What are people so passionate about the removal of this book and why did the CIA ever create it in the fist place? This seems out of scope to me. CIA could open source it then suggest someone with expertise in this topic take it over and get back on mission.
It appears this person made an attempt at taking it over [1].
It was a key primary source for many forms of data.
There are very few other sources, barring Wikipedia which isn’t a primary source, that maintain a regularly updated “fact sheet” about various countries.
It was also an authoritative source for many discussions especially if you were having the conversation within the U.S. or a friendly allied country.
It was well maintained and I never came across any errors despite having used it heavily.
Finally it is about as consistent as possible. So, for example, if I go to Wikipedia for a certain piece of information, such as population, etc. how Wikipedia defines the population or even the boundaries of certain nations (and therefore the population) wouldn’t necessarily be consistent across countries.
With this it would usually be consistent. You may disagree with the definitions but it would largely be consistent or at the very least it would be useful because this is how the CIA largely defined it, so you still have a consistent authority if not methodology.
All part of the crusade to reduce USA relevance and soft power. Sad to see, but understandable from the point of view of BRICS bros. They’re having a moment, to be sure.
Bender|21 days ago
It appears this person made an attempt at taking it over [1].
[1] - https://appecta.github.io/cia-worldfactbook/
hshdhdhj4444|21 days ago
There are very few other sources, barring Wikipedia which isn’t a primary source, that maintain a regularly updated “fact sheet” about various countries.
It was also an authoritative source for many discussions especially if you were having the conversation within the U.S. or a friendly allied country.
It was well maintained and I never came across any errors despite having used it heavily.
Finally it is about as consistent as possible. So, for example, if I go to Wikipedia for a certain piece of information, such as population, etc. how Wikipedia defines the population or even the boundaries of certain nations (and therefore the population) wouldn’t necessarily be consistent across countries.
With this it would usually be consistent. You may disagree with the definitions but it would largely be consistent or at the very least it would be useful because this is how the CIA largely defined it, so you still have a consistent authority if not methodology.
ChrisArchitect|21 days ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46899808
mohragk|21 days ago
rationalist|21 days ago
This place existed a long time before you created your account an hour ago.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=factbook
K0balt|21 days ago
emsign|21 days ago
belter|21 days ago
Next one to go is going to be this one: https://www.cia.gov/resources/cia-maps/