Commons:Graphics village pump/October 2017

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Take World Health Organization data, put into a map?

Hi. I'm coming to see if someone can take the World Health Organization's data from the Global status report on alcohol and health 2014 and plug it into a map of the world? Something similar used to exist and was used in w:2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning, but it was deleted, and I'd really like to re-add the information. Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Historical image: quality noise reducion request

Is there someone who has the software to apply high quality noise reduction on this photograph? (and is willing to do so)

The photograph Royalist ralley in The Hague after the failed revolution attempt in 1918.jpg was made at a historical royalist ralley (or demonstration) in The Hague, after the failed attempt for a revolution in the Netherlands in 1918. The same year when the German kaiser and Russian tsar where overthrown by succesfull revolutions. On the photograph: Members of the royal family had arrived by horse-drawn carriage at a large field. The nine years old Crown Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, supported by her mother Queen Wilhelmina and a chamberlain, waves to the gathered crowd. Regards, --oSeveno (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

OSeveno you may get a better response at the Photography workshop. - Offnfopt(talk) 01:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I will try that. --oSeveno (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete pseudohistoric maps?

Dear colleagues,
The principle that anyone can create and upload their own maps on Commons has been rather successful for years. An unfortunate side-effect is that literally anyone can create a 'historic' map of anything, without having to abide by any scientific or historical-critical standards. The result is lots of amateur historians/carthographers creating vastly inaccurate or just pseudohistoric maps, that they or perhaps other amateurs then go on to use on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects to illustrate entries. Even if these are removed from one Wikipedia by a Wikipedian with more historical expertise, it may still be used or show up again elsewhere (in other languages or articles within the same language edition), because the source file is not deleted.

Granted, maps will always contain mistakes. A certain error rate should be allowed, especially if more accurate maps showing the same geographic area around the same period are still unavailable. But there are lots of clearly pseudoscientific maps on Commons that serve no educational purpose, and may spread misinformation, even if they're not used anywhere in an article. Their mere existence here makes them searchable by Google and other search engines. If it was text, we would simply delete the information. But on Commons, the only rule for deletion appears to be if it's a copyright violation or at the uploader's request.

Do we want Commons to be/remain a hub for the spread of pseudohistoric maps? I don't think this is compatible with the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is to 'to collect and develop educational content'. These maps don't educate: they mislead and misinform more than that they educate. So if not, what can we do about them? The only thing I have tried so far is simply removing them from all legitimate categories to make them harder to find, and adding a {{disputed map}} template, but that's not a real solution to the problem.

I am in favour of deleting any historical map that is clearly pseudohistoric and/or misleading on multiple issues, (especially) when there is already at least 1 other map of the same region and period which is clearly more accurate. Examples:

I hope to hear your views and suggestions. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Commons is a media repository, not a library. Though even with a library you can't assume everything or even anything you read is true. It is up to the users to take in that information and make their own deductions. Anyone can publish a book, that doesn't mean the information in the book is true. A user may have used information from a book to create a map and if you find something wrong with the map, you can do as you did here and add the {{Disputed map}} template and provide details on the talk page, to inform users what is wrong with the map. This informs others including the map maker of possible issues and that information can lead to a better map being created or at the least informs others who come across the map what issues it has. Though if you don't provide details of what is wrong with a map, chances are slim anything will come of adding the template. You're not informing users since you provided no information and the map maker or a 3rd party contributor can't improve the map because you provided no details. Commons is the same as wikipedia, it is a collaborative effort. So if you're aware of information another user isn't regarding a map, share that information.
  • A map can not be improved if it is deleted. It takes a lot more effort to start a map from scratch than using a existing map that you can improve.
  • Every file has a talk page for a reason, so collaboration can occur, for discussion, disputes, improvements and more.
Offnfopt(talk) 04:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


Nederlandse Leeuw -- Wikimedia Commons doesn't take sides in legitimate disputes; images reflecting both sides can be uploaded, and the various language Wikipedias are free to use which versions they want. Deliberately hoaxing images are another matter, and certainly can be deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Graphics_village_pump/October_2017&oldid=272983806"