Wikipedia talk:Using maps and analogous media
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Martinvl in topic Some comments on the essay
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. Martinvl (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Some comments on the essay
- "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."
- We must remember that a map might be used to illustrate several articles and it would be onerous if all the sources of the map have to be cited each time the map is used. I think it should be sufficient if the reliable sources on which the map is based are cited on the image description page. On the last part of this sentence, I don't know why that should be required. For example a user might base a map on a detailed published source and include information not on less detailed published sources.
- "It is quite in order to state the “Valley X is ‘U’ shaped".
- I really think that would be original research, since there is a continuum of valley shapes and some judgment (or even careful measurement of contours) would be needed to decide whether the valley is U-shaped.
Here are some things that I think would be OK to source to a (reliably published) map.
- 1. "Cities X and Y are about 80km apart" (in a straight line) — provided the map has a scale and the precision claimed is within reason for this map.
- 2. "Road X crosses river Y"
- 3. "River R passes though the built up area of city Z" — provided the map shows the extent of the built up area
And some things that I think would be NOT OK.
- 1. "City X lies on the slopes of Mount Y" — because "slopes" is not an objectively defined concept.
- 2. "The length of road A (or river B) is 20km" — unless the map indicates the length of the road (this could be relaxed if only a very rough length is derived).
- 3. "From village V it is possible to see the ocean" — because this needs careful measurement and even calculation to derive from the map.
Zerotalk 10:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Response to above
- I agree with what is written above apart from:
- I see no problem with an editor citing a map to support the assertion that a valley is "U-shaped" if the map shows this as obviously the case. The test for this is a standard part of the geography syllabus at most secondary schools. Consensus should centre around the word "obvious", not the word "map".
- I disagree abouth the statement "City X lies on the slopes of Mount Y" - as with my previous comment, other editors should be able challenge this statement on grounds that it is not obvious from the map, not on the grounds that a map was used. Again, the test for this is taught at schools.
- I would relax the condition of the length of a road a little more - if the road is very close to being straight, then I see no problem with measuring its length off a map - again subject to the consensus described above.
- Martinvl (talk)
- I agree that consensus can take care of boundary cases lots of the time. The difficulty with the rules is when specialist expertise is required for something to be "obvious". It would appear to be against WP:OR for someone who is an expert in real life to insist that something is obvious from a map when others cannot see it. Zerotalk 03:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have added a "Two disciplines" test, giving a Saddle point as an example - both mathematicians and geographers use the same techniques to identify saddle points. Similarly, all sorts of people talk about gradients and use closeness of contours to define the gradient - I do it when I teach physics to 17 & 18 year-old students with reference to electric fields. The rules are exactly the same in geography. Martinvl (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)