Talk:List of countries by literacy rate

North Korea literacy rate

The rate listed for North Korea is clearly in error, whatever the sources. It has widely been reported by escapees of the concentration camps in North Korea that children in the camps do not attend school and are unable to read and write. Given this little bit of information that we have and the complete lack of any transparency in the country, wouldn't it be more appropriate to list the literacy rate in North Korea as "n/a" rather than make a claim that is clearly false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGB (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. "reported by escapees" cannot be considered as a reliable source. Moreover, this data is for people above 15 year old. Children are not counted. Considering the fact that those high ranking countries are mainly from old Soviet system, it is not "clearly false". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.228.29 (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

zimbabwe's literacy rate is much higher than 90.7%.the stats used are out of date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.51.246 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The figure for the DPRK is reported by the only source you really have in DPRK. The government, which, as I'm sure you'd know, is corrupt as anything. Danielennistv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

North Korea is currently listed at 100% literate. This is 100% impossible. Also, for any other country, 100% is also impossible. There are many varying degrees to which a single person is literate. There really is no qualitative standard here. Certainly, there is not a single country on Earth that can verify 100% of its population much less assess the literacy of all 100%. Please provide more information on this subject as I am doing research on the global level of knowledge of mathematics and the literacy rate of the global population. Also, sources other than the CIA fact-book would be advisable. UNESCO Institute for Statistics provides some interesting numbers. This is only a suggestion. More information would be helpful on this topic for me, thank you. Shadowsoldierunknown (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC) 3/4/15

UNESCO agrees with the CIA factbook on this particular information. Other than that i agree with you, we need a specification of what "literacy" means within this context. --Kim D. Petersen 08:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. 100% does not necessarily mean "everyone". If the literacy rate is 99.995% for example, than up to 2 decimal place, it is 100%. If the population of the country is 20 million, 99.995% means about 1000 people are not literate. It seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.228.29 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

But we also have to remember the government reporting this information isn't exactly reliable. Danielennistv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that DPRK could easily have achieved a 100% literacy rate by executing all illiterate adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.19.156 (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I would venture to say that Vatican City is 100% literate. The clergy again, as of old^^--131.159.76.208 (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

With the propaganda machine the way it is in DPRK, I would suspect that every child is schooled in someway or another. Even the most biased, propaganda-based schooling would need start with foundation development like reading. 100% is unrealistic for any society, but I am willing to bet that literacy is very high in DPRK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.76 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree this needs to be either removed or noted. The figure is false. It is absolutely, indisputably false, and it is misleading and deceptive having it on here. Just because it is written down does not mean it is correct. It is clearly, obvious, indisputably wrong and does not belong here. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is wikipedia being used to spread North Korean propaganda? It's ridiculous whoever is locking the article should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.240.184 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

November 2015 update

I have been bold and updated the list according to the CIA Factbook, which mostly consists of 2015 estimates. As a result, some countries with their own sources have had these sources removed. This both increases consistency and reliability since the data is more recent. Many Western countries with 2003 estimates and small island nations with pre-2000 estimates have been removed. The lack of data for small island nations is a common problem for worldwide statistics and I'm certain that the removal of its massively outdated information is an improvement. The loss of many Western countries is a shame, but they are no longer listed on the CIA Factbook or UNESCO, indicating that the data from 2003 is too outdated and Wikipedia should follow suit. Fortunately, I think most people assume these nations to have very high literacy rates (95%+). This does not mean we should put their literacy rate as 99% in the table. If we can find comparable, recent statistics from countries not listed, then we should put them on the list with inline citations. I would say anything published since 2010 is recent and comparable meaning reading and writing for most of the population e.g. over 10 or 15 years old. I do think it's unlikely we will find such data outside of the CIA Factbook, since that's pretty much the basis they use.

A few additional notes on country-specific citations that I've removed:

• Antigua and Barbuda: the CIA list its definition as age 15 and over has completed five or more years of schooling. This is inconsistent with the rest of the data.
• Australia: the skill levels used in this data only relate to reading, not writing. This is inconsistent with the other countries.
• Belize: this document states "For the purpose of this report, persons who have completed at least Standard Five at primary school are considered literate." (p. 5) the report is not claiming this to be the literacy rate.
• Djibouti: I've left this one up, but I cannot access this citation, but would really appreciate help if anyone can. The date of 2012 is recent enough, but I would like to see how the book defines literacy rate.
• Somalia: as the article says, this report does not cover all of Somalia, although I do think the report is useful, so I have added its finding to Education in Somalia.

I would appreciate any comments, so that the disputed factual accuracy tag can be removed. I intend to make a new map once the article is deemed stable. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 20:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you removed the U.S. from the list. 2601:603:4401:FB79:0:0:0:880A (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have; it was part of the 2003 estimates. Jolly Ω Janner 07:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed data for Bangladesh

Hello Lokato, thanks for updating the table. Unfortunately, I've put the article back to the CIA's data, since the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics seems to give very varying figures year by year (http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2014/09/07/jugglery-with-literacy-rate). UNISEF put it at 59% for 2009-2013 and the CIA at 61.5 for 2015. Additionally the sources do not state how it was recorded. The rest of the countries listed were estimates for people aged 15 and over who can read and write in 2015. This makes the data less comparable. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 02:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry i have got the real information in 2015 from CRI publication and i think those links are bias. i got it from realiable sources sorry if you dont beleie but check this out.(http://cri.org.bd/publication/2015/Bangladesh%20Education%20for%20All/#/1/). Anyways i think those were some bias report this report tell the actual literacy rate.

The introduction for this report seems very bias towards the incumbent government of Bangladesh: "As a result, Bangladesh has witnessed tremendous progress" and again it does not state where the 71% statistic came from or how it defines literacy rate. Why do you not prefer the CIA figure? It's from 2015 as well. Jolly Ω Janner 03:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Because its an CRI Publication i think CIA does not tell the reality anways i given real facts!!

• The above discussion has been copied from User talk:Lokato, but has been moved here for more editor to engage.

I would also like to add that the CRI publication doesn't appear to show the difference in male and female literacy rate, as this edit suggests. I'm assuming 166.48.141.173 is Lokato and if so, where was the source for this data found? Jolly Ω Janner 05:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I think this sort of dispute is the problem that comes from having an article like this that is completely based on one source. The CIA's figures are uncritically used for pretty much the entire table. The CIA doesn't give figures for the United States, so it's not on the table at all, and other entries are disputable. Measuring literacy is not easy, and the results of any attempt to measure literacy are going to fluctuate with the methods used. I think the best solution is to add some columns to the chart. So instead of just one column for literacy rate, we have a column for literacy CIA's estimate, a column for UNICEF's estimate, and a column for the country's own estimate, and maybe a column for range which gives the low and high figures, like "61-71%". I think that would solve not just this bangledesh dispute, but many other problems with the article that are discussed higher up on this talk page. @Jolly Janner and Lokato: what do you think? If you both agree I can work on adding the columns. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ONUnicorn. I like the idea of having more data included and had even contemplated a separate table for historical data for the larger Western countries using 2003 data. I think a column with UNICEF's estimate would be a good solution. I still have reservations about the Bangladeshi statistic, but if you consider it reliable, its inclusion could put an end to 166.48.141.173's persistent edit warring. Jolly Ω Janner 19:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think my CRI publication is also correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokato (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Lokato: what do you think about adding a separate column for a country's own estimates, and keeping the other estimates? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn:, it's been a little while since this discussion has started and I'm wondering what to do if Lokato doesn't respond. I'm not sure if has lack of response is because he is busy or if he is fine with us proceeding without him. Jolly Ω Janner 01:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note, I have since found the UNESCO's data for 2015, instead of UNICEF's 2009-2013 average (UNESCO is a parent company of UNICEF). It is 61.5%; same as CIA. Adult literacy rate, population 15+ years, both sexes (%). In fact, I've gone done the first 15 countries listed and CIA and UNESCO have the same result. I don't see the need for UNISEF when it gives a range of years (i.e. 2008-2012) for the data. Jolly Ω Janner 07:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't include a UNICEF column because they use a range of years, do you plan to add a UNESCO column for 2015 instead? Worldbruce (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I would not propose adding a column for UNESCO's 2015 data, as it would be a replica of the CIA column.

The addition of a column of figures from a second source was intended to address two problems. First, that the list depends largely or entirely on a single source. Second, that the sole source is the U.S. government, and specifically the CIA, which a significant number of editors are unlikely to ever accept as neutral and factually accurate. Do you have another proposal for how to address those problems? The fact that UNESCO's figures match the CIA's strongly suggests they're not intellectually independent of each other. Are there any other differences between the two sources (e.g. how well the two explain the methodology behind the numbers, how often they're updated)? Would you replace the CIA with UNESCO? Add UNESCO as a second source? If the latter, what are the implications for when the list is next updated - can we expect the CIA to always be in sync with UNESCO? Worldbruce (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO give a more detailed source to their data than the CIA (Excel). As you can see from the list, the sources are very varied: some are censuses and some are generic surveys. A lot of them are prior to 2015, indicating that the UIS (UNESCO Institute de Statistics) has extrapolated them to come up with their 2015 estimate. I think that UNESCO could be a better source than CIA, since additional information on the methodology can be added (perhaps this can be put into the column where the current year is). I think this should resolve the problem of relying on one source, since the source is a collection of many other sources. I do not know much about the updates to the list. I'm presuming they update it annually since most of the data is for 2015. Jolly Ω Janner 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Fewer editors will cry 'POV' if UNESCO is the main source. A few sentences in the introduction summarizing the range of sources UNESCO relies on would be good. I'm not sure that an explanation of where UNESCO got the data is necessary for every row of the table. Where an editor disputes a UNESCO figure, we might try a ^{[note 1]} to explain how UNESCO arrived at that figure and give the alternative figure with its supporting reliable source. Worldbruce (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I will start by running through every country listed in the article to ensure they match up with UNESCO data, then change the sources used for the article with an additional external link to UNESCO methodology spreadsheet and a note in the lead of the range of sources used. As for Bangladesh, I am still unsure on how to treat it. UNESCO's results are GALP models based on its 2001 census, but this was for its 2013 estimate of 59.7%. The 61.5% figure from its 2015 estimate doesn't have much detail on how it was found other than "UIS estimate". The methodology is only for data estimates in the years 2005-2013. I would assume it's just been extrapolated using the GALP model again. I would propose adding a note to Bandladesh stating that its 2015 estimate has been modeled on 2001 population census "A person who is able to write a letter in any language has been considered as literate.". Jolly Ω Janner 22:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no New Zealand Data?

New Zealand doesn't appear on the chart. Is there any reason why? Alexmitchell1 (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no (recent) data for its literacy rate from the CIA or UNESCO. There is a discussion above about the inclusion for other sources of data. If a consensus is reached to include more sources of data, it may be included. Jolly Ω Janner 06:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alexmitchell1:, I thought I'd follow this up in a bit more detail for you. Previous revisions of our own article listed it as 99% with a citation from the CIA for 2003 estimate. This information is no longer published by the CIA and there were many cases where Western countries were simply given 99% on Wikipedia based on assumptions. New Zealand's own statistics on the matter do not list a literacy rate (i.e. people who can read and write). I believe literacy rates are more useful for developing nations, whereas somewhere like New Zealand may use PISA. Jolly Ω Janner 08:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Another November update

Per discussions on this talk page, I have made another major update to the list by using UNESCO as the main source. The rates were the same as the CIA, although there are some changes. These countries are now on the list:

• Antigua & Barbuda
• Belize
• Cayman Islands
• Cote d'Ivoire
• Guadeloupe
• Guam
• Guyana
• Jamaica
• Martinique
• Reunion
• Slovakia

The following rely on CIA data:

• Israel
• Kosovo
• Solomon Islands
• Taiwan

These two have been removed:

• Djibouti (there were previous concerns about its sources being inaccessible and I don't see it coming to light at any point)
• Czech Republic (The CIA listed it, but noted it wasn't sure about what it was actually measuring. UNESCO don't list it)

A map was made earlier from the CIA data, but I held off adding it to the article for a while. Once updated with this, it will appear. I hope we reach a resolution with Bangladesh and its uncited claims for male and female literacy rates removed. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Update

Countries to Add: Germany, Australia

Data to Update:

2601:282:4101:F0E:185A:423F:6E78:5120 (talk)A Student in Need —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nigeria rate

The figure for Nigeria has recently been changed with the rationale being that it's official. I would say that UNESCO and CIA are also official sources of data. UNESCO had estimates for the year 2015, however the National Bureau of Statistics published this in 2010. Which source should we use? Should we use both? I think before we decide that, we need to see what exactly the National Bureau of Statistics is measuring. The adult literacy rate in their report seems to differ from that posted to the article, so hopefully @Jamie Tubers: can help us out with a page number or something. Jolly Ω Janner 01:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO's source for this data is DHS/GALP: "UIS estimate based on 2008 Demographic and Health Survey data with assessment of reading skills of male population 15-59 years and female population 15-49 years. Literacy rates based on a reading assessment are likely to be lower than literacy rates based on self- or household declaration."

CIA's simply state it as "age 15 and over can read and write (2015 est.)"

• Sorry about the figures, I wasn't aware of the age bracket, I wrote the average for the youth and adult population. I will correct that now, to include only the adult population. About which figures should be used, I believe figures from the statistical bodies of individual countries should be used. But when they are not found, then CIA or other notable sources can be used. Why I think so is that: it is quite unclear how CIA or UNESCO collated their estimates. Did they get them from the the countries' government sources? Or they performed the surveys themselves? It definitely isn't the former (cos it's not possible for a 2015 estimate to be less than an earlier 2010 estimate, judging by economic realities - So definitely, the estimate isn't based on official figures), it definitely isn't the latter either. What do you think?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Jamie Tubers: UNESCO estimate comes from Demographic and Health Survey 2008 (pp 35-36): "Refers to men/women who attended secondary school or higher and women who can read a whole sentence or part of a sentence" with 74.4% and 53.7% respectively. The UIS further interpret this using a GALP model to come to their 2015 estimate of 69.2% and 49.7%. The National Literacy Survey 2010 from Nigeria states "In this survey, literacy was assessed on the ability to read and write with understanding, in English or in any of the Nigerian native languages. The assessment was however based on self-reporting." I'd presume the reason Nigeria's figure changed through the GALP model is that it was initially only report reading skills,so was slightly reduced to take account for those who can read, but can't write. I think the reason for the sizable discrepancy between UNESCO and NBS (about 10%) is the fact that UNESCO used tests, whereas NBS was based on self-reporting. I would comment that they are both reliable sources. If I had to pick one, I would prefer UNESCO since it seems to have gone through more processing, whereas NBS is more raw. What are your thoughts now that I've dug a bit deeper into the data collection? Jolly Ω Janner 02:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, maybe I'll go with your position; even though the UNESCO data is from 2008 Health Survey, while the NBS is 2010. But I think we can just use the CIA for the sake of consistency. However, if the NBS should release an updated publication, I would most probably be leaning towards using the NBS statistics. I'm going with the UNESCO stats, for now. Regards :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• A previous discussion above this one found that UNESCO might seem less biased than CIA. In addition they give a detailed breakdown of the original sources for the data, whereas CIA do not. As far as I'm aware, the CIA World Factbook just uses UNESCO's data. Jolly Ω Janner 03:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I meant UNESCO....The data from both organizations are similar, reason why I use them interchangeably. Sorry for the confusion.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Japan missing

Why is Japan missing in the list ? Wicki (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO generally don't publish data on highly developed countries. Jolly Ω Janner 19:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

US missing

Sorry to be rude, but may I ask why in the name of Holy Fuck the United States is not included in this list? It's not listed under USA, U.S., United States or America. Why would you waste your readers time not showing this obviously desired information?

UNESCO generally don't publish data on highly developed countries. Jolly Ω Janner 17:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Highly developed countries", anyway, US Department of Education & National Institute of Literacy say that 32 million adults in USA can't read, the 14% of the adult population (and the 10% of the entire population), of course, Highly Developed Country...--152.170.7.61 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a URL for others to verify that statement? It could be added to the article. Jolly Ω Janner 18:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Would this help? https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179.pdf -Noah

Worthless article

This is essentially a worthless, intellectually light article. North Korea with 100%? That's just going to go unchallenged? Plus like a third of the countries have no statistics. Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.45.79 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article is worthless. It is a list of countries with the fraction of people who claim to be literate. That may or may not be correlated with the literacy rate, but it certainly isn't the same as the literacy rate. Shame on UNESCO for pretending that they have measured something that they have not even attempted to measure. Sayitclearly (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit on North Korea of January 31

Look, correct or not correct as it may be, 100.0% (self-reported) is what is in the UNESCO data source. If you want to provide a different figure, put it in the "Non-UNESCO Literacy Rate" column, and provide a source. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It is obviously false, though. If a UN report says that cows are sheep, why should we report as such? It needs a note stating the figure is falsified. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by literacy rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509204646/http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml to http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing Data

Can it honestly be true that no one knows what the literacy rate is for places like the US and the UK? Seems unlikely, yet the table is blank for these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably they don't bother collecting data. 89.172.8.118 (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to find out why Unesco doesn't report US or UK, but failed. If nothing else, it would seem to throw off the world average. Dkheh (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179.pdf https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20Japan.pdf I don't know if these pdfs could help

North Korea

Can we remove North Korea's nonsensical 100.0% figure? I'm not buying the "hardline communists give good education" argument. Countries which were closed communist regimes such as Ceauşescu's Romania and Hoxha's Albania show elderly literacy rates well under 100.0%. Clearly this number has been "engineered". 89.172.8.118 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The UNESCO links are dead

None of the UNESCO links actually direct you to the literacy statistics

Map does not correspond to the data in tables

According to the map, literacy rate of the United States is over 95%, while in tables, the only piece of data states 86% (rates for the US specifically are incomplete, however). On the other hand, Russia and many eastern Europe countries are shaded in light pink, indicating literacy rates under 95%, which is not what the rates in tables are. There are probably disparities for other countries as well. Some numbers may be out of date and data on some countries are incomplete. However, it is clear that the map is incompatible with the numbers in the tables. 46.123.250.154 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This whole article is all over the place, WP:SYNTHsizing numbers from different sources and cherry picking everywhere, it’s basically garbage. Volunteer Marek 16:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

North Korea literacy rate, reversion and comments

As anticipated, I've attempted to remove the claims from North Korea about 100% literacy rate, and it has been reverted. This was the edit message:

"Our readers are not stupid, they can make their own minds up about what weight to give the figures UNESCO reports. Every country has incentives to fudge the numbers (perhaps up to make themselves look better, or down to attract more aid). An editor picking and choosing which of UNESCO's numbers to use would be taking a non-neutral WP:POV and engaging in WP:OR. See previous edit summary. If you have a reliable source that says literacy is less than 100%, you're welcome to cite it."

I would say that there are some fundamental points here which may well determine whether Wikipedia is a successful project or a failure, whether it will be a project which spreads information or allows disinformation to be spread:

• "If you have a reliable source that says literacy is less than 100%, you're welcome to cite it" Firstly, the main source for this claim is the North Korean government. Would you, WorldBruce, go on the record as saying that the North Korean government is a reliable source? If we can agree that it is not a reliable source, why should a source be needed to dispute it? Surely the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not with someone trying to disprove a patently false claim? And precisely which scholarship or journalism would be allowed to refute this claim given the dictatorship that North Korea runs? I can understand that Wikipedia has some guidelines, but here it is foolish to follow them.
• "Our readers are not stupid, they can make their own minds up about what weight to give the figures UNESCO reports." I agree that our readers are not stupid, but there are people who casually scan the article and may not be aware that the source and intended context is as a self-published statistic from UNESCO and therefore North Korea, and not as a statement of fact from Wikipedia and its trusted sources.
• "An editor picking and choosing which of UNESCO's numbers to use would be taking a non-neutral WP:POV and engaging in WP:OR" If editors of Wikipedia are unable to come to agreement to treat statistics from NK with mistrust, then the project is sadly doomed. Can you imagine another context where this would be reasonable? Such as journalism deciding that because UNESCO cites it, it simply must be true, an author writing a book who wants to cite NK literacy rates, or a professor teaching a class? Would any of those people have trouble dismissing this particular statistic as nonsense before going on to publish or teach?

ChessFiends (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The proximate sources for the claim that the adult literacy rate of North Korea is 100% are: WorldAtlas [1] and The World Factbook [2]. Past discussions at WP:RSN have found these sources reliable.

WorldAtlas is not transparent about where they got their information. The World Factbook says it uses UNESCO's percentages. The structure of website data.uis.unesco.org has changed in the past few years, and I no longer see a user friendly page there for literacy rates. There is an indicator called "Illiterate population", however.[3] It shows an adult illiterate population for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea of 366 as of 2018. UNESCO says in the cell that this is a "UIS estimation". Clicking the blue circled "i" for more information shows that the source is GALP (Global Age-specific Literacy Projections Model). Further down in the right sidebar it lists data sources used (presumably as inputs to the model) as population census, household surveys, and labour force surveys.

Whatever the ultimate source of the data is, two reliable sources have seen fit to publish the 100% figure. No reliable source has been presented to contest it. So Wikipedia should show it. Removing the data for North Korea while retaining the data for all other countries is not a solution.

I agree with you that the literacy figures (all of them) should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. When Jolly Janner overhauled this list 6-7 years ago I think he came up with stronger inline attribution, something like "According to UNESCO ..." as the first or second sentence of the article, and maybe in the introduction to the table(s) as well. The situation is more complicated now because there are multiple sources, but perhaps you can come up with good wording.

Also, The World Factbook includes the disclaimer, "Detailing the standards that individual countries use to assess the ability to read and write is beyond the scope of the Factbook". And UNESCO notes, "Limitations: Some countries apply definitions and criteria for literacy which are different from the international standards, or equate persons with no schooling to illiterates ... Some assessments of literacy may also rely on self-reporting, possibly reducing accuracy. In countries where nearly all individuals have completed basic education, the literacy rate provides limited information on the variance of literacy skills in the population". Language along these lines would be entirely appropriate in the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Failed verification

The world Facebook gives US literacy as 100% but only the 86% from “world atlas” is used. Volunteer Marek 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)