

This is an odd thing to say for something heavily used on the internet. It was not just a physical book.

themafia 9mo ago
> It was not just a physical book. It was. You were able to access a copy on the internet. It was neither edited nor published there. As such it simply couldn't compete with resources that are.
- simonw 9mo ago
  Incorrect. The website was updated weekly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook#Frequency_of_updates_and_availability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook#Frequency_o...
- psyklic 9mo ago
  What is this then: https://web.archive.org/web/20260203163430/https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260203163430/https://www.cia.g... It clearly states on the page that the Factbook was continuously updated, with "new data uploaded this week".

tombert 9mo ago

Has it though? Isn't one of the concerns of information on the internet (regardless of political affiliation) that a lot of it is total bullshit? I've seen so many responses from AI and AI "Summaries" that source claims from 20 year old unsourced forum posts. For that matter, people just make shit up, all the time, often for no apparent reason. It's upsetting that it took me until my 30's to realize that, but regardless I think there is value in canonical, well-funded sources, even with the internet.

cyberge99 9mo ago
I think the quality of internet content depends on where you lurk and contribute.
- mmooss 9mo ago
  in what social venue do you find high-quality content? I don't know of any that come close to matching serious publications, IME.

thaumasiotes 9mo ago

The existence of secondary sources doesn't reduce the need for primary sources. Before something can be published everywhere, it has to be published somewhere.

throwawayq3423 9mo ago
Not if everything is made up on the spot for clicks and views, which is where we're heading.
themafia 9mo ago
The CIA was a secondary source. This bulk of this material is all drawn from other publications. Which you can now access in ways you could not before.
- anigbrowl 9mo ago
  We get it, you can't see any utility in having this information aggregated anywhere in a consistent format.
arrowsmith 9mo ago
The CIA World Factbook is a tertiary source.
- hulitu 9mo ago
  But treated by Wikipedia as _the_ primary source. /s
  - red-iron-pine 9mo ago
    it is an official release put out by an organ of the US government responsible for creating intelligence. presumably their facts are undergoing vetting and validation.
    - thaumasiotes 9mo ago