zlacker

>>bookof+(OP)
Fake is generally the wrong word. Inaccurate would be much more appropriate. Every population estimate is just that. There is going to be error. The error may be small or large, and it may be biased in one direction or another, but there is a clear chain from data to result. Even if your data sources are fraudulent, if you're making any attempt to account for that, though you may not do a very good job, it's still just inaccuracy. Fake would imply that the people releasing the population estimates have a much better estimate but are choosing to instead publish a made up number. This may actually happen in a few cases, but the claim that it's widespread is both hard to believe and unsupported by this article.

>>jjk166+Iq
> Fake would imply that the people releasing the population estimates have a much better estimate but are choosing to instead publish a made up number.

That is literally what the article describes, though, in Papua New Guinea. And it describes why states in Nigeria have such a strong incentive to fake their population numbers, that it's impossible to achieve an accurate national total.

I do think the headline exaggerates, I doubt "a lot" are fake, but some do seem to be.

>>crazyg+Fr
> That is literally what the article describes, though, in Papua New Guinea.

No it doesn't. It says the UN came up with a different estimate, which the UN wound up not adopting. There is no evidence that the UN estimate actually used better methods.

> I do think the headline exaggerates, I doubt "a lot" are fake, but some do seem to be.

I am strictly arguing against "a lot" being fake, and specifically that an isolated example is not evidence of "a lot."

>>jjk166+801
> There is no evidence that the UN estimate actually used better methods.

The article certainly argues that the UN used better methods. Do you have evidence to the contrary? See:

> So the 2022 population estimate was an extrapolation from the 2000 census, and the number that the PNG government arrived at was 9.4 million. But this, even the PNG government would admit, was a hazy guess... It’s not a country where you can send people to survey the countryside with much ease. And so the PNG government really had no idea how many people lived in the country.

> Late in 2022, word leaked of a report that the UN had commissioned. The report found that PNG’s population was not 9.4 million people, as the government maintained, but closer to 17 million people—roughly double the official number. Researchers had used satellite imagery and household surveys to find that the population in rural areas had been dramatically undercounted.

>>crazyg+U41
I think the issue in this thread is that you replied to a person asking a question by quoting the article.

It's implied that it's your position because you argued using the article. Otherwise you're just helping the other by showing them the relevant part the article.

Imagine there was a discussion about a 911 conspiracy article and a person comments "Yeah but wouldn't the fuel burning collapse the building"

If I replied with a quote from the article

"..jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel"

Wouldn't you think that's my view as well since the point of the comments are to express opinions about the article and situation?