Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places blurred out on Google Maps

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrMacMan (talk | contribs) at 02:51, 13 April 2007 (keep vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of places blurred out on Google Maps

List of places blurred out on Google Maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The list is an original synthesis of material intended (one supposes) to support a claim of censorship by Google. None of the bits of information is reliably sourced. As far as verifiability goes, some entries, such as the one in the Netherlands, are pretty clearly manipulated, but others, such as the one on the Plum Island, are not obviously so. What standards are being used to define "blurred"? Entries are being added here according to whose point of view?

This topic is clearly of current interest to certain people following the New Orleans incident. The article is linked from nowhere— I came across it from a Reddit submission which is an obvious exhortation to create a piece of original research. I suggest moving the list to a relevant blog or site such as GoogleWatch. Wikipedia is surely NOT a corporate watchdog. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This list is fascinating; it suggests business and political patterns that would be very hard to see without it. Peepeedia 17:27 PDT, 12 April 2007
  • Comment: According to Wikipedia:List_guideline, "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." There are no sources for defining what "blurred out" means. Further more, in general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The topic of this list is not notable, is not sourced, and is not linked to by another article. 68.13.147.241 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a list, it must adhere to this policy from WP:ATT. The attribution policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." Also, from WP:LIST Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. To say that you found thse places on your own and created the list constitutes OR. And finally, what asserts the notability of this list? --Cyrus Andiron 13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:NOTABILITY. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." You have no articles or sources that point out these blurs or explaion the reasons for them. You do not assert in the article why this information is important. As you do not have sources and you cannot explain why this article is worthy of being noticed, you have not met the notability requirements. --Cyrus Andiron 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of inhabited islands of Croatia has exactly one link from main namespace: link from List of islands of Croatia. And it is a featured list. So I presume the number of links is not a problem since this article could be very nicely be linked from Google Maps article (I won't link it myself because of WP:POINT). As for importance, I have in numerous times tried to find a list of this kind on the web. That is the primary reason behind the creation of this article: I would like to check this article from time to time to see if some new blurs popped out. Now, for me, this article is quite notable... but, of course, I am aware that for you it might not be. We'll se what closing admin has to say... --83.131.103.18 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is encyclopedic information and deleting it would be removing value from Wikipedia - Ericpaulson 13:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete classic original research. The last time this came up, I mentioned that it's no different than an article called List of houses on Google Maps with lots of cars parked in the front yard and other assorted wonders of useless information people could theoretically drum up looking at Google Maps. The problem here is that it's basically original research. Wikipedians care... but the information they're generating might be quite misleading. --W.marsh 13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, as someone showed in the Digg thread, the russian image is... drumroll please... an empty field. It's just a photographical error in the Google Maps image. --W.marsh 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm the creator of the list so I obviously think it is notable, etc. Now, let me comment on the nomination:
    • This list was not made to support a claim of censorship by Google, it was made to list places censored by Google. Just as List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters was not made to support claim that Star Wars fans have no life, but to list minor Star Wars bounty hunters.
    • Every link to google maps is reliably sourced by a link to the google maps. Now, I happen to be a student of both computer science and philosophy, so you will have to trust me on this one: links to blurs on google maps indeed provide links to blurs on google maps. And, blurs on google maps are reliable sources that confirm existance of blurs on google maps. Just trust me on that.
    • As for definition of "blur"... since when is problem with one image a reason to delete the whole list? :-)
    • New Orleans incident? Sorry, never heard of it. I have been collecting this links as they appeared on reddit for some time now. I decided to publish it in this moment by pure chance.
    • As for the original research... now, what exactly is original research here? The fact that there is no published work that lists this blurs? Is there an published work which lists minor Star Wars bounty hunters? --83.131.103.18 14:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since this entire article is based on Wikipedians looking at something and drawing conclusions, the more correct analogy would be list of shots in Star Wars that are blurry. That could all be "reliable sourced" to the minute/second where the shot occurs in the DVD or whatever, which are published works. --W.marsh 14:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. And what is the problem with that? If you provide the instant in which it appears, where is the problem? --83.131.103.18 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" (WP:NOT). One problem is these aren't even 100% true items, they're just Wikipedian's observations, which can be wrong (i.e. the russian image was not actually "blurred out" but an equipment error more likely). Even if the random Wikipedian is probably right in his observation... it's a fact with no reliable statement of context, explanation or significance possible. To group such tidbits together, be they the number of cars a Wikipedian sees in a front yard or the existence of a supposed blur, seems like an indiscriminate, or at least problematic, collection of information. --W.marsh 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let me try and address some of your points.
  • Your reasoning is incredibly circular. You cannot say it wasn't made to make a claim about censorship when you say it lists places censored by google. Regardless, this is not the reason for deletion.
  • The links themselves don't constitute a source, circular reasoning again.
  • The definition of blur is important because inclusion on a list MUST be backed up by reliable sources that say "this is a blur". Since there is none, how can you have a list?
  • Reddit discussions don't really make it for notability.
  • Yes, there are works that list minor Star Wars bounty hunters in the forms of the countless Star Wars novels and such. This list has no such source and is infact nothing but original research. Your very admission for the reason you created this article is evidence that this is nothing BUT original research. For more detailed information please read WP:OR. 68.13.147.241 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it can be safely agreed that Google has no interest in blurring these locations beyond complying with whatever anti-spying regulations there are in place. As such, this list provides an important (and interesting) insight. Furthermore, the article should be renamed. The satellite images listed in this article are not all "blurred", but they are digitally manipulated in some way. The Plum Island example looks more like a median filter to me. Rufous 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though the article needs a lead paragraph or two explaining why this is significant. Bryan Derksen 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such a paragraph, by the admission of the people who wrote the article, could only say "These are links to things random Wikipedians think are blurs, or possibly equipment malfunctions, or maybe median filtered". Do we really want to put that in an article? --W.marsh 16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear example of original research. Satellite images aren't perfect, how can we be 100% sure that one particular place is actually censored, or just an unintended glitch in the image? This potential for inaccuracy is exactly why we have policies against original research. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Making assumptions as to what the intentions of the article's contributors are is pretty pointless - but that doesn't excuse the fact that it is WP:OR. As mentioned above, there are no sources to indicate whether these are software/imaging glitches, intentional blurrings, or so on. I've seen Google Maps images that were blurred due to high clouds - should I plop those on to this list as well? Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of loosely related topics, and "Hey, it's a blurry spot on the picture" is a pretty vague relationship as any. It may be "neat" or "interesting" but neither of those are valid inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it needs work, but it is informative, and it is not original research because it simply collects existing information. --Uriel 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is a wiki, but it's not your wiki. If someone wanted to do a list of blurred out areas on Google Maps they could have started their own wiki. --SeanO 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fascinating, but the topic has apparently not been covered anywhere else, and therefore fails to meet notability criteria. Kla'quot 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and expand.Delete Before checking out all the areas, be aware that the Google Earth article notes that a record is kept of every IP address that calls up imagery of high security areas. There really are places which might be considered of national security importance which have the tops masked off and the surrounding area filled with a seeming impenetrable forest of trees which are not there in photos and other aerial shots of the places. This list is also very selective. If it were referenced to an article somewhere about the phenomenon it would be an ok article. This topic is also dealt with in Google Earth in the section "National security and privacy issues." That section and this article could also include [1] which shows how one country covers high security areas with fake impenetrable forests. Google in this case provides the undoctored image, so the article might better be more broadly cast as "Censorship of online aerial images." See also [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , and [8].Edison 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do, however propose deleting this article for all reasons stated above. I thought these things went under "discussions"?
  • Keep. A Google search for "Google maps blurred" returns nearly 1 million hits, a large portion of which are discussion of this phenomenon. Refeneces to some of this discussion could easily be added. I'd suggest adding a list of formerly "blurred" areas--the White House and Capitol were blurred but no longer are, while the VP's residence remains blurred. I'd suggest renaming the article "List of places on Google Maps with locally reduced resolution". I'm still confused about why a primary source document, Google maps themselves, do not count as a source. Craigbutz 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia's guidlines for lists says that the list entries must be vetted against a source that can constitute what membership in the list entails. I've not seen a source which describes what a "blur" is. Is it a sat error, censorship, dust on the negative, etc? Also, a list of places with locally reduced resolution isn't going to help. How much is fairly reduced? How big is locally? What if the area simply is old low res imagery, not reduced by some accident, omission, or censorship? What about the fake forests, that's not really reduced resolution? Who decides all this? You? This is why the maps themselves are not sufficient in any way as a source. 68.13.147.241 22:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "thought to be intentionally altered" is not encyclopedic. What someone "thinks" is irrelevant. This article doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a place for "blurs"...for censorship...for satellite errors...who knows? The fact is, you can find many sources on the internet with speculation on what these and other things on sat imagery may or may not be...but I have seen NOTHING in the way of a source that speaks to the true reason of any observed abnormality. As it stands, a source that defines what a "blur" constitutes would be needed to vet the entries on this list. An entry on a list is not its own source. 68.13.147.241 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not the best list there is but still useful. --Svetovid 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of arguments made on this page fall under the "it is useful" category (some of the delete arguments are not very helpful either). This is not an argument for keeping an article. Finding inconsistencies on Google Maps is original research. As it stands now the article makes ridiculous claims like blurring being caused by water on the lens, but even if non sense like that were cleaned up we would still have a list of things people found on Google Earth this is not encyclopedic content. The subject of censorship on Google Maps is covered in the main article, if this is such a prevalent issue I would be not opposed to a fork and a new page called Censorship on Google Maps or some such. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to Wikisource. I don't see this as original research. Each claim is clearly cited to Google Maps, which I'm sure is used as a primary source for other articles. Most of the links on this page are also very clearly blurred intentionally. Lincoln Labs is pixelated [9]. The dutch ones are even-more-obviously distorted, (blurred based on a Voronoi tesselation of random points) [10]. —Ben FrantzDale 22:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pointed out earlier, according to Wikipedia:List_guideline, "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." It doesn't matter what you feel is obvious, items for inclusion on this list must be based on a reliable source. Crypticgeek 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Red cardinal bird.jpg
Male Northern Cardinal
That's a valid point, but I would argue that interpreting obvious facts about a picture really is the same as reporting what the source says. For example, I would consider the image and caption at right a valid citation for the claim that male northern cardinals are red, even though the caption does not mention the color. —Ben FrantzDale 01:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP.This information is far from original research, and it provides a valuable database of infractions by Google to prevent the public from viewing a non-copyrightable property...planet earth. KEEP, Wikipedia should not police a list of this nature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007 74.192.231.115 (talk • contribs)
    • But that's an original conclusion... a lot of them just seem to be equipment malfunction. Actually that shows a problem with lists like this that can have no explanation and require people to draw their own conclusions... lots of people are going to be the wrong conclusions altogether. --W.marsh 02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia should police. If the author feels strongly the author may get his own web page to advance or promulgate this information. There he or she would have perfect freedom to push this notion, ignorant of Google as it may be. Here it just seeks to stick itself onto the credibility of Wikipedia and move from private obsession to generally accepted fact. Its a cheap shot and should be dealt with as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanderleun (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This belongs on a blog, not in an encyclopedia. I think someone should add this to an external page, and we can link to it from the google entry. Are we supposed to make one of these pages for every individual satellite map website? Or just for The Great Google's? Also, I worry that this page exists solely to try making people draw conclusions. Something like "Google censors." But how do we know Google censored the data, and the provider of the satellite data did not? I can keep on listing problems with this, but to me this is obviously not encyclopedic and adds to the glut of unnecessary Google sites. Rm999 00:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep not terribly useful, but it is somewhat important. Seems a bit like listcruft. However, even if it is OR it is verifiable, so it could be included if it's decided that it's an appropriate topic. People seem to be confusing OR with V. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not OR, for it is a compilation of material found on other secondary sources. Encyclopedic, for it is of importance in understanding a widely used resource, and as an indication of the extent of censorship. N, through both the secondary sources and the liked maps. Google maps has been used as a source of WP for many things. But if the article is rejected as bing an undifferentiated list, the same material could be used as the basis for an article under a more closely appropriate title. DGG 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say it's not original research, then you say it's useful because people can conclude that the raw images represent "an indication of the extent of censorship". That's drawing original conclusions from a primary source... --W.marsh 02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is useful information, but redirect to a more general (less exclusively Google) list of places obscured by mapping services, with generalized latitude/longitude mapping links. Article maintainers can develop a useful neutral set of criteria for determining when a region has been specifically obscured. --Fjarlq 00:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's an interesting idea. It is notable if some sites censor some places but others do not. —Ben FrantzDale 01:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no thesis being presented about Google censorship, it is a simple list of places that are blurred out. It could be quite useful for some people and is certanly more relevant than some of those esoteric Star Wars lists that a few people mentioned.--208.97.117.154 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a number of views I see above, holding that this list is appropriate to be deleted because it is not important, constantly changing (hence wrong from time to time), not official or sourced, original research .etc. I believe these are not good reasons. Please compare it with an article of a similar kind: List of notable websites blocked in the People's Republic of China. The "list of blocked websites" exists, despite it is constantly changing (Chinese government updates its list of blocked websites constantly, in the dark) and not official (The Chinese government never officially admit that it blocked any of those websites). Both articles are about a vast entity hiding information from the public. Given they are so similar in properties, what is the reason of keeping one and deleting another? --Computor 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of votes on both sides that use inappropriate arguments like: (un)interesting, useless/useful. But the fact remains that this page is original research and unsourced as admitted by several keep voters and that is a reason to delete a page. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_places_blurred_out_on_Google_Maps&oldid=122398664"