Image talk:World Map Gini coefficient.svg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

germany is still divided here

and the file is rather outrageously large... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.75.147 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's because it's an .svg? --86.135.218.137 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary is more divided by wealth and income distribution tha shown

Dark green is sci-fi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.111.72 (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source disagreeing with the map, feel free to modify the map. Updatebjarni (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the source of this data? At least according to the CIA, there are significant errors on the map. See Bolivia: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.247.227 (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The data for Denmark and Sweden are from Eurostat, I looked those up myself. The data for USA is from census.gov. It was actually I who looked that up too and changed the article on the USA, and then Lycurgus updated the map. The rest might be from [List of countries by income equality], care to check it maybe? Since the map doesn't include any actual numbers, it is intended only as an illustration and probably gets most of its data from Wikipedia articles. It should not itself be used as a source of data. Updatebjarni (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misapplication of map design to infobox/infobox templates

It appears that the infoboxes in many Wikipedia nation articles characterize the country's Gini coefficient as "high", "medium", or "low" based solely on which shade group it falls into on this self-created map. I have never seen any reliable basis for these particular shade groups or categories (and I've looked at a lot of governmental and other published international sources on the topic). In the context of the map itself, I don't have a problem with the shading--as a visual device, it does make the map significantly more readable and understandable. But in the context of our infoboxes, I believe the characterizations of "high", "medium", and "low" are spurious and should be universally eliminated unless reliable sourcing is identified.—DCGeist (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)