existing] problem that is somewhere else. 
Regardless of the real probability of data alterations before they are published, the major problem  
happens after. We already mentioned in the first report the fact that, while correct interpretation of  
public data from the majority of average citizens  is absolutely critical, the current situation, even in  
countries with (theoretical) high alphabetization and Internet access rates, is one in which most  
people still lack the skills needed for such analysis. Therefore, there surely is space for both  
intentional manipulation of PSI and for misunderstanding it. After the publication of the first report,  
we've encountered several examples of this danger, which are reported in the rest of this paragraph. 
Before describing those cases, and in spite of them, it is necessary to point out one thing. While the  
impact on the general public (in terms of raising interest and enhancing participation) on the Open  
Data activity of 2010 is been, in many cases and as of today, still minimal, it is also true that there  
has been no big increase in demagogy, more or less manipulated scandals and conflictual discussion 
caused by Open Data. There has certainly been something of this in the Cablegate but that's not  
really relevant because, as we've already explained, what Wikileaks did is intrinsically different  
from  Open  Data.  So  far,  negative  or  at  least  controversial  reactions  by  manipulation  and 
misunderstanding of Open Data haven't happened to such a scale to justify not opening PSI. 
This said, let's look at some recent example of misunderstanding and/or manipulation based on  
(sometimes open) public digital data. 
Nicolas Kayser-Bril  mentioned a digital map of all the religious places in Russia, that shows  
[also] "mosques that are no longer in use, so as to convey the idea that Muslims were invading  
Russia." 
In September 2010 the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology officially declared 
in September 2010 that they were evaluating whether to stop publishing online Italy's seismic data,  
as they had been doing for years. The reason was that, following the March 2009 earthquake in  
Italy, the data were being used to "come to conclusions without any basis at all" , both by the press, 
to sell more, and by local politicians trying to hide the lack of preventive measures, like enforcing  
anti seismic construction codes. 
Still in Italy, Daniele Belleri runs a Milan crime mapping blog called "Il giro della Nera", making a 
big effort to explain to his readers the limits of the maps he publishes, and the potential for  
misunderstanding  if  they  are  used  without  preparation,  or  with  wrong  expectations.  This  is  a 
synthesis of Belleri's explanation, also covered in  other websites , that is applicable to any map-
18/34
Copyright  2011 LEM, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna. This work is released under a Creative Commons attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)