[argvargc]

Were the first point accurate, it would instantly become not so upon recognition of the existence of the concept of delegation.

The point about selectively choosing data, how to process it, etc is important, and often overlooked. People are accustomed to working with what they're given, but objectivity may be a step further back.

Regardless, such things can only be better revealed by providing the data.

If the goal is greater illumination, there is simply no argument to be made against greater transparency.

[rdiddly]

Yep, transparency leads to illumination, so in that way those two analogies work together like sunlight and window panes. But you can lie with data, was my singular point. More data is harder to fake, seems to be yours, and I suppose I would agree. But once faked, albeit at whatever difficulty, more fake data is more dangerous and less illuminating than less fake data. (Edit: Not only because there's more of it, but because it ironically has that very property of being or seeming more truthy or trustworthy because there's more of it.)

Anyway I have no idea what you're saying in your first sentence I gotta say. I recognize the existence of delegation, and yet still trust any party's data (and the completeness, honesty and transparency thereof) in direct proportion to some estimation of that party's general trustworthiness and whatever I know or can surmise about their aims, agendas and interests in relation to the subject of the data. And when the subject of the data is the very party collecting it, you can surmise immediately some of the probable interests and aims. They probably want to look good and not bad for example, or make more money and not less, etc.