recommended reading

Should Wikipedia Put Crimea on the Russian Map?


Above, you see two maps of Russia as supplied by Wikipedia.

The one on the left was downloaded Tuesday at 6:31 p.m. EST, nearly 12 hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. On this map, Crimea is not in Russia. The map on the right was accessed Wednesday morning, around 10. By then, the community of editors tending to the world's largest repository of human knowledge recognized Russia's claim to the region.

"Light green represents a claimed territory, claimed territories do not necessarily have to be territories outside of de facto control, but rather can be territories under disputed legal claims," an editor explained on a discussion board. Others argued that Crimea should appear striped on the map, to indicate outright annexation (as seen on this map of Morocco). That tension reflects the world's as it grapples with how to deal with Russia's landgrab. Is it a disputed territory, or thoroughly Russia's? 

This map decision came after a bit of an editing war Tuesday, when Crimea was added and then subtracted from the map four times before the page was locked by an administrator.

Such a small detail—a shading of green—is a difficult choice for the site's editors. (On controversial topics, editors are limited to vetted Wikipedians.)  As one of the top search results for both "Crimea" and "Russia," Wikipedia will provide the basis of public understanding of the region.

Traditional media have been grappling with this question, too. On Tuesday, National Geographic—a magazine so associated with maps that it publishes them as centerfolds—decided to add Crimea to Russia, though also in a special shade to designate the dispute. "We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be," Juan Valdés, the magazine's top mapmaker, told U.S. News & World Report

The Crimea question on Wikipedia is far from over. The map might show Crimea in light green for now, but on both the "Russia" and "Crimea" article pages on the English Wikipedia site, the peninsula's status is described as "disputed."

On the discussion boards for these pages (where editors debate the editorial strategy of the entries) the Russian annexation of Crimea has fueled something of a philosophical debate of how Wikipedia should cover fast-changing world events.

"The biggest disappointment would be to let this article use for propaganda purposes of involved sides, USA, EU and Russia," an anonymous editor wrote on the Crimea-article discussion page.

"Such a designation has not been officially recognized yet by any major government or the United Nations," wrote a user called Daydreamer302000. "It is not in Wikipedia's charter to recognize the existence of nations."

"As of now it has been recognized by Russia," a user called Cheesenibbles retorted.

"IMO this article is/should be about the geographical area considered the Crimea, not the political lines in the sand (in the same way that the article on Kosovo is separate to the article on the Republic of Kosovo). We should however change the map to reflect that political it's no longer part of Ukraine and update the description accordingly," another user wrote.

Currently (10:20 a.m. Wednesday), the actual article text reads, "Due to recent political instability in the region and occupation by Russian military forces, national sovereignty over the peninsula is currently being disputed by Russia and Ukraine."

But that could very well have changed by now.

Threatwatch Alert

Stolen credentials

Hackers Steal $31M from Russian Central Bank

See threatwatch report


Close [ x ] More from Nextgov

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Featured Content from RSA Conference: Dissed by NIST

    Learn more about the latest draft of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology guidance document on authentication and lifecycle management.

  • PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

    This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

  • Toward A More Innovative Government

    This research study aims to understand how state and local leaders regard their agency’s innovation efforts and what they are doing to overcome the challenges they face in successfully implementing these efforts.

  • From Volume to Value: UK’s NHS Digital Provides U.S. Healthcare Agencies A Roadmap For Value-Based Payment Models

    The U.S. healthcare industry is rapidly moving away from traditional fee-for-service models and towards value-based purchasing that reimburses physicians for quality of care in place of frequency of care.

  • GBC Flash Poll: Is Your Agency Safe?

    Federal leaders weigh in on the state of information security


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.