Commons:Evidence-based mapping

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 This page is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Commons contributors.
It is not a Commons policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

This essay is a summary of existing policies, guidelines, deletion discussion precedents, conventions and recommendations about using reliable sources as evidence when creating/uploading/updating maps to Commons in order to accurately and verifiably show the data in those maps, and about how to use these maps on Wikipedia, especially English Wikipedia. It aims to help users to make accurate maps on Commons that will be acceptable for usage on (English) Wikipedia, to deal with existing inaccurate and unsourced maps on Commons, and to improve cooperation between users.

Creating evidence-based maps on Commons[edit]

Rationale[edit]

English Wikipedia has a well-earned reputation for valuing accuracy and verifiability in its texts. It also uses media files from Wikimedia Commons, which, however, has different rules than English Wikipedia. Commons values free artistic expression above all else, including accuracy and verifiability, as long as nobody's copyright is violated. Therefore, you can still 'get away with' a lot of unsourced, inaccurate and misleading visual information on Commons, especially in mapping. Users may unwittingly use these maps in (English) Wikipedia articles, where textual claims are usually subjected to rigorous scrutiny to comply with en:WP:RS. But such fact-checking is rare when it comes to the uploading and storage of maps to Commons, where it's still largely an artistic 'free for all' for self-made work, to put it bluntly. You can't just delete someone else's self-made map because it's misleading; a rather high threshold of inaccuracy needs to be met in order to resort to that measure. Commons deletion policies are heavily focused on preventing copyright infringement (and rightly so), but may have neglected means to fact-check whether (self-made) files that comply with copyright are accurate and sourced. (The essay Commons:Verifiability seems to reflect this state of affairs fairly accurately.)

Although inaccurate or unsourced maps may not be easily deleted on Commons, accurate and well-sourced maps are much more usable. The former may be rejected or only hesitantly accepted as a better-than-nothing solution on English Wikipedia (for example, see 'English Wikipedia precedents' below), other-language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects. Please use reliable sources and cite them. Otherwise, you risk wasting your time on creating maps that are much less usable than they could be, and will be replaced as better, well-sourced maps become available.

Dynamic versus static[edit]

A separate issue is that there seems to be no clear policy yet – apart from Commons:Overwriting existing files – on which maps should be dynamic (open to updating) and which are static (a reflection of a state of affairs at a certain point in time; a date, year, century). Even though/if their information will grow more obsolete with the passage of time, that doesn't necessarily make them 'inaccurate' or 'misleading', as static maps can still have historical value. Especially if you wish to make a series of maps about the same subject and show what changed over the course of years in the case of, say, changing legislation or demographics, static maps are what you need. A dynamic map usually best reflects the current state of affairs, while static maps can show what preceded the current state of affairs.

Commons policies, precedents, and conventions[edit]

These can be found elsewhere on Commons.

  • Policy: Commons:Project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose (COM:EDUSE) – official policy on Wikimedia Commons regarding the educational value of files (such as maps): they must be "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". According to COM:NOTUSED, "A media file which is neither (A) realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor (B) legitimately in use as discussed above, falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." For example, "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality," can be deleted for being out of scope (COM:SPAM).
  • Policy: Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view – official policy on Wikimedia Commons regarding maps and other things of national(istic), ethnic, linguistic or religious significance.
  • Policy: Commons:Overwriting existing files – official policy on Wikimedia Commons regarding when and how to overwrite existing files, and when and how not to.
  • Convention: Certain "Rules for editing the map" have been established both on Commons and English Wikipedia for maps of some high-profile ongoing military conflicts, such as File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg (same text found on en:Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War). These evidently derived from the "Rules for Editing the Map" found at en:Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war (as they refer to the two English Wikipedia humorous essays 'Top 10 myths' and 'Top 10 reasons' about the Syrian civil war map). These rules appear to be ad hoc conventions that are not yet formalised and applied to an identified/identifiable group of ongoing military conflict maps. For example, there is no category (yet) for maps which must comply to these rules, nor a standard template which embeds all these rules; they appear to have been copypasted from each other with some slight differences, indicating a common idea, but the lack of a standard. However, the fact that the rules from the Syrian civil war map have been extended to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine map indicates that this will likely evolve into a standard for high-profile ongoing military conflict maps in the future.
  • Essay: Commons:Disputed territories – essay on mapping disputed territories.
  • Essay: Commons:Verifiability – essay outlining how files such as maps uploaded to Commons, and their descriptions, should be assumed to be accurate, unless there is a reason to doubt the description (in which case the description may be corrected) or a reason to suspect the file is a hoax (in which case it may be nominated for deletion).

Commons recommendations[edit]

This essay does the following additional recommendations:

  • It is recommended to list your sources in English in the 'Source' parameter, right behind the {{Own}} tag. Proposed format: in the "Source" parameter, state: "{{Own}}. Sources used in creating this map: [bulletpoint list of sources used per country/region that has been coloured in the map]." The sources themselves do not have to be written in English.
  • It is recommended that the source is referenced using one of the regular reference templates, such as {{Cite book |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |location= |publisher= |page= |isbn= |accessdate=}} (note that 'access-date' doesn't work on Commons; write 'accessdate'). It is recommended that the country/territory/region that the source applies to is mentioned in bold before the source.
  • The 'Description' parameter is best used for describing what the map shows in multiple languages, not on which data the map is based, otherwise the list of sources will have to be needlessly duplicated in multiple languages.
  • It is recommended that the creator mentions/indicates whether their map is dynamic (indicated by {{Current}} or {{Recent}}) or static in the description and if possible also in the title. This is because static maps may be unintentionally taken
  1. by Wikipedia editors and readers to reflect a current/recent state of affairs (when the data may in fact be from over 10 years ago); and
  2. by Commons editors as open to updating (which could lead to maps being changed while their captions/legends in various Wikipedia articles in various languages may remain the same, potentially confusing and misleading Wikipedia editors and readers).
  • Countries/territories/regions for which you have not found any data (yet) should be left grey and labelled 'No data'. If it is a dynamic map, anyone (including you) can later update the map with additional sources added in the description to fill the lacunae in the data, and eliminate "grey" countries. Just like Wikipedia, Commons is a collective work in progress; a map doesn't have to be 'complete' or 'finished' when you upload it, as long as you provide reliable sources for all the data you do present when uploading (or overwriting) the map.
  • It is recommended to use the .svg (scalable vector graphics) file format for making maps, because it's the best way of correcting and updating images, see Help:SVG.
  • It is recommended to make maps language-neutral – or in fact use no text on the maps at all – because that makes it easier to use maps on all language versions of Wikipedia; only the adjoining legend will have to be translated (by you or other users), which can be done in the 'Description' parameter. This saves a lot of work, especially for other users, because it makes your map usable in all languages simultaneously (even languages you can't write (well) in, but other users can), and any updates or corrections are also automatically enacted in all languages simultaneously. Be aware, however, that legends on the various Wikipedias may have to be updated manually if the usage or function of colours is changed on Commons. If not, readers of those language versions can be confused or misinformed by the outdated legends. To prevent this, it is recommended not to change the usage or function of colours in your map – especially if it's used in multiple language versions (and you can't manually correct the legends in those languages because you don't understand them, and you think that translation machines are too unreliable for the task) – unless you really have to correct something. See also Category:Language-neutral maps.

Commons tools[edit]

The tools below may help to deal with inaccurate, misleading or unsourced maps you may run into:

  • Template: {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} – for any map which appears to be showing inaccurate or misleading information.
  • Template: {{Datasource missing}} – for self-made maps that may or may not be accurate, but do not cite any sources on which they are based that would help verify/falsify their accuracy.
  • Template: {{Original research}} – for self-made maps that look like they are based on original research, because they do not cite any sources on which they are based.
  • Templates to indicate that a map is dynamic, and that updates are encouraged and appreciated:
    • Template: {{Current}} – 'Current' indicates a long-term process and is recommended for most dynamic maps.
    • Template: {{Recent}} – 'Recent' requires great urgency and is meant only for maps about a highly important and (rapidly) unfolding event.
    • Template: {{Update}} – for outdated dynamic maps that require updating in general.
  • Template: {{Map-from-year-dont-overwrite}} – for static maps reflecting the historical situation of a specific time (a date, year, century, or era), which should not be overwritten
  • Maintenance category: Category:Unidentified maps – for maps whose purpose is unclear.

Evidence-based mapping examples[edit]

It's important to set the right example for self-made, evidence-based mapping, so here are some examples:

Usage of maps on English Wikipedia[edit]

The fact-checking of maps that are used on English Wikipedia is still somewhat lacking, but some important precedents and conventions have been set that outline some criteria that maps need to comply to in order to be usable and used on English Wikipedia. Although inaccurate or unsourced maps cannot easily be deleted on Commons, English Wikipedia may reject the use of maps which are not based on evidence, and remove them as a result (as the following precedents show), so if you actually want the maps you uploaded to Commons to be accepted on English Wikipedia, you better use reliable sources and cite them. Otherwise, you risk wasting your time on creating maps that cannot be deleted, but cannot be used either.

Although inaccurate or unsourced maps may not be easily deleted on Commons, accurate and well-sourced maps are much more usable. The former may be rejected or only hesitantly accepted as a better-than-nothing solution on English Wikipedia (for example, see 'English Wikipedia precedents' below), other-language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects. Please use reliable sources and cite them. Otherwise, you risk wasting your time on creating maps that are much less usable than they could be, and will be replaced as better, well-sourced maps become available.

English Wikipedia precedents[edit]

  • 28 May 2021 Templates for discussion (zoophilia) precedent: en:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 28#Template:Legality of zoophilia by country or territory
    • Conclusion: maps that are based largely on original research (en:WP:OR) should be removed from English Wikipedia, and any templates which embed such maps should be deleted.
  • 30 July 2021 Templates for discussion (animal sentience) precedent: en:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 16#Template:World laws pertaining to animal sentience
    • Conclusions:
      • A. Maps are a visual representation of data, and data must be sourced (en:WP:UNSOURCED). Therefore, lack of sourcing is a valid rationale for deletion of templates that embed them, and removing such maps from English Wikipedia.
      • B. Maps that synthesise data from multiple sources in order to reach a conclusion not found in any source, or bring together data from multiple sources that are not compatible (e.g. population data in which children were only included in some sources), commit en:WP:SYNTH. Therefore, such maps may be removed from English Wikipedia, and any templates which embed such maps may be deleted.
      • C. Merely bringing together data from multiple compatible sources, without extrapolating one's own conclusions from them, is not prohibited in WP:SYNTH or anywhere else, and so no valid reason for removal of maps or deletion of map-embedding templates from English Wikipedia. Therefore, this is a valid way of making maps on Commons and using them on English Wikipedia.
      • No conclusion was reached about whether sources should be listed in the 'Source' parameter in the map's description page on Commons (as this essay recommends), inside the English Wikipedia article or map-embedding template in the form of references (as some Wikipedians argued), or both.

English Wikipedia policies and conventions[edit]

Apart from the precedents above, as of September 2021, English Wikipedia seems to have no clear rules about the need to cite your sources for maps, let alone where and how.

  • Policy: Although en:Wikipedia:Verifiability and en:Wikipedia:No original research apply to "any of the information within Wikipedia articles" and "all material added to articles", they say nothing specifically about citing sources for maps; they are chiefly concerned with not violating copyright, which extensions to use, and appropriate file titles. en:WP:MAPS, en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions, and en:WP:IMGDD don't provide more guidance either.
  • Policy: en:Wikipedia:Image use policy says: "User-made images can also include the recreation of graphs, charts, drawings, and maps directly from available data, as long as the user-created format does not mimic the exact style of the original work. Technical data is uncopyrightable, lacking creativity, but the presentation of data in a graph or chart can be copyrighted, so a user-made version should be sufficiently different in presentation from the original to remain free. In such cases, it is required to include verification of the source(s) of the original data when uploading such images."
  • Guideline: en:MOS:IMAGES says: "Each image has a corresponding description page, which documents the image's source, author and copyright status; descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) information; and technical (equipment, software, etc.) data useful to readers and later editors. [...] Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them. This is particularly important for technical drawings, as someone may want to verify that the image is accurate."
  • Convention: en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#Citing sources says: "As maps can be politically charged, it is important to cite your sources and/or your methodology when editing or creating any map. This is particularly true for historical maps."
  • Convention: en:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop provides an 'Advice to requesters': "Sourced requests: If possible, please try to provide a reliable source to create a map. This includes a map already on Wikipedia with a reliable source or an external link."
  • Essay: The essay en:Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles (en:WP:MAPCITE) says very little about maps used as illustration, and the only thing it says about using reliable sources for self-created maps is this: "Editor-created maps should be careful to only depict details supported by reliable sources in the article and common information that would appear on any published map relating to the subject. For user-created maps based on GIS or satellite images, it is acceptable to use details already present in the database used to create the map. Before adding details to third-party created maps, ensure that the addition both meets the above criteria, and that the derivative work will not create issues with copyright laws."

English Wikipedia recommendations[edit]

This essay gives the following additional recommendations:

  • As with texts, a case-by-case approach is best: if you run into a map (or a text) on English Wikipedia which is en:WP:UNSOURCED, but plausibly accurate, you've got three options:
    • A: You can try and fix it yourself.
      • A1: The easiest solution is to replace an unsourced map with an alternative sourced map portraying the same or similar information.
      • A2: If there are no alternative sourced maps yet, you could look for and add the reliable sources the map was probably based on, or could be based on. You may want or need to edit and improve/correct the map in the process if the reliable sources you found say something else than the map is portraying.
      • A3: Alternatively, you can create your own new sourced map from scratch and upload it to Commons to replace the unsourced map.
    • B: You can add a {{Datasource missing}}, {{Original research}}, or {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} template above the description box of the file on Commons (see #Commons tools above), and/or a {{Citation needed}} in the caption of the map on English Wikipedia, respectively, in hopes that the creator/author of the map, or another user, will come along to fix it for you. This is for cases in which you don't have the skills, time or interest in fixing the problem yourself, and/or if you think it is the duty of the creator/author of the map in question to provide accurate and verifiable sourcing.
    • C: If the map text is so bad (not plausibly accurate, or not sufficiently accurate for its purpose), so as to be significantly misleading or confusing on important or highly controversial information, then it should be removed from English Wikipedia immediately.
      • C1: If there are indications that the map in question was made not for informative or educational purposes, but for spreading some sort of political message (e.g. reasons of ethnic, religious or linguistic nationalism), or evidently has such effects in practice, such purposes or effects are incompatible with en:WP:NPOV and en:WP:SOAPBOX, and the map should be immediately removed from English Wikipedia. Note that this not enough of a reason to have a map deleted from Commons (see #Commons policies, precedents, and conventions), unless a map can be proven to be a deliberate hoax (see essay Commons:Verifiability).
      • C2: Law-related maps about current legislation might perhaps be given a similar status to texts in a en:WP:BLP; people reading English Wikipedia should be able trust maps about what they are and aren't legal to do in a given country or region, especially in the domain of criminal law. Unsourced criminal law-related maps about what is currently legal or illegal to do in a certain country or region, and thus could influence the behaviour of people who read Wikipedia, should be removed immediately from English Wikipedia according to the 28 May 2021 Templates for discussion (zoophilia) precedent (see #English Wikipedia precedents).

English Wikipedia tools[edit]

  • The {{imagefact}} template can be used "to request that the image follows Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources."
  • The {{Citation needed}} template can be used in the caption under the map on English Wikipedia to request/demand a reliable source for supporting that the map is portraying what the caption claims the map is portraying. E.g. the map itself may be properly sourced, but the caption is not an accurate representation of what the map shows; for example, the caption possibly draws a conclusion not found in the map (or its sources) and thus violate en:WP:SYNTH. A possible solution to this situation might be reusing one or more of the sources used in creating the map as citations on English Wikipedia for substantiating the caption under the map.

See also[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Evidence-based_mapping&oldid=787437982"