Wikipedia talk:Using maps and analogous media: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Line Charts: + example |
m Remsense moved page Wikipedia talk:Using maps and similar sources in articles to Wikipedia talk:Using maps and analogous media: Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE): I'll do you one better? |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Essays}}
}}
== Untitled ==
The discussion of whether or not maps are source material resulted in an article in [[User:Moabdave]]'s area. This essay was known to a few Wikipedia editors, while others debated the issue. I have moved this article into WP: space so that everybody with an interest in the use of maps as sources can see it and debate it. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 07:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 37 ⟶ 41:
:Dave, I am inclined to agree with you, but somebody has been crying out "original research" which is why I extended this essay. Fortunately we had been sufficiently general in our description that I did not have to adapt any of the concepts. I have done the honourable thing and invited them to this discussion. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 14:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::Good luck with that battle. I've had to fight it a few times during my FAC nominations. There are some people who do not understand that not everything has to be spelled out in prose. Pulling data from a table is not original research, unless you made the table. =-) [[User:Moabdave|Dave]] ([[User talk:Moabdave|talk]]) 15:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::I have taken the liberty of adding a map that I have used, and others have used for both
:::Dave, I like your map and I have taken the librty of promoting it into the lede. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 16:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
==Leap seconds==
"Remember that people who have good spacial visualisation ability have no problem using maps, but people who have poor spacial visualisation ability may find it difficult to relate to maps. This is often the underlying reason for disputes as to what constitutes original research and what does not."
I take issue with the above statement. I don't know whether I'm good or bad at reading maps and charts but I know there are many ways to misread and there are many ways to build charts with the intention of misleading.
Sometimes the data is complicated enough to defy a visual read. [http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html Here's] a line chart we've been discussing in the context of [[WP:OR]]. Is this trending up, down or flat? Am I allowed to choose the interval of interest or must I consider the whole dataset? In either case, how can I stay clear of [[Cherry picking (fallacy)]] issues? If I use [[regression analysis]] to help cut the noise and if that does not meet [[WP:CALC]] criteria, I have to conclude that is it [[WP:OR]]. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 19:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:Please look at the graph in [http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/dutc.html this paper] and compare it to the reference that you gave me. The one that you gave me is incorporated into the one that I mentioned. The big picture highlights the anomaly for the eighteenth century and it is the sort of thing that I would expect a school-child to pick up, which is why I do not regsard it as WP:OR - remember WP:OR is defined as "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research", so is something that we woudl expect s schoolboy topick up original research or is it something to which the author of the paper said "That is not really relevant to what I am writing and it is so damned obvious I am not going to waste time memtioning it". [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 19:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::It would be nice if one of you could either copy or point to the disputed statement that lead to this discussion. Just looking at the graph at the bottom of [http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html], I think the graph safely supports any of the following statements:
::*Between 1623 and the early 1700s the average duration of the day has increased by approximately 12 milliseconds.
::*From the early 1700s to 2005 the duration of the day has trended slightly upward; increasing by a fraction of a millisecond.
::*There was a decline in day duration during the latter half of the 19th century.
::[[User:Moabdave|Dave]] ([[User talk:Moabdave|talk]]) 21:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Using the data from the [http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html IERS page] would simply be inadequate research. It clearly states that the data came from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984RSPTA.313...47S Stephenson and Morrison (1984)]. Much better is to find the data [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995RSPTA.351..165S Stephenson and Morrison(1995)] and [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JGeo...32..247M Morrison and Stephenson (2001)] wherein it is evident that the LOD value for 1623 was an aberration either because it was a very early observation or during a large decadal variation of faster rotation.[[User:Steven L Allen|Steven L Allen]] ([[User talk:Steven L Allen|talk]]) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::The graph in [http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/dutc.html] includes data points derived using various means. There is a flat spot from 1735 to 1860. There also are no error bars, no indication of how many data points there are at various points along the graph or where they came from. Now Steven Allen has chimed in and informed that there may be bad data in the graph. My assertion is that it really does take more than a school child to extract reliable information from ''this'' raw data. And I don't believe this is an exceptional case. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 01:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm not disputing any of the above points, however the reliability and completeness of the source are separate issues from the original claim, which was of original research. The above statements I made are what could, in my opinion, be safely extracted from the graph without violating the principle of "no original research." If the source is incomplete or inaccurate is a separate issue that goes to a different policy. It is for that exact reason that I requested that someone link to the actual statement that is the source of this controversy, so those wishing to participate could learn the full context. I'm still waiting for someone to link to that statement. [[User:Moabdave|Dave]] ([[User talk:Moabdave|talk]]) 03:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Dave, visit [[Talk:Leap_second#Slowing_of_earth_and_leap_seconds_in_Unix_time]] for that discussion. If you don't find it there, leave a note and I'll point it out more specifically. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 12:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
== western sahara ==
hi all - there is a considerable amount of maps being used on wikipedia that i believe are in breach of exiting policies on disputed borders, and territorial claims of colonised countries. i believe this is hugely the case for western sahara (a forgotten conflict in the desert, with 200k+ displaced refugees, and 20k deaths, over the last 50 years or so..).
listing few examples here, but would love to get a view on what can be done to allow an accurate representation of things.
<gallery>
Morocco_regions_Amazigh_languages_speakers.svg|maroco claims the territory, with limited recognition
</gallery>
quoting this page: `Any cultural bias apparent in a map (such as a disputed boundary or a territory claimed by two entities) should be clearly explained in a neutral fashion.`
id appreciate some guidance on how this could be handled?
:My apologies, I don't understand the situation. This isn't worded very clearly. But I would say if this map shows data from the point of view of the Moroccan Government, there are numerous ways to state that in the article without showing bias yourself. "Map showing the region as defined by the Moroccan Government", or "Disputed area shown with Moroccan names" or "Moroccan produced map of x, called y by separatists" or something like that. The idea is to word it so the reader can still infer value from the map, but knows the map is biased and somewhere out there are maps showing different boundaries or regional names. If you can clarify your question I can try to give a more specific opinion. I would look to the article on the [[Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute]], they've been dealing with this issue for years. What they have done is at the bottom of the article are two maps presented side by side, one with the British point of view, the other with the Argentina POV. [[User:Moabdave|Dave]] ([[User talk:Moabdave|talk]]) 19:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
== Proposed changes to this essay ==
FYI, there is a debate about both the content of this essay, as well as if it merits elevation to policy. This is occurring at
*[[User talk:Onel5969/rfc draft]]
*[[WT:NPP/R]]
I've made some (hopefully innocent) improvements and clarifications based on that discussion.
[[User:Moabdave|Dave]] ([[User talk:Moabdave|talk]]) 22:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:Moabdave|Moabdave]]. FYI, there's a related discussion here: [[Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Maps,_OR,_and_SYNTHESIS]] (and if you want to jump to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=1125425708&oldid=1125416339&diffmode=source its conclusions]). [[User:A455bcd9|A455bcd9]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 08:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks. Yeah, so we've got 3 simultaneous debates that directly or tangentially touch upon the issues in this essay. I'll chime in, and let's hope some good comes out of this.[[User:Moabdave|Dave]] ([[User talk:Moabdave|talk]]) 14:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
| |||