File talk:COVID-19 Cases in Singapore by Planning Areas.svg
Issues with the map's accuracy and necessity
[edit]
Heyy, thanks Robertsky for trying to update this map. I'm just wondering if it's even possible to make this map an accurate one. Aside from reporting on new clusters, the ministry no longer releases the places that cases have visited. So there's no way we can ascertain that those areas that are unshaded in the map have not had any confirmed cases, right? Just as an example, Boon Lay and Punggol are two of such unshaded areas. While it's uncontestable that the shaded areas have had confirmed cases, I don't know we can say the opposite about Boon Lay & Punggol, that they are still free of COVID-19 since we can't really check on this ever since they've changed the reporting of case details to a separate annex with a less-detailed table in mid-March. If that's the case, I'm not sure how accurate this map can be in highlighting where there have been the occurrence of "COVID-19 Cases in Singapore", as the file name suggests. As such I'm not sure how relevant this map is anymore? It was appropriate back then when the virus was still localised to a small number of areas so this particular information was still useful (and can be accounted for accurately). But now that it's pretty much all over the island, to me it feels like the map is there just because it looks nice to have a map in an article even though it might not add any value.
If we still want to have a map of some kind for the article, perhaps we can look into having a map that shows the location of these clusters? At least I think that would be more informative than this one. I hope you understand where I'm coming from with this! Cheers :) Danialrosli (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Danialrosli: You are right to question the relevancy of the map. But first, right from the start this map (and the other one File:COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in Singapore.svg (laughably irrelevant now)) is actually based on the homes of the confirmed cases. not where they have visited. Second, this map follows the general convention for the other maps about COVID cases in individual countries (see ca:Pandèmia per coronavirus de 2019-2020 a list of all maps by countries). In fact, I had proposed to switched to this map as the break down by CDC level wasn't granular enough. I disagree on going any more granular than this though. 1. The map here, and the maps in general are showing the cumulative cases, not current nor clusters cases. 2. It takes a lot of time and effort to update even this map, which is why I don't think the pinpoint accuracy of the map is worth investing in personally. Heck even, that 'wuhan map' on the rose server(?) had stopped updating because of the same reason. 3. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a news service or aggregation of data (there is a already a TFD to delete the list of cases). I feel such map would be of use in wikinews instead. Robertsky (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: Oh sorry I think I might not have brought my point across clearly. I wasn't asking for the map to be subdivided even further, but that it can't ever be correct anymore because of the missing info. And if we can't ensure the accuracy of the map regardless of when or how often it gets updated, why bother including it anymore (hence the "even" in "if it's even possible")? It might work with other countries because they have their own local governments on top of the central government and are just large enough to be significant data points, but that's just not the case for Singapore. Wrt the clusters map, I brought it up just as an alternative if the consensus was that there's a need to have a map regardless. But I still feel it's pointless to have one, especially if it's not worth having to update it regularly. Also, yea I get that this is an encyclopedia? But this map is currently omitting a lot of data points (i.e. the homes of other cases who do not live in dormitories), unless they've already been included as well? Danialrosli (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Danialrosli: Those have been included from the start in this map. Robertsky (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: Yea I'm not referring to the earlier cases, but the most recent update. Those reported after 18 March (case 248 onwards). How/where are you getting the info about their homes? Danialrosli (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Danialrosli: I should qualify, home locations where possible. Without further disclosure of information from the government, the map is accurate as it is. Robertsky (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: Yea I'm not referring to the earlier cases, but the most recent update. Those reported after 18 March (case 248 onwards). How/where are you getting the info about their homes? Danialrosli (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Danialrosli: Those have been included from the start in this map. Robertsky (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: Oh sorry I think I might not have brought my point across clearly. I wasn't asking for the map to be subdivided even further, but that it can't ever be correct anymore because of the missing info. And if we can't ensure the accuracy of the map regardless of when or how often it gets updated, why bother including it anymore (hence the "even" in "if it's even possible")? It might work with other countries because they have their own local governments on top of the central government and are just large enough to be significant data points, but that's just not the case for Singapore. Wrt the clusters map, I brought it up just as an alternative if the consensus was that there's a need to have a map regardless. But I still feel it's pointless to have one, especially if it's not worth having to update it regularly. Also, yea I get that this is an encyclopedia? But this map is currently omitting a lot of data points (i.e. the homes of other cases who do not live in dormitories), unless they've already been included as well? Danialrosli (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: Hence my questioning of its necessity and accuracy. If there's going to be missing info, we should at least include the qualifier/disclaimer so people won't just take that data at face value. Danialrosli (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Danialrosli: then caption it in the article? Robertsky (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: Thanks! Danialrosli (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Danialrosli: then caption it in the article? Robertsky (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: Hence my questioning of its necessity and accuracy. If there's going to be missing info, we should at least include the qualifier/disclaimer so people won't just take that data at face value. Danialrosli (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
