Hubbry Logo
Open knowledgeOpen knowledgeMain
Open search
Open knowledge
Community hub
Open knowledge
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Open knowledge
Open knowledge
Open knowledge
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Open knowledge is interpreted broadly, including the production of open content (such as open data, open source software, open education resources, and open access), as well as practices (such as open research).
Explainer video: What is open knowledge? (A short history of copyright)

Open knowledge (or free knowledge) is knowledge that is free to use, reuse, and redistribute without legal, social, or technological restriction.[1] Open knowledge organizations and activists have proposed principles and methodologies related to the production and distribution of knowledge in an open manner.

The concept is related to open source and the Open Definition, whose first versions bore the title "Open Knowledge Definition", is derived from the Open Source Definition.

History

[edit]

Early history

[edit]

Similarly to other "open" concepts, though the term is rather new, the concept is old: One of the earliest surviving printed texts, a copy of the Buddhist Diamond Sutra produced in China around 868 AD, contains a dedication "for universal free distribution".[2] In the fourth volume of the Encyclopédie, Denis Diderot allowed re-use of his work in return for him having used material from other authors.[3]

Twentieth century

[edit]

In the early twentieth century, a debate about intellectual property rights developed within the German Social Democratic Party. A key contributor was Karl Kautsky who in 1902 devoted a section of a pamphlet to "intellectual production", which he distinguished from material production:

Communism in material production, anarchy in the intellectual that is the type of a Socialist mode of production, as it will develop from the rule of the proletariat—in other words, from the Social Revolution through the logic of economic facts, whatever might be: the wishes, intentions, and theories of the proletariat.[4]: 40 

This view was based on an analysis according to which Karl Marx's law of value only affected material production, not intellectual production.

With the development of the public Internet from the early 1990s, it became far easier to copy and share information across the world. The phrase "information wants to be free" became a rallying cry for people who wanted to create an internet without the commercial barriers that they felt inhibited creative expression in traditional material production.

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 with the ethos of providing information which could be edited and modified to improve its quality. The success of Wikipedia became instrumental in making open knowledge something that millions of people interacted with and contributed to.

Organisations and activities promoting open knowledge

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Open knowledge

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Open knowledge encompasses information, data, and content that individuals and organizations can freely access, use, reuse, modify, and redistribute, subject only to limited restrictions that maintain attribution and openness. This framework, formalized in the Open Definition first published in and updated periodically, requires such materials to be available as a complete whole at no greater than the of reproduction, often in machine-readable formats, and licensed to permit derivative works including for commercial purposes without technological barriers. The (OKF), established on 20 May 2004 in , , by Rufus Pollock, has driven the open knowledge movement through advocacy, software development, and standards like the Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network (), an open-source platform for data portals used by governments and institutions worldwide. OKF's mission emphasizes building a where non-personal knowledge empowers broad participation rather than concentrating power, influencing policies on data and educational resources. Notable achievements include the proliferation of open data ecosystems that enable empirical analysis and innovation, such as national open data strategies in countries like the and , and tools fostering collaborative knowledge production in fields like and . However, the movement grapples with controversies, including sustainability challenges for open projects reliant on voluntary contributions, risks of low-quality or manipulated data in unrestricted repositories, and tensions between openness mandates and protections that some creators argue undermine incentives for original production. Despite these, open knowledge principles underpin causal advancements in transparency and , prioritizing verifiable reuse over controlled dissemination.

Definition and Principles

Core Principles of Openness

Open knowledge embodies principles of that prioritize unrestricted access, reuse, and redistribution to foster innovation and public benefit, as articulated in the Open Definition developed by the . Central to this framework is the stipulation that open works must enable anyone to freely access, use, modify, and share the material for any purpose, subject at most to conditions preserving attribution () and the maintenance of openness itself, such as share-alike requirements. This approach draws from foundational concepts in and but extends them to , content, and knowledge resources, ensuring compatibility with licenses like those compliant with . A primary requirement is availability and access: materials must be provided in a convenient, modifiable form, typically downloadable online at no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, and structured in machine-readable formats processable by libre or open-source software to avoid technological barriers. This ensures practical usability, as non-digital or proprietary formats would hinder broad participation. Open licenses must further guarantee reuse and redistribution, permitting the creation of derivative works, combination with other datasets, and dissemination without fees or discrimination against persons, groups, fields of endeavor, or specific uses—prohibiting, for instance, non-commercial clauses that limit economic applications. Additional principles enforce universal participation and minimal restrictions: licenses cannot impose field-specific limitations (e.g., restricting to educational use only) or require additional terms for derivatives, and they must apply to the work as a whole rather than subsets. Attribution and integrity clauses are permissible to credit originators and prevent misrepresentation, but they cannot undermine core freedoms. Works in the inherently satisfy these criteria, while licensed materials must align with approved open licenses listed by the Open Definition advisory council. These principles, formalized in Open Definition version 2.1, aim to build interoperable knowledge commons, though critics note potential challenges in enforcing share-alike terms across diverse jurisdictions without eroding incentives for initial creation.

The Open Definition and Its Evolution

The Open Definition, maintained by Open Knowledge International (formerly the ), establishes criteria for what constitutes "open" knowledge, data, and content. It requires that such works be provided under dedications or open licenses, accessible at no more than a reasonable reproduction cost (typically free online download), and in machine-readable formats processable by . Open licenses under the must permit commercial and non-commercial use, redistribution, modification, and combination with other works without discrimination against persons, groups, or fields of endeavor, while allowing conditions such as attribution, share-alike, and provision of source data. The definition originated from efforts to extend principles of to broader domains, drawing directly from , which itself traces to the Debian Free Software Guidelines and Richard Stallman's ideals emphasizing freedoms to use, study, modify, and distribute. Its purpose is to foster a robust where can be freely accessed, used, modified, and shared, subject only to requirements preserving and openness, thereby enabling innovation, verification, and collaboration without undue legal, technological, or social barriers. The initial draft, version 0.1, was produced in August 2005 by Rufus Pollock of the and circulated for feedback to experts including Peter Suber, , Tim Hubbard, Peter Murray-Rust, Jo Walsh, and Prodromos Tsiavos. A second draft (v0.2) followed in October 2005, posted on the OKF website, with minor revisions in v0.2.1 released in May 2006 incorporating community input. Version 1.0, the first formal release, appeared in July 2006 on opendefinition.org, solidifying the core freedoms aligned with but adapted for non-software knowledge. Version 1.1, issued in November 2009, made minor corrections, merged annotated and simplified variants, and clarified compatibility with licenses like Attribution-ShareAlike. Major revisions occurred in version 2.0, released on October 7, 2014, which expanded guidance on open formats, machine readability, and license conditions to address evolving practices in and content ecosystems. This was followed by version 2.1 in November 2015, refining language on , non-discrimination, and share-alike requirements while maintaining . As of 2025, version 2.1 remains the current standard, with discussions in 2023 exploring updates to reflect technological and societal shifts, though no subsequent version has been released. The evolution reflects iterative community involvement via an advisory council, prioritizing precision in defining openness to avoid dilution by restrictive practices, such as those imposing field-of-use limitations or excessive technological barriers, which could undermine the definition's goal of universal reusability.

Historical Development

Pre-20th Century Foundations

The dissemination of knowledge through shared repositories dates to antiquity, with the , founded circa 285 BCE under , serving as an early institutional effort to collect and catalog scrolls from across the Mediterranean world, fostering scholarly exchange among researchers. This model influenced subsequent libraries in the , such as Baghdad's established in the 9th century CE, where scholars translated and expanded Greek, Persian, and Indian texts, promoting collaborative advancement in , astronomy, and without proprietary restrictions. The invention of the by around 1440 revolutionized knowledge sharing by enabling the inexpensive mass production of books, which proliferated from fewer than 200 titles before 1450 to over 20 million volumes by 1500 across , democratizing access previously limited to handwritten manuscripts controlled by clergy and nobility. This shift accelerated the by facilitating the rapid circulation of classical texts and vernacular works, reducing reliance on oral transmission and elite gatekeepers. In the , scientific societies institutionalized open exchange, as seen with the Royal Society of , chartered in 1660, which emphasized empirical verification and public reporting of experiments to advance collective understanding over individual secrecy. The society's Philosophical Transactions, launched in 1665, became the first periodical dedicated to peer-reviewed scientific communication, publishing detailed accounts from contributors worldwide to enable verification and replication, laying groundwork for modern practices. Enlightenment thinkers further advanced principles of unrestricted flow, viewing it as essential for societal progress and rational governance; for instance, Denis Diderot's (1751–1772), co-edited with , systematically compiled and disseminated practical and theoretical to educate the public, challenging monopolies on information held by church and state authorities. These efforts reflected a causal shift toward viewing as a , where free reuse spurred innovation, though often tempered by and proprietary practices in trades.

20th Century Precursors

In 1945, engineer published "As We May Think" in The Atlantic, envisioning the —a theoretical mechanical device for storing, linking, and retrieving vast personal repositories of books, records, and communications to augment human memory and facilitate associative trails of information. This concept prefigured hypertext systems and emphasized efficient access to accumulated knowledge, influencing later developments in digital information organization despite remaining unimplemented as hardware. Project Gutenberg, initiated on July 4, 1971, by Michael Hart at the , marked an early effort to digitize and freely distribute texts, beginning with the U.S. entered into the . By the late , the project had produced its first ebooks via simple text files, growing to over 100 titles by 1993 through volunteer transcription and optical character recognition, establishing a model for open digital libraries focused on unrestricted access to cultural heritage materials. This initiative demonstrated the feasibility of electronic dissemination without proprietary barriers, predating widespread internet adoption. In scientific domains, emerged in 1982 from the earlier Los Alamos (founded 1979), providing an open repository for nucleotide sequences and annotations, enabling global researchers to submit, access, and reuse genetic data without fees or restrictions. Complementing this, physicist launched the xxx.lanl.gov server in 1991, which evolved into , hosting over 100,000 physics papers by 1995 and accelerating knowledge dissemination by allowing unmoderated (later lightly moderated) free sharing ahead of traditional journal publication. These platforms fostered norms of data and openness in biology and physics, respectively, by prioritizing rapid, barrier-free exchange over commercial models. The , catalyzed by Richard Stallman's 1983 announcement and 1985 , advocated for software as freely modifiable and distributable knowledge, introducing licensing to ensure derivative works remained open. While centered on code, it provided conceptual and legal frameworks—such as the General Public License (GPL, 1989)—that later informed open knowledge licensing for non-software content, challenging proprietary control in information goods.

Establishment and Growth Since 2000

The (OKF), a key organization in promoting open knowledge, was founded on 20 May 2004 in , , by Rufus Pollock as a non-profit entity dedicated to advancing the openness of data, content, and knowledge resources. The foundation's launch on 24 May 2004 emphasized explicit objectives to foster free access, reuse, and redistribution of knowledge forms, building on earlier and access movements while extending principles to non-software domains. In 2005, OKF published the inaugural Open Definition, establishing criteria for openness that mandate materials be machine-readable, non-discriminatorily available, and modifiable without restrictions beyond attribution and share-alike where applicable. Post-2004, the open knowledge ecosystem expanded through OKF-led initiatives, including the development of software for data portals and international chapters that localized efforts in policy advocacy and training. By the mid-2000s, open government data (OGD) practices proliferated globally, with central and local governments establishing portals to release public datasets under open licenses, aligning with OKF's framework and enabling reuse for innovation and transparency. This growth accelerated in the , as evidenced by widespread adoption of OGD platforms in over 100 countries and endorsements of complementary standards like the 2010 Panton Principles, which urged scientific data openness to support verifiable research. The Access to Knowledge (A2K) movement, emerging around 2004 in response to imbalances in knowledge privatization, further propelled open knowledge by integrating advocacy for equitable access across digital and traditional formats. Academic and policy research documented rapid OGD evolution, with studies noting increased portals, interoperability standards, and economic impacts from data-driven applications, though challenges like and persisted. By the , open knowledge initiatives had influenced sectors beyond , including scholarly and civic tech, with OKF's ongoing updates to the Open Definition—such as version 2.1 in —refining criteria to address evolving digital reuse needs.

Distinctions from Open Source and Open Access

Open knowledge encompasses content, information, and data that can be freely accessed, used, modified, and shared for any purpose, subject only to requirements ensuring attribution and the maintenance of openness in derivatives. This framework, as articulated in the Open Definition maintained by the , extends beyond the scope of , which specifically applies to software where the source code is publicly available under licenses like those endorsed by the , enabling inspection, modification, and redistribution primarily in computational contexts. While principles—such as those in —influenced the development of open knowledge criteria, the latter is not limited to executable code or technical artifacts but includes non-software resources like datasets and textual works, prioritizing legal permissions that facilitate broad reuse without domain-specific constraints. In distinction from , which focuses on eliminating financial and technical barriers to reading or viewing —such as peer-reviewed journal articles made available without subscription fees—open knowledge mandates affirmative for derivative works, commercial utilization, and machine-readable formats to support and innovation. Open access initiatives, exemplified by the Budapest Open Access Initiative of 2001, emphasize availability as a whole and at no cost but often permit restrictions on reuse, such as prohibitions on alteration or profit-making, whereas open knowledge requires licenses compliant with the Open Definition to ensure materials remain adaptable and redistributable without such encumbrances. This reusability criterion addresses causal limitations in open access models, where free readership alone does not empirically drive downstream value creation, as evidenced by studies showing higher innovation rates from modifiable resources over mere accessible ones. For instance, scholarly outputs may retain limitations preventing remixing into new analyses, contrasting with open knowledge's emphasis on technological openness, including non-proprietary formats that enable automated processing. These distinctions underscore open knowledge's broader ambition to foster a of verifiable, empirically leverageable resources, informed by first-principles evaluation of permissions that maximize societal utility over partial liberalizations. Overlaps exist—such as qualifying as open knowledge when licensed accordingly, or works achieving full openness via licenses—but conflation risks understating the need for explicit reusability to realize causal benefits like accelerated scientific and economic multipliers from .

Open Data as a Pillar

Open data constitutes a foundational element of , serving as structured, machine-readable information that individuals and organizations can freely access, reuse, modify, and redistribute without legal, technological, or social barriers, subject only to minimal conditions such as attribution and maintenance of . This aligns with the Open Definition established by the in 2005, which emphasizes data's role as building blocks for broader open knowledge ecosystems, transforming raw datasets into actionable insights when rendered useful, usable, and widely applied. Unlike proprietary data silos that restrict , open data promotes causal chains of value creation by enabling empirical analysis, derivative works, and collaborative verification, thereby undergirding transparency in and in science. Core principles of open data include universal availability in accessible formats, permissionless reuse for commercial or non-commercial purposes, and to facilitate integration with other datasets. These tenets, formalized in documents like the 2013 G8 Open Data Charter, ensure data's non-discriminatory distribution, countering biases in closed systems where access favors entrenched interests. For instance, open data must avoid restrictive licensing that impedes redistribution, prioritizing formats like CSV or over locked PDFs to enable automated processing and reduce extraction costs. Empirical adherence to these principles has been tracked via indices such as the Global Open Data Index, which evaluates datasets against openness criteria across categories like government budgets and environmental statistics. As a pillar, open data drives measurable economic and societal outcomes by unlocking reuse value; studies estimate its global potential at tens of billions of euros annually through enhanced and . In , releasing address datasets openly from 2005 to 2009 yielded €62 million in direct benefits via applications in and , demonstrating causal links between and gains. Government portals, such as those mandated by the European Union's 2019 Open Data Directive, exemplify applications in transparency, where datasets on spending and contracts enable independent audits and reduce corruption risks. Similarly, in scientific domains, open datasets adhering to principles like the 2010 Panton Principles have accelerated research outputs, with evidence showing faster knowledge dissemination and cost savings in fields like . These impacts underscore open data's role in fostering over ideologically driven narratives, though realization depends on quality metadata and avoidance of selective releases that could mask underlying data flaws.

Open Content and Licensing

Open content encompasses copyrightable works—such as texts, images, and multimedia excluding software—that are licensed to enable unrestricted access, use, modification, and distribution by the public. This framework was pioneered by David Wiley in 1998, who defined openness through the "5R" permissions: the rights to retain copies, reuse in various contexts, revise for adaptation, remix with other materials, and redistribute to others. These permissions distinguish open content from traditional restrictions, which limit works and require explicit permissions, thereby promoting broader dissemination while requiring minimal conditions like attribution. Licensing forms the legal backbone of open content, transforming proprietary materials into communal resources under standardized terms that minimize barriers to reuse. The Open Knowledge Foundation's Open Definition, version 2.1 released in 2019, specifies that compliant licenses must permit universal access, repurposing, and redistribution, with obligations limited to attribution or share-alike clauses to ensure derivatives remain open. This aligns with first-mover licenses like the 1998 Open Publication License, which introduced share-alike mechanisms akin to those in . Non-compliant licenses, such as those prohibiting commercial use without justification, fail the definition by introducing undue restrictions, potentially stifling innovation and empirical reuse in knowledge ecosystems. Creative Commons (CC) licenses, developed by the founded in 2001 and first released on December 16, 2002, represent the most widely adopted framework for open content. CC offers six core variants built on modular elements—attribution (BY), share-alike (SA), non-commercial (NC), and no derivatives (ND)—ranging from the permissive CC BY, which allows all uses with credit, to the restrictive CC BY-NC-ND, which bars modifications and commercial applications. The endorses several CC licenses (e.g., CC BY and CC BY-SA) as conformant, while excluding NC and ND variants for imposing limits incompatible with full openness. By 2023, over 2 billion CC-licensed works had been published, facilitating projects like and , though critics note that restrictive variants can fragment the commons by hindering commercial incentives and derivative innovation. Other frameworks, such as those from the Open Data Commons, extend similar principles to datasets integrated with content.

Organizations and Initiatives

Open Knowledge Foundation

The (OKF) is a non-profit organization headquartered in , , focused on promoting the creation, use, and governance of open knowledge worldwide. Founded on 20 May 2004 by Rufus Pollock in , , it operates as a under , with a mission to foster a fair, sustainable, and open digital future by advancing open knowledge principles across , content, and . The organization emphasizes practical tools, policy advocacy, and to enable institutions, governments, and individuals to publish and utilize freely reusable information, prioritizing empirical over proprietary restrictions. From its early years, the OKF invested in pioneering technologies and standards, including the development of the Open Definition in 2005, which outlines criteria for openness such as non-discriminatory permissions for commercial and non-commercial use, derivation, and redistribution without technical barriers. Key initiatives include the creation of , an open-source platform for managing and publishing data portals adopted by over 100 governments and organizations by 2020 for hosting public datasets. The Frictionless Data framework, launched to standardize data packaging and validation, addresses common interoperability issues in open datasets, enabling automated quality checks and reuse in applications like economic analysis and scientific research. These tools have supported projects such as OpenSpending, which tracks global public finance data, and instances for national open data initiatives in countries including the and . The OKF maintains a of over 30 chapters in regions spanning , , , and the , which conduct local training, events, and advocacy for policies. In 2024, chapters distributed small grants for environmental activities, including events in and other nations to enhance to climate and . The organization also engages in policy work, such as contributing to international standards for and partnering with entities like the World Bank on open repositories. Rufus Pollock, the founder, has articulated a long-term vision of rendering all non-personal —ranging from software code to scientific formulas—open while preserving incentives for innovation through alternative models beyond traditional . By 2025, the OKF continues to prioritize development, with recent efforts focusing on no-code tools for exploration and validation to lower barriers for non-technical users.

Wikimedia and Collaborative Platforms

The , established on June 20, 2003, by as a in , serves as the primary steward of collaborative platforms dedicated to producing and disseminating free knowledge under open licenses. Its mission centers on empowering volunteers to create and maintain projects that provide verifiable, reusable content accessible to all, aligning with open knowledge principles by emphasizing freely licensed materials that permit modification and redistribution. The Foundation hosts over a dozen interconnected sites, including , a crowdsourced launched in 2001 with more than 7 million articles in English alone and editions in 357 languages as of October 2025, alongside , which stores over 114 million freely usable media files, and , a structured database serving as a central repository for factual data across Wikimedia projects. These platforms operate on a volunteer-driven model, where edits are versioned, discussed, and moderated through community consensus, fostering incremental improvements via the software. Wikipedia's growth has democratized access to , with billions of monthly views, but empirical analyses reveal systemic ideological biases, particularly a left-leaning tilt in political coverage. A Manhattan Institute study using on target terms found Wikipedia articles more likely to associate right-leaning figures and concepts with negative language compared to left-leaning equivalents, suggesting deviations from neutral point-of-view policies. Earlier , including a 2012 American Economic Association , confirmed that early Wikipedia political entries leaned Democrat, with biases persisting in coverage of contentious topics despite efforts at balance. Such patterns, attributed to editor demographics and institutional influences, undermine claims of and highlight risks in sourcing from these platforms for truth-seeking purposes. Funding sustains operations through annual campaigns yielding millions in small individual donations—comprising about 87% of revenue—supplemented by grants and endowments exceeding $100 million, though controversies arise over allocations, including pass-through grants to advocacy groups like the and substantial DEI initiatives in recent budgets. Critics, including in 2024, argue this structure enables unaccountable spending and exacerbates content imbalances, urging scrutiny of editorial authority. Beyond Wikimedia, other collaborative platforms contribute to open knowledge, such as , a volunteer-edited geographic database licensed openly since 2004, enabling reusable mapping data for applications from navigation to , though it faces similar volunteer coordination challenges without centralized nonprofit oversight. These efforts collectively advance open knowledge by prioritizing communal verification over control, yet their efficacy depends on mitigating inherent biases through transparent, evidence-based editing norms.

Government and Policy-Driven Efforts

Governments have increasingly adopted policies mandating the release of data as open knowledge to foster transparency, economic innovation, and citizen engagement, often building on principles of machine-readable formats, open licensing, and proactive publication. These efforts typically prioritize high-value datasets such as geospatial, environmental, and statistical information, while addressing barriers like proprietary formats and privacy concerns. In the United States, the OPEN Government Data Act, enacted in 2019 as part of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, requires federal agencies to maintain comprehensive data inventories, publish data in machine-readable open formats under permissive licenses, and integrate open data practices into agency operations via platforms like Data.gov. The legislation codifies an "open by default" approach, previously a policy under the Obama administration's Open Government Initiative, and mandates annual reporting on implementation progress. In January 2025, the Biden administration issued updated guidance to strengthen compliance, including reinstating the Chief Data Officers Council to oversee federal data strategies. The advanced open knowledge through the 2019 Open Data Directive, which revises the 2003 Public Sector Information Directive to expand the scope of reusable data, including from cultural institutions and public undertakings, and requires member states to provide high-value datasets—such as mobility, environmental, and company ownership data—for free or access in open formats. Transposed into national laws by 2021, the directive aims to stimulate a for government-held data, with the tasked to identify and regulate these priority datasets via implementing acts. Internationally, the 2013 Open Data Charter, signed by leaders of the nations, established five principles—openness by default, quality and quantity, usability, exhaustiveness, and permanence & preservation—to guide the release of government for economic and social benefits, influencing subsequent national policies. This evolved into the broader International Open Data Charter, while the (OGP), launched in 2011 with over 70 participating countries, promotes co-created action plans incorporating commitments to enhance accountability and , though implementation varies by jurisdiction.

Achievements and Positive Impacts

Enhanced Accessibility and Innovation

Open knowledge significantly improves by defining it as information that is digitally available, legally reusable, and distributable without systemic restrictions, thereby enabling broader participation in , policy-making, and economic activities across diverse populations. This framework contrasts with models that impose paywalls or licensing hurdles, which empirical analyses show disproportionately exclude users in low-income regions or under-resourced institutions from essential and content. For instance, open knowledge repositories facilitate real-time access to public datasets and educational materials, supporting applications in monitoring and where timely can mitigate human and economic costs. Key initiatives underscore this accessibility gain, such as the Open Knowledge Foundation's advocacy for open-by-design principles, which promote infrastructure that integrates knowledge sharing into digital systems from inception, reducing silos and enhancing usability for non-experts. Complementing this, the U.S. National Science Foundation's Prototype Open Knowledge Network (Proto-OKN) program, funded with $26.7 million across 18 projects in September 2023, develops interconnected repositories and knowledge graphs to enable automated discovery and querying of structured data, making complex scientific and societal information more navigable via machine-readable formats. These efforts address longstanding barriers, including fragmented data ecosystems, by prioritizing and public access over . In terms of , open drives novel applications through reusable building blocks that lower entry costs for creators and researchers, allowing iterative development without redundant reinvention. Scoping reviews of practices, closely aligned with open principles, provide empirical evidence that such openness accelerates research cycles, cuts duplication expenses, and stimulates cross-disciplinary breakthroughs by broadening the pool of contributors and ideas. For example, freely reusable open datasets have enabled startups to develop analytics tools for and environmental modeling, with studies linking to measurable gains in and regional economic output via knowledge spillovers. This causal mechanism—where accessible seeds combinatorial —contrasts with closed systems, which empirical firm-level data indicate constrain performance by limiting external inputs.

Empirical Evidence of Economic Benefits

Empirical studies indicate that , a core component of open knowledge, can generate substantial economic value through enhanced , gains, and new market opportunities, though estimates vary due to methodological differences such as assumptions about reuse rates and indirect effects. A 2013 McKinsey Global Institute analysis estimated that greater access to open data could unlock $3 trillion to $5 trillion in annual economic value worldwide across sectors including , transportation, consumer products, , , , and natural resources, representing up to 2.5-3.2% of global GDP if fully realized through improved and . Similarly, the European Data Market Study projected the data economy, bolstered by open data initiatives, to reach €739 billion in value by 2020, equivalent to 4% of EU GDP, driven by public and reuse for and services. Specific case studies provide concrete evidence of these benefits at the national level. In , the 2005 release of free address data from the Building and Dwelling Register yielded direct financial gains of €62 million between 2005 and 2009, against implementation costs of €2 million, primarily through reduced duplication in public and private mapping services and enabled new applications like optimization. In the , Ordnance Survey's OS OpenData platform, launched in 2010, contributed an estimated £13 million to £28.5 million in GDP growth over five years by supporting industries in geospatial analysis, , and app development, with benefits accruing from cost savings and business innovation.
Case StudyContextQuantified Economic BenefitSource
Denmark Address Data (2005-2009)Free release of public register data for reuse in mapping and services€62 million in direct gains (net of €2 million costs)GovLab Open Data Impact Report
UK Ordnance Survey OpenData (2010-2015)Geospatial data for commercial and public applications£13-28.5 million GDP increaseGovLab Open Data Impact Report
Broader reviews confirm these patterns while noting challenges in measurement, such as attributing amid factors like concurrent technological advances. A World Bank assessment of open 's economic potential highlighted growing empirical support for value creation, including through firm-level innovation and reduced information asymmetries, despite variations in published figures from different jurisdictions. A scoping review of impacts from 2000 to 2023 found indicative of cost savings in access and transaction processes, alongside productivity boosts in knowledge-intensive sectors, though comprehensive longitudinal remains limited. These findings underscore open knowledge's role in fostering causal links to growth via reusable assets, but realization depends on , standards, and demand-side capabilities.

Case Studies of Successful Applications

One prominent application of open knowledge occurred during the , where the (OSM) platform enabled rapid crowdsourced mapping. Following the January 12, 2010, magnitude 7.0 quake, volunteers accessed open and contributed to OSM, creating detailed maps of roads, buildings, and infrastructure within 48 hours. Over 700 mappers participated in the first week, producing maps more detailed than pre-existing sources in urban areas, which supported humanitarian aid delivery by organizations like the and Red Cross. This effort demonstrated how open geographic data can fill critical gaps in , with OSM data integrated into tools used for and recovery planning. In the environmental sector, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) open has fostered economic innovation by enabling the growth of a private industry. Since the , NOAA's release of real-time meteorological under open licenses has allowed companies to develop value-added services, such as advanced predictive models for , , and sectors. This has generated an estimated $30 billion annual economic impact through improved decision-making and risk mitigation, with applications including optimized crop planting and storm avoidance. The case illustrates how lowers , spurring and enhancing public safety without supplanting government roles. Open data has also driven public health improvements, as seen in Singapore's use of real-time mosquito breeding site reports to combat dengue fever. Launched in 2005, the National Environment Agency's open platform allowed citizens to submit geolocated data via apps and web forms, which was aggregated and visualized to target vector control efforts. By 2015, this initiative correlated with a reduction in dengue cases from over 14,000 annually in peak years to lower incidences through proactive interventions, saving an estimated millions in healthcare costs. The success stemmed from combining open citizen-sourced data with government analytics, proving scalable for disease surveillance in urban settings.

Criticisms and Controversies

Quality Control and Reliability Concerns

Open knowledge initiatives, by design, prioritize broad accessibility and collaborative input over stringent gatekeeping, which introduces inherent challenges in ensuring consistent quality and reliability. Unlike traditional scholarly publishing with formal peer review, open systems rely on decentralized contributions from volunteers of varying expertise, potentially leading to factual inaccuracies, incomplete information, and propagation of unverified claims. Empirical assessments of open data portals reveal that up to 70% of datasets suffer from issues such as missing values, outdated entries, or inconsistent formats, hindering reproducibility and analysis. In (OER), reliability concerns stem from the lack of standardized evaluation protocols, resulting in materials that may contain pedagogical flaws or factual errors without systematic correction. Reviews indicate that while some OER undergo vetting, many lack depth in content validation, with varying widely based on creator credentials and update frequency; for example, surveys of educators report frequent encounters with outdated or biased resources that require substantial instructor effort to supplement or correct. publishing amplifies these risks, as analyses suggest it can dilute selectivity in high-impact venues, correlating with reduced heterogeneity in article and occasional acceptance of lower-standard submissions due to volume pressures. Crowdsourced knowledge repositories exacerbate these problems through edit instability and vulnerability to coordinated manipulations or ideological skews, absent the accountability of named authorship in closed systems. Quantitative studies of open platforms document higher rates of revision churn and error persistence in contentious topics, attributing this to insufficient barriers against low-effort or agenda-driven edits. Although mitigation strategies like flagging and reversion exist, their effectiveness depends on active, participation, which often wanes, leading to persistent reliability gaps documented in longitudinal audits of open datasets and content. These deficiencies underscore a causal tension: openness facilitates rapid dissemination but undermines trust without robust, scalable quality controls akin to those in proprietary production.

Incentive Structures and Economic Drawbacks

Open knowledge initiatives, by emphasizing free access and reuse without proprietary restrictions, disrupt traditional incentive structures that rely on intellectual property rights to recoup investments in knowledge production. In proprietary models, creators such as publishers, researchers, and firms can appropriate returns through subscriptions, patents, or copyrights, motivating upfront costs for research, editing, and dissemination. However, open models treat knowledge as a non-excludable public good, enabling free-riding where beneficiaries consume without contributing to creation or maintenance, potentially leading to underinvestment in high-quality outputs. Economic theory, as formalized by Kenneth Arrow in 1962, predicts that such spillovers reduce private incentives for R&D, as innovators cannot capture the full social value of their contributions. The manifests acutely in (OSS) development, where core contributors often bear disproportionate burdens while commercial entities profit from adaptations without reciprocal investment. Studies of OSS projects highlight burnout among maintainers, as users— including large firms—extract value without fixes or enhancements, exacerbating underprovision of security updates and long-term sustainability. For instance, vulnerabilities in widely used OSS libraries like persisted due to limited resources for uncompensated maintainers, affecting millions of deployments across companies. Empirical analyses confirm that while OSS thrives on volunteerism and selective corporate sponsorship, the absence of enforced contributions leads to stalled innovation in non-core components, contrasting with software's structured . In (OA) publishing, the shift to author-pays models via article processing charges (APCs) introduces economic drawbacks by inverting cost structures and favoring quantity over quality. APCs, often ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 per article in high-impact journals as of 2023, burden unfunded researchers and those in low-resource institutions, creating barriers that stratify participation along funding lines. This incentivizes publishers to maximize article volume for revenue, potentially diluting rigor, while global south authors face effective exclusion despite waiver promises, as evidenced by lower OA uptake in underfunded regions. Critics argue this model sustains publisher profits—e.g., hybrid journals retaining subscriptions alongside APCs—but fails to align incentives with broad dissemination, as APC-dependent OA covers only a fraction of global research output. Broader economic analyses reveal that open knowledge sharing can induce underinvestment in foundational R&D, particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals or software where historically funds iterative improvements. Without , firms anticipate knowledge leakage, reducing willingness to finance risky, long-horizon projects; laboratory experiments simulating endogenous sharing decisions show cooperative equilibria collapse when sharing erodes individual returns. While open models accelerate and secondary innovations, empirical evidence from indicates net welfare losses in knowledge-intensive industries without complementary mechanisms like public subsidies or selective to restore incentives. These drawbacks underscore a causal tension: open maximizes static in access but compromises dynamic in generation, necessitating hybrid approaches to balance appropriation and .

Risks of Misuse, Security, and Ideological Bias

Open knowledge initiatives, including open data repositories and collaborative encyclopedias, expose sensitive information to potential exploitation, enabling harms such as privacy violations and malicious applications. For example, anonymized open datasets can be cross-referenced with other sources to re-identify individuals, leading to breaches of personal privacy and increased vulnerability to targeted attacks. National security concerns arise when open data markets facilitate the aggregation of commercially available information, which adversaries can use to profile vulnerable populations or conduct surveillance operations that undermine individual protections. Additionally, the dissemination of true but hazardous knowledge—termed information hazards—poses risks where open sharing enables actors to develop bioweapons or other destructive technologies without safeguards. Misuse of data manifests in forms like deliberate manipulation, , or uncritical application of biased datasets, eroding scientific trust and potentially causing real-world harm such as flawed policy decisions or health interventions. In behavioral , mandatory policies have been shown to alter participant responses, reducing disclosure depth due to fears, which compromises and validity. Security vulnerabilities compound these issues; heightens risks of data breaches through cross-referencing and misinterpretation, allowing malicious intent to exploit datasets for or cyberattacks. Empirical analyses indicate that while promotes in principle, inadequate documentation often leads to erroneous inferences, as seen in clinical datasets misused for treatment comparisons. Ideological permeates crowdsourced open knowledge platforms, particularly , where empirical content analyses reveal systematic skews favoring left-leaning perspectives. A study using computational found articles more likely to attach negative connotations to right-leaning political terms and figures compared to left-leaning equivalents, with a mild to moderate intensity. Earlier econometric evaluations of political entries confirmed a Democratic lean in 's formative years, contrasting with more neutral expert-curated sources like Encyclopædia Britannica. frameworks applied to over 1,300 articles further demonstrate that editing dynamics amplify this asymmetry, with conservative viewpoints underrepresented or framed adversely due to volunteer demographics and moderation practices. These patterns persist despite neutrality policies, as evidenced by heightened scrutiny in over left-wing distortions in biographical entries of political figures. Such biases can propagate in downstream applications, influencing public discourse and decision-making reliant on these resources.

Current Status and Future Directions

Recent Policy and Technological Developments

In 2025, the U.S. (NIH) implemented a revised Public Access Policy effective , requiring immediate public access to all peer-reviewed publications arising from NIH-funded research accepted for publication on or after that date, expanding beyond the previous 12-month embargo period to accelerate dissemination of taxpayer-funded knowledge. This aligns with broader U.S. federal directives under the 2022 OSTP Nelson Memo, which mandates zero-embargo for federally funded research outputs starting in 2026, though agencies like NIH have advanced timelines to prioritize rapid knowledge sharing. The Open Knowledge Foundation outlined priorities for the 2025 Open Government Partnership (OGP), emphasizing the development of sustainable, people-centered data and AI infrastructures to counter proprietary tech dominance, including tools for verifiable open data pipelines and ethical AI integration in public sector knowledge systems. Complementing this, the PALOMERA project assessed and recommended enhancements to European funder and institutional policies for open access monographs and books, advocating standardized licensing and funding models to increase availability of long-form scholarly knowledge as of August 2025. Technologically, the released and promoted the Editor in 2024-2025, an open-source tool enabling non-technical users to clean, validate, and prepare data for publication, facilitating broader participation in ecosystems without coding expertise. Concurrently, Open Knowledge Maps advanced its AI-driven visualization platform, indexing over 100 million scientific articles by mid-2025 to provide structured, open-access overviews of landscapes, enhancing discoverability through knowledge graph-based searches. These developments underscore a shift toward interoperable, AI-augmented tools that support tracking and reuse in open repositories, as highlighted in OKF's 2025 strategic roadmap focusing on "The Tech We Want" for equitable . Adoption of open knowledge practices, encompassing publishing, , and , has accelerated globally since the early 2020s, driven by international frameworks and policy mandates. In November 2021, 194 member states endorsed the Recommendation on , establishing a normative instrument to promote throughout the research lifecycle, with implementation monitoring revealing progressive uptake in practices like and transparency. By 2023, at least 11 countries had enacted national policies, though adoption remains concentrated in high-income economies with advanced digital . In publishing, the proportion of closed-access articles declined from 58% of global output in 2003 to 45% in 2022, reflecting a shift where approximately 55% of recent scholarly articles incorporate some element, supported by funder mandates and repository growth. initiatives have similarly expanded, with around 2 million datasets published annually by 2024—comparable to scholarly article output two decades prior—and university data-sharing policies proliferating since 2010, though regional variations persist. Government endorsements of principles, such as the Open Data Charter, have reached 174 national and subnational entities since 2015, enhancing transparency in areas like and environment. Despite these advances, disparities in adoption highlight structural inequities, particularly between developed and developing regions. High-sharing rates of around 25% in repositories from the , , , and contrast with sub-25% rates in , , and , underscoring slower progress in low- and middle-income countries where open knowledge contributes disproportionately to local yet lags due to resource constraints. assessments via the 2023 OURdata Index reveal varying open government data maturity across 40 countries, with top performers like Korea and scoring highest on data , , and reusability, while overall averages indicate room for improvement in and citizen engagement. outlooks confirm uneven growth, with open science practices advancing in outputs like publications but stalling in equitable participation across disciplines and geographies. Key barriers to broader adoption include infrastructural deficits, particularly in the Global South, where limited internet access, unreliable technology, and insufficient research facilities hinder data upload and reuse. Lack of awareness about available resources, such as open educational materials, and challenges in identifying reputable sources further impede uptake, compounded by low skills in data management among researchers in developing contexts. Discipline-specific norms, handling of sensitive data, and inconsistent institutional support exacerbate these issues, often requiring external pressures like funder incentives—which vary globally, with citation benefits more pronounced in some regions (e.g., 14.8% in Japan) than others—to drive compliance. Socio-economic gaps and evaluation systems prioritizing traditional metrics over openness also perpetuate uneven implementation, as noted in UNESCO's 2023 analysis. Addressing these demands targeted investments in capacity-building and standardized protocols to realize open knowledge's potential as a public good.

References

  1. https://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/
  2. https://opendefinition.org/about/
  3. https://okfn.org/who-we-are/
  4. https://www.datopian.com/blog/rufus-interview
  5. https://blog.okfn.org/2024/12/20/looking-back-on-2024-and-looking-ahead-to-2025-with-the-open-knowledge-network/
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362200898X
  7. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/12/07/where-did-the-open-access-movement-go-wrong-an-interview-with-richard-poynder/
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3232214/
  9. https://okfn.org/en/library/what-is-open/
  10. https://opendefinition.org/history/
  11. https://blog.okfn.org/2015/11/10/announcement-open-definition-2-1/
  12. https://blog.okfn.org/2014/10/07/open-definition-v2-0-released-major-update-of-essential-standard-for-open-data-and-open-content/
  13. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/05/05/new-media-new-knowledge/
  14. https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/17th-century-society-transformed-science
  15. https://opusproject.eu/openscience-news/understanding-the-open-science-movement-through-the-lens-of-history/
  16. https://libguides.bentley.edu/openaccess/historyandbenefits
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347099166_Expanding_Access_to_Knowledge_How_Enlightenment_Ideals_Can_Strengthen_Public_Support_for_the_Humanities
  18. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/
  19. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Project-Gutenberg
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/genbank
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8335983/
  22. https://dbpedia.org/page/Open_Knowledge_Foundation
  23. https://blog.okfn.org/2004/05/24/open-knowledge-foundation-launched/
  24. https://okfn.org/en/who-we-are/our-history/
  25. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/open-government-data_5k46bj4f03s7-en.html
  26. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195
  27. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/rise-access-knowledge-movement-interview-vera-franz
  28. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00208523211009955
  29. https://opendefinition.org/
  30. https://opensource.org/osd
  31. https://opengovdata.io/2014/open-knowledge-definition/
  32. https://eifl.net/faq/what-difference-between-open-access-and-open-source
  33. https://blog.okfn.org/2004/06/21/the-three-meanings-of-open/
  34. https://freedomdefined.org/Open_Knowledge_Definition
  35. https://medium.com/radiant-earth-insights/the-many-meanings-of-open-da337e504898
  36. https://blog.okfn.org/2013/10/03/defining-open-data/
  37. https://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/what-is-open-data/
  38. https://blog.okfn.org/2013/06/18/g8-highlights-open-data-as-crucial-for-governance-and-growth/
  39. http://index.okfn.org/methodology/
  40. https://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/why-open-data/
  41. https://wdr2021.worldbank.org/spotlights/the-potential-of-open-data-to-help-businesses/
  42. https://data.europa.eu/en/publications/datastories/economic-benefits-open-data
  43. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.250754
  44. https://opencontent.org/definition
  45. https://opencontent.org/
  46. https://creativecommons.org/timeline/
  47. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/
  48. https://opendefinition.org/licenses/
  49. https://opendatacommons.org/faq/
  50. https://okfn.org/
  51. https://github.com/okfn
  52. https://eaves.ca/tag/okfn/
  53. https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork/
  54. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
  55. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/06/20/20-years-of-the-non-profit-behind-wikipedia/
  56. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Memory:Timeline
  57. https://wikimediafoundation.org/what-we-do/
  58. https://wikimediafoundation.org/what-we-do/wikimedia-projects/
  59. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_Wikimedia_projects
  60. https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/is-wikipedia-politically-biased.pdf
  61. https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/is-wikipedia-politically-biased
  62. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.3.343
  63. https://nypost.com/2024/06/25/opinion/wikipedias-lefty-bias-measured-in-study-but-ive-felt-it-firsthand/
  64. https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-foundation-donate.html
  65. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech
  66. https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-takes-aim-wikipedia-fund-raising-editing-political-woke-2005742
  67. https://www.cio.gov/handbook/it-laws/ogda/
  68. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/legislation-open-data
  69. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/open-data-and-the-reuse-of-public-sector-information.html
  70. https://data.gov/open-gov/
  71. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/760
  72. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/open
  73. https://fedscoop.com/white-house-open-government-data-act-restarts-cdo-council/
  74. https://data.gov.ie/pages/open-data-directive
  75. https://opendatacharter.org/resources/g8-open-data-charter/
  76. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-charter
  77. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/
  78. https://opendatacharter.org/faq/
  79. https://blogs.iadb.org/conocimiento-abierto/en/open-knowledge/
  80. https://www.nsf.gov/tip/updates/nsf-invests-first-ever-prototype-open-knowledge-network
  81. https://openknowledgeimpact.org/
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523003797
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2199853125000599
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497222000669
  85. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/open-data-unlocking-innovation-and-performance-with-liquid-information
  86. https://thegovlab.org/static/files/publications/open-data-impact-key-findings.pdf
  87. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/d3f853e3-82a2-50c9-a04d-61f5aeed3cda
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612325017507
  89. https://www.hotosm.org/updates/haiti-10-years-later-growth-of-a-crisis-mapping-community/
  90. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/latinamerica/4-years-looking-back-openstreetmap-response-haiti-earthquake
  91. https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/openstreetmap-case-study-haiti-crisis-response/4587478
  92. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/how-is-open-data-changing-the-world-key-findings-from-open-data-impact-case-studies/
  93. https://odimpact.org/
  94. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277943983_The_Challenges_of_Data_Quality_and_Data_Quality_Assessment_in_the_Big_Data_Era
  95. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12525-022-00582-8
  96. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/7/recognizing-and-overcoming-obstacles-what-it-will-take-to-realize-the-potential-of-oer
  97. https://ctl.uregina.ca/pros-and-cons-of-oer
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1751157718304814
  99. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2021.1938811
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5177437/
  101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169721810010142
  102. https://kevinbryanecon.com/o3InnovationTheory.pdf
  103. https://opensource.com/open-organization/16/11/open-source-free-rider-problem
  104. https://mattrickard.com/no-open-source-is-not-broken
  105. http://www.edwards.dk/OSS_Free_Riding.pdf
  106. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03506-4
  107. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/4/1/22/114729/The-APC-barrier-and-its-effect-on-stratification
  108. https://www.cos.io/blog/conflict-between-open-access-and-open-science-apcs-are-key-part-problem-preprints-are-key-part-solution
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268123001439
  110. https://cameronneylon.net/blog/the-limits-on-open-why-knowledge-is-not-a-public-good-and-what-to-do-about-it/
  111. https://atlan.com/privacy-in-an-open-data-world/
  112. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/open-data-market-and-risks-national-security
  113. https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf
  114. https://infosci.arizona.edu/news/navigating-the-risks-of-open-research-data
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563222003570
  116. https://ieee-dataport.org/news/balancing-open-access-data-security-and-privacy
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12413199/
  118. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5022797
  119. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/10/chairman-cruz-sounds-alarm-over-left-wing-ideological-bias-on-wikipedia
  120. https://mclibrary.duke.edu/news/new-nih-public-access-policy-now-effect
  121. https://hsl.osu.edu/news/changes-coming-july-1-to-the-nih-public-access-policy
  122. https://spi-hub.app.vumc.org/fed-funded-research-policies
  123. https://blog.okfn.org/2025/09/29/open-knowledge-foundation-priorities-for-the-2025-ogp/
  124. https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/open-knowledge/2025/oa-policies-for-academic-books
  125. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/inside-look-how-orgs-use-open-data-editor-okfn-dls7e
  126. https://openknowledgemaps.org/
  127. https://www.unesco.org/en/open-science
  128. https://openscience.cern/node/428
  129. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf25347
  130. https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/state-of-open-data-report-2024/27724212
  131. https://opendatacharter.org/government-adopters/
  132. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/06/government-at-a-glance-2025_70e14c6c/full-report/open-government-data_619b668c.html
  133. https://www.government-transformation.com/data/oecd-the-top-performing-governments-for-open-data
  134. https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/unesco-has-published-a-report-assessing-the-open-science-situation/
  135. https://opusproject.eu/openscience-news/breaking-barriers-challenges-and-opportunities-for-open-science-adoption-in-the-global-south/
  136. https://datascience.codata.org/articles/dsj-2022-002
  137. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstreams/bbc54aca-261d-46f8-9cbe-ef2ff429f7f4/download
  138. https://sfdora.org/resource/unesco-open-science-outlook-1-status-and-trends-around-the-world/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.