Commons talk:Evidence-based mapping

Battle fronts of the Eighty Years' War

I've written a small entry on Category talk:Battle fronts of the Eighty Years' War#Some issues to bring the military maps of this war more into conformity with evidence-based mapping. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia talk:No original research#Maps, OR, and SYNTHESIS

This essay is being discussed at English Wikipedia at the moment. User:A455bcd9 and I have made some revisions (additions, clarifications) to the essay as a result; more might follow. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Needed for Commons as well as all Wikipedias

I think that in the process of making this essay a guideline, we should very much tone down the references to Wikipedia in English (leave the bulk to their guidelines). Commons does not "[value] free artistic expression above all else, including accuracy and verifiability". Indeed, for maps and similar media, correctness and description of the context should be a high priority – not because of Wikipedia, but as Commons scope is about educationally useful media. If we can serve Wikipedia by living up to our goals, just the better.

However, one should note that correctness refers to what is pictured; there is nothing wrong with picturing misconceptions on Commons, as long as the file description is honest about it (and the misconception is a notable one and accurately described). The linked essay does not make a particularly good job on conveying this point.

I assume most of the unsourced maps on Commons are, in fact, made by Wikipedia editors for use on Wikipedia. Not providing sources is just sloppiness and common practice, just as it was on Wikipedia in its early days. To change the culture, we should ask those editors to document their sources and their choices as it comes to "Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS" and original research. That makes map making a bit more time-consuming, but hardly significantly so. Having Commons guidelines recommend good practices is another way to further them.

–LPfi (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi Thanks very much for this feedback!

I'm aware that English Wikipedia should set its own guidelines (as do the other-language Wikipedias), but it's difficult to separate Commons and English Wikipedia, as the problem frequently lies in the interaction between them.

• Deletion policy interrelatedness: One of them is the tactic of single-handedly adding or removing files from Wikipedias during a Commons DR, without discussing it with or notifying its participants about it, in order to enable or prevent a COM:INUSE or COM:NOTUSED closure (which we discussed at Commons talk:Project scope#Question about COM:INUSE and COM:NOTUSED earlier today). The interrelatedness is the reason why I have included the following sentence twice, in the lead section of both sections: 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. As I realise now, this isn't actually accurately portraying just how much Commons and English Wikipedia are interlinked, because if an unsourced map cannot be used, and isn't used, on other Wikimedia projects (such as English Wikipedia), it can actually be deleted in Commons per COM:NOTUSED (given additional circumstances). Have you got a good suggestion on how to rephrase this?
• Map creation conventions interrelatedness: There are also overlapping policies, guidelines and recommendations, such as Convention: en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#Citing sources, and Convention: en:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop's 'Advice to requesters', which instruct or recommend users to use reliable source or provide reliable sources if they are going to make a map, or request one to be made, that is presumably going to be uploaded to Commons so that it can then be used on English Wikipedia.
• Unsourced map solution recommendations interrelatedness: Commons:Evidence-based mapping#English Wikipedia recommendations provides recommendations on multiple actions that could be taken on English Wikipedia, Commons, or both, in order to solve the problem of an unsourced map. It will be hard to split this into a guideline that only applies to Commons (e.g. just the section Commons:Evidence-based mapping#Creating evidence-based maps on Commons, and a guideline that only applies to English Wikipedia (e.g. just the section Commons:Evidence-based mapping#Usage of maps on English Wikipedia).

How we could limit ourselves to just Commons if they are so interrelated?

You are right that the sentence Commons values free artistic expression above all else, including accuracy and verifiability, as long as nobody's copyright is violated. is not accurate when it comes to maps and similar media, so this should be reworded. What do you think about: One of Commons' main priorities is to ensure nobody's copyright is violated (see also COM:PRP). Apart from that, Commons places a high value on free artistic expression (see also COM:CENSORSHIP). But for maps and similar non-fiction media that are intended to represent the real world, correctness, accuracy and description of the context are a high priority, because media on Commons must serve a realistically useful educational purpose (COM:EDUSE). "Correctness" refers to what is pictured; there is nothing wrong with picturing misconceptions on Commons, as long as the file description is honest about it (and the misconception is a notable one and accurately described).? I've been meaning to rephrase this sentence for some time, and you've given a good reason and description why and how. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

For the first quoted sentences, I suggest:

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 Wikipedias and other 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 good well-sourced maps become available.

Wording the lead is more difficult and I don't have a wording handy, but I think it should be something in the spirit of:

Commons' objective is to provide educationally useful media, such as maps. The usefulness depends crucially on the correctness of the map and its description. While Commons' guidelines differ significantly from those of the Wikipedias – a map giving a false impression about facts is not in itself a reason for deletion – the description of the map should explain what view the map reflects. Citing sources gives an opportunity for Commons editors and reusers such as Wikipedias to verify the correctness of the map in relation to its description and vice versa.

This references Wikipedia, but in the context of Commons' scope. I started writing something about neutrality, censorship etc., but got down into the weeds. I don't think we need to talk about artistic freedom here. Instead, it is the neutrality, providing media representing different views, that is the point. Your wording on copyright is very relevant, but I'd add something about the expertise of Commons lying there, and that the responsibility of choosing among media according to facts and context lies with the reusers (such as Wikipedia).

–LPfi (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi Thanks very much for that first sentence! I've applied it almost verbatim in both cases, with some slight alterations left in such as English Wikipedia precedents, at least for now (let me know if that is okay with you).

I agree that the lead section is a bit more difficult. The original wording is based on my outdated and inaccurate understanding (at the time of first writing the essay 1.5 years ago) that basically everything goes on Commons as long as you violate nobody's copyright (and thus I regarded artistic free expression as the main 'enemy' of evidence-based mapping). But as I now know, COM:EDUSE puts significant limits on that, especially for non-fiction works intended and claiming to represent the real world. I think COM:EDUSE is indeed the most relevant policy here, and that COM:L/COM:Copyright rules/COM:PRP and COM:CENSORSHIP merely provide additional norms/parameters to further define the legitimate playing field for the uploader annex creator/author of an educationally useful map. So I guess we need to change the order in which we list policies. Otherwise, I would pretty much merge the two texts, because every part of both seems to be relevant, and add some wording to make it an understandable narrative:

• Creating/uploading maps that are educationally useful: For maps and similar non-fiction media that are intended and claiming to represent the real world, correctness, accuracy and description of the context are a high priority, because media on Commons must serve a realistically useful educational purpose (COM:EDUSE). The usefulness depends crucially on the correctness of the map and its description. "Correctness" refers to what is pictured. While Commons' guidelines differ significantly from those of the Wikipedias – a map giving a false impression about facts is not in itself a reason for deletion – the description of the map should explain what view the map reflects. One the one hand, unintentional inaccuracies may be fixed by correcting/updating and overwriting a file; on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with picturing misconceptions on Commons, as long as the file description is honest about it (and the misconception is a notable one and accurately described). Citing reliable sources gives an opportunity for Commons editors and reusers such as Wikipedia editors to verify the correctness of the map in relation to its description and vice versa.
• Respecting copyright when creating/uploading educationally useful maps: When creating/editing and uploading maps, it is essential to ensure nobody's copyright is violated by stating the work's copyright licence (Commons:Licensing; see also COM:Copyright rules/COM:PRP).
• Artistic freedom in creating/uploading educationally useful maps: Apart from that, Commons places a high value on free artistic expression, and encourages users to create works such as maps with an educationally useful purpose (see also COM:CENSORSHIP).

The text briefly discusses neutrality elsewhere, and we could elaborate on that, but I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the lead section just yet. This is its own difficult topic.

How would you word the copyright being on Commons and reusage being on the other Wikimedia projects? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Dynamic vs static

I think Commons:Overwriting existing files#Files with current data is quite clear about how to resolve the dynamic-versus-static issue. One can include a time reference or other clarification in the name, and there is the template {{Current}}. The problem is that this guideline isn't consistently followed, to put it mildly. Making the recommendations more well-known may help. –LPfi (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That's good to know. Are there any things that you would change, add or remove in this essay in that regard? You may be able to explain it better than I have. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Languages

Remember that Commons is a multilingual project and that there are Wikipedias in several languages. The recommended

"{{Own}}. Sources used in creating this map: [bulletpoint list …"

should use a translatable template also for the string before the list ({{Source}} appears to be taken for some other use, perhaps {{Sources}} could be used?).

In the case of SVG, the recommended format, translations can be included in the file. There are technical issues, but this should be noted. Still, a map without legends should be provided, avoiding redundant legends not translated into the language of the project. Some of the text in the map may be hard to replace with text in the caption, and then in-map text in a relevant language may be better than a textually blank map.

In some typical situations, four versions of a map may be ideal as a first upload: a textless map, a map with embedded translations, a map in chosen languages (such as the local ones), and a map in the language of the project primarily targeted. Except perhaps for the two latter, these versions are easy to make for the original creator, while making the map much more useful for those using it in other languages.

–LPfi (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how a translatable template could prevent the situation that the list of sources will have to be needlessly duplicated in multiple languages? Do you mean an autotranslatable template? E.g. that if I provide the following source:

• "Canada: Canadian egg farmers to abandon battery cages by 2036. CBC News (5 February 2016). Retrieved on 29 May 2020."

...and your default Commons language is set to Swedish, it shows up for you as:

• "Canada: Canadian egg farmers to abandon battery cages by 2036. CBC News (5 februari 2016). Läst 29 maj 2020."

I can see the advantage of that, even though it would be limited to just the publication date and access-date. I wouldn't want to force users to provide trans-titles for every single source they provide in every single language and writing system that is available; that's just too much work for very little gain.

Otherwise I agree with basically everything you say here. Have you got specific sentences you'd like to add or change? That would be much appreciated. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw You can use the multilingual {{ucfirst:{{I18n/references}}}}: ("References:"). Then for each source, use a template with the date in the YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g.: "accessdate=2020-05-29") so that it's translated depending on the reader's settings: Canadian egg farmers to abandon battery cages by 2036. CBC News (2016-02-05). Retrieved on 2020-05-29. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)