Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A CIA website was out of date about who runs the UK

opensanctions.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: A CIA website was out of date about who runs the UK

#11

Post by KarlKemp »

pudo wrote: post #6
Flashtoo wrote: post #5

Very cool, thank you for your efforts! You mention that it is hard to check whether information is up to date on the CIA website. I see that Wikidata includes both a "start" and "retrieved" timestamp - as many offices are appointed for a set term, do you think it could be helpful to also include an expected end of term date or would that just make it easier to draw the wrong conclusions from outdated data?

Interesting point! I wonder if https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P8554 would be a good model for this? Perhaps this is also a bit different between countries - in some, I think the government has to resign while in others the term change is sort of constitutional-automatic...

I would use nature of statement (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P5102) -> expected (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q50376823) as a qualifier. That would make it easier to update in the common case where it does happen by just deleting the qualifier.

Re: A CIA website was out of date about who runs the UK

#12

Post by glaucon »

FerretFred wrote: post #9

"For the UK, the data is definitely over a year out of date, but also manages to entirely leave out some interesting positions, like the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary" UK reader here. That's interesting ... it's the CIA though: maybe they know something we don't!

Yes my guess was that they had left Rupert Murdoch in, and left out the buffoon who currently has the keys to number ten.

Re: A CIA website was out of date about who runs the UK

#13

Post by toyg »

This is the sort of thing that really newspapers should take on collaboratively, since they would all benefit from it every day.

Sadly, it's a field where egoism rules. Not the only one for sure, but you'd expect better from the class that we, as a society, basically authorize to preach us every day about the values of our time.

Re: A CIA website was out of date about who runs the UK

#15

Post by Freak_NL »

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #4

One could make the argument that omitting the Prime Minister from the list of leaders is actually correct.

Not really. The 'leader' of the Netherlands for all political purposes is the Prime Minister, not the king.

You are mixing up leader with head of state. The latter can be a completely meaningless role fulfilled by a paid actor such as in our case, whereas the nominal leader may look like a paid actor, but tends to have actual power and some form of accountability.

Re: A CIA website was out of date about who runs the UK

#16

Post by Freak_NL »

glaucon wrote: post #12
FerretFred wrote: post #9

"For the UK, the data is definitely over a year out of date, but also manages to entirely leave out some interesting positions, like the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary" UK reader here. That's interesting ... it's the CIA though: maybe they know something we don't!

Yes my guess was that they had left Rupert Murdoch in, and left out the buffoon who currently has the keys to number ten.

Given this weeks reporting I can see how people would be confused.

Re: A CIA website was out of date about who runs the UK

#17

Post by capableweb »

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #4

One could make the argument that omitting the Prime Minister from the list of leaders is actually correct.

One usually has a prime minister as the head of cabinet and the executive branch via the rest of the ministers. What argument could one make to say a prime minister is not a leader, since the actual argument is missing from your comment?

Re: A CIA website was out of date about who runs the UK

#18

Post by martopix »

Freak_NL wrote: post #15
dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #4

One could make the argument that omitting the Prime Minister from the list of leaders is actually correct.

Not really. The 'leader' of the Netherlands for all political purposes is the Prime Minister, not the king. You are mixing up leader with head of state. The latter can be a completely meaningless role fulfilled by a paid actor such as in our case, whereas the nominal leader may look like a paid actor, but tends to have actual power and some form of accountability.

I think it was a political remark on Boris Johnson.

Re: A CIA website was out of date about who runs the UK

#20

Post by heavenlyblue »

Freak_NL wrote: post #15
dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #4

One could make the argument that omitting the Prime Minister from the list of leaders is actually correct.

Not really. The 'leader' of the Netherlands for all political purposes is the Prime Minister, not the king. You are mixing up leader with head of state. The latter can be a completely meaningless role fulfilled by a paid actor such as in our case, whereas the nominal leader may look like a paid actor, but tends to have actual power and some form of accountability.

> leader with head of state

I am not a native speaker - what is the difference between these two words?

Post reply on HN