Talk:Scientists for Future

References

Hello @Matthiaspaul: I think that these references like "Jakob et al. 2015" should be part of the continuous text as it was in the original form of the text and not show up as part of the references list. The main problem is the verification: In the original form the validity of the these references depends on the source that I've cited at the introduction of the list. In the new form the authors of this Wikipedia article would be responsible for the correctness of the footnotes. Finding the links to "Jakob et al. 2015",... would be interesting but also a very time consuming task. A reasonable reference check (find the sources and read them all) would take many hours. And it's likely that some of the sources are inaccessible to the public (in the sense that a member of the non-academic public would have to buy the articles), so how should we verify them? Therefore I would suggest to switch back to the original from of the text and add the "full" references to the "inline" references peu à peu. --Korrigi (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Korrigi, as you correctly point out, finding references like "Jakob et al. 2015" is difficult. These reference stubs need to be replaced by full-blown citations to become really useful. Yes, this is time-consuming, but that's what article work is. It typically takes not only hours, but days or months to create a good article.

Regarding those references we cannot check ourselves. Well, we should not cite references we cannot check, but in this particular case, the main reference can be considered highly trustable so I think we can for now assume good faith in its accuracy and provide the additional references just for the convenience of the readers. That's why I added the main reference to all individual items as well. In the long run, if noone will be able to verify the other references, they should be removed (but this is unlikely to happen given the high standards maintained by the main source).

I don't think leaving the citations as "Jakob et al. 2015" in the original text would be a good idea, because that would be a quote, and in an encyclopedia we are not allowed to quote large parts of references, so the whole list will need to be reworded as well in the long run. I still restored it because I think it is at least a good starting point. All in all, this can be a process for months.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I meanwhile expanded the stubs into full references. They still need to be converted into cs1 style references. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Um you just copied this list from the website, how is that not WP:Plagiarism?! Per WP:C-P: "In almost all cases, you may not copy text from other sources into Wikipedia."'. I see no reason for exception to the rule in this case, and no justification for this indiscriminate list per my comments below.Polyamorph (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for the records, I am not the contributor of this material - I am the contributor of the references (and there is no issue with the references at all). As stated already, if I would have created the article I would have probably added other contents earlier, but sooner or later I would have added the information from the list as well, simply because I consider it encyclopedically relevant and important to be included in an article about this group (you don't, but that's a different matter). In contrast to the original contributor I would have used my own words, however. But the original contributor is a newcomer and we typically give newcomers some slack and WP:DONTBITE. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we work with what other editors have provided earlier instead of grossly deleting it (unless it is junk or a copyright violation or otherwise harmful, of course).

You were asking why this is not plagiarism. It isn't, because plagiarism is attempting to take credit for someone else's work as if it would be one's own work and without providing credit to the original creator. The list items, however, were specifically introduced by a sentence clearly stating their origin (it was basically a huge quote), and each of the sentences was fully referenced as well, so the origin of the text was absolutely clear to anyone. It would have been downright silly trying to take credit for this, and nobody tried.

However, while this is not plagiarism, it meanwhile turned out that it is - apparently - violating a copyright - and thus had to be removed at least in the current form. It is legally impossible for a copyright to forbid quotes (a copyright holder cannot exclude this right), and the CC BY-SA even explicitly allows copying and reuse of contents in almost any form. From a legal point of view, there would be no issue at all if the cited text would be under the CC BY-SA 3.0. However, it is under the CC BY-SA 4.0. If it is true that the CC BY-SA 4.0 is actually incompatible with Wikipedia (to be discussed), the only issue would be that the quote is too large - something that could be easily solved by rephrasing the information (something I already suggested further above). And as editors were actively working on the article, this is something that could have been solved already, if you had not deleted the information against consensus citing an invalid reason. No good.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's extremely bad practice to copy content from one source to another. You may argue that it's not plagiarism but it is copying directly from one source to wikipedia. This is strongly discouraged unless absolutely necessary. So I had very good reasons, backed up by admin actions, for removing the content. Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is, in fact, discouraged, and if I had added this information, I would have done it in a different way. The contributor, possibly limited by his language capabilities, added it as a quote and left it to others to rephrase it. That in itself was fine as well - it was a good starting point on which others could have build on.

Regarding the removal, you are mixing up two different things. The admin removed the contents based on a (potential) legal issue to prevent potential damage to the project, that's fine at least as an ad-hoc measure (it all depends on if CC BY-SA 4.0, in the way it is applicable here, is really incompatible with Wikipedia or not). You, however, deleted the contents stating it would be "promotional" and "an indiscriminate list of things" (both arguments, I don't agree with), while it was actively being worked on - that's a content issue which needs consensus and prior discussion, and since there was no consensus for a deletion on this ground (and you didn't seek for it) this your action wasn't backed up by our editing and contents guidelines. Actually, this attitude ("my way or no way") is actually causing damage to the project. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If you read my edit summaries my justification is clear: 1) "We do not need to reproduce this content from their website, in fact inclusion is a bit promotional, I've added it as an external link instead" and 2) "No - I explained in my previous edit sumary. This is information found on the website and it is comes across somewhat promotional to reproduce it here". And in my subsequent reply to your talk page query I make it clear we should not be copying content from other websites, including linking to WP:C-P before the admin deletion on this same basis. I am clearly making a point that I am objecting to reproducing (i.e. copying) this content and yes I find it promotional to do so for the reasons I've already explained, and the fact that it is directly replicating a primary source. Consensus is not just achieved through talk page discussion, it can be achieved through editing and is also already engrained in our policies and guidelines. This was a clear-cut case. I strongly urge you to drop the stick. Polyamorph (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)I made some minor clarifying edits to the above Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Promotional?

Polyamorph has now for the second time in a row removed the list of positions because he finds them "promotional". I restored this undiscussed removal of contents because I do not see anything "promotional" in it, but rather see it as a good starting point for a full blown and well rounded article and also because other editors are actively working on the article and the removal without consensus can thus be seen as disruptive editing. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I removed the list and I explained the removal both times in my edit summary. In terms of it being promotional, the list is simply reproducing the list provided on their website without providing any context whatsoever. So it is then essentially a fork of their website and wikipedia is not a webhost for organisations. It goes against WP:NOT, specifically 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.10. It is an indiscriminate list of facts. There is no reason why this cannot just be linked to, which is why I included it in the external links section. I suggest you concentrate expanding what makes this group notable or maybe expanding, with reliable sources, why this list is notable and why it is, therefore, essential that wikipedia includes it.Polyamorph (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Note an administrator has independently deleted this copied material making this discussion irrelevant.Polyamorph (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.scientists4future.org/stellungnahme/facts-2019-03/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@User:JJMC89, while what you wrote above is correct (and is fully supported by me), it does not apply to the contents you just removed (with incorrect edit summary) because this does not constitute a copyright violation. The contents is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (please check the reference!) which specifically allows this kind of reuse per https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ :

"You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially."

Since all quotes were explicitly referenced (I specifically took care of this), this also is not even remotely a form of plagiarism, but is perfectly okay to include in this article.

It might be questionable if we need that many quotations in the article eventually, but as has been pointed out in the discussion further above, this is a matter of different editors having different ideas about an article's contents, not a legal problem.

Specifically: This is something that all editors are required to solve via discussions on article talk pages (as initiated by me), and not by deleting huge portions of an article without prior consensus. Deleting huge portions of an article without consensus is what we consider as disruptive editing - and in fact, these deletions have already created edit conflicts and stopped contributing editors from working on the article. Disruptive editing creates just as much damage to the project as adding copyrighted material without proper license would do.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

None of it was marked as a quotation. CC BY-SA 4.0 is not a compatible license, so such material cannot be copied here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You mean not compatible because According to the WMF legal team, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, mixing text licenses under 3.0 and 4.0 would be problematic, however media files uploaded under this license are fine.'

So that is your argument for that accusation? That's misuse. --Korrigi (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you guys serious? There is no encyclopedic reason to reproduce this indiscriminate list. Stop being lazy and actually write an article on this organisation rather than reproducing their website content (which you can link to).Polyamorph (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Accusing myself and admin @JJMC89: of disruptive editing will not do you any favours, everyone knows it is bad practice to copy content directly from one source to another without proper reason and attribution.Polyamorph (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Scientific results must be attributed to the source but cannot be copyrighted

??? @JJMC89: I did attribute the text to the source! I used an introduction that expressed that the following list contains the 24 propositions from their statement. And after the double-point I included a reference to "https://www.scientists4future.org/stellungnahme/facts-2019-03/". And I also expressed it in the edit summary ("from article School_strike_for_the_climate and website of the initiative") How can you say that that is plagiarism??

In my view it would be plagiarism if I would have disguised the origin of the propositions by paraphrasing them. Even worse, there would have been the danger of distorting them. I did not do that and it wasn't "promotional" either. These "24 propositions" fall into two categories: assertions about nature and actions that are proposed to be done based on scientific reasoning. And it wasn't the original work of the initiative either: They attributed each of them to a source (e.g. "NASA 2018", "Jacobson et al. 2018"). Therefore I'm very astonished about your accusation.

In summary I want to state: I did attribute the source and the results from science cannot be copyrighted.(*)

(*) Some examples:

• You cannot patent the DNA code of a fly.
• You cannot patent the coordinates of the stars.
• You cannot patent the physical data of substances.
• You cannot patent a mathematical proof.

That doesn't mean that one is allowed to photocopy a physical textbook or a star map. The work of research must be honored. But not in such a way as you did above. And the authors made that perfectly clear by the statement "© Scientists for Future, CC BY-SA 4.0 (some media elements may be under a different license if marked as such)" (emphasis added) --Korrigi (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No sources have been provided to actually establish WP:notability for this organisation (in terms of the significant coverage required for subjects to have individual wikipedia articles). I don't see sufficient third-party reliable sources and am inclined to opine that the original redirect to School strike for the climate, which includes a section on Scientist for Future, should be restored at this time, unless sources which provide in-depth significant coverage of this organisation are produced.Polyamorph (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A declaration signed by more than 26000 scientists including many leading experts in the field of climate change research isn't notable? But fringe theories like Moon landing conspiracy theories are? Yeah. Sure. --Korrigi (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That's (the list of signatures) clearly verifiable BUT you need to provide sources which provide significant coverage. Per WP:GNG this is the standard criteria for an article having an independent page. Provide some third-party sources that establish notability and there is no longer an issue. The moon landing hoax stuff you mention satisfies these guidelines.Polyamorph (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Korrigi: for adding some sources, I have removed the notability tag. Polyamorph (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia and CC-by-SA 4.0

As I think that it's relevant here, too, I've copied that from my talk page:

@Diannaa: CC-by-SA 4.0 is the development of CC-by-SA 3.0, both versions give the right to share and adapt under the terms of attribution and share alike. The new version adds to that the term "No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." [1] If that is a problem for Wikipedia's policy then it's bad for Wikipedia (Is Wikipedia intending to "apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others"? − would be interesting for all editors who spend time and effort here) you can delete it, but in no way can you state that I or the other editor committed plagiarism or copyright theft. [...] and apart from that personal thing there is also a professional one: CC-by-SA 4.0 does better protect the community. [...] If that is a problem for re-use for Google or Siri or whatever purpose then please lay it out here: What's Wikipedia's problem with CC-by-SA 4.0? --Korrigi (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

24 propositions and the problem with CC-by-SA 4.0

Originally this article contained 24 propositions of the scientists. They shared it under the license of CC-by-SA 4.0 that is an improved version of the license CC-by-SA 3.0 that Wikipedia requires. So one is forbidden to include the information that the scientists explicitly wanted to share. For further information look at the version history of this article from 5 October 2019. One can access the propositions nevertheless by going to there web page. See section external links.

(Update, the paragraph above has been deleted from the article minutes after the edit on 5 October 2019) --Korrigi (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted that statement from the article because it doesn't belong in mainspace. Sorry @Korrigi: but we have certain ways of doing things on wikipedia which may take some time to learn, don't take it personally.Polyamorph (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

So you didn't notice the article from the FAZ before adding the wrong notability tag? You're less neutral than me and you haven't been mislabeled as a plagiarist. So let me be quite frank and let me say: Your actions do not make you a good lecturer on "Don't take it personally" --Korrigi (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

New users such as yourself sometimes run into such difficulties. With regards to significant coverage, your sources are in German and although I did see the reference you refer to I wasnt sure it was sufficient. In any case, frankly I felt more sources were needed. You provided these which is great. Some english sources would also be welcome. I removed the tag so this is a non issue. With regards to neutrality what is your basis for saying I am not neutral? I am a regular wikipedia user with no affiliation to this group. It might be a good idea to declare your own interests per WP:COI if relevant. In terms of accusations of plagiarism, perhaps an important lesson has been learned about copying from sources? Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Again CC-by-SA 4.0 gives you the right to copy. It is the new standard of Creative Commons. I didn't imagine that Wikipedia was so backwards that the most recent standard isn't compatible with its policy. A lesson was that indeed. (And to the notability stuff: You weren't sure and because of that you simply added a notability tag with the aim to merge the article? What about using Google and editing it? What about a more benign tag like "more sources needed"? I think that that explanation is worse than overlooking information because of too much editorial zeal.) --Korrigi (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

PS. I'm not a member of this group of 26000+ people who signed the statement either. --Korrigi (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can add tags to articles if they think there is room for improvement. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

O.k., so we disagree on the definition of "improvement";) But...

Actually I agree that a "more sources" tag would have been better, so I apologise to you for not using that tag instead, but it's totally pointless going over this as this was resolved when you added sources and I removed the tag. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want you to apologize to me, since you aren't responsible for this mislabeling (of my former edit by others). I was only frank about the advice of yours ("Don't take it personally") but I would be happy if you would say something to the topic below.--Korrigi (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Now back to the problem of Wikipedia and CC-by-SA 4.0

Isn't it a problem when the scientific community shares information with CC-by-SA 4.0 and Wikipedia's policy makes it complicate to use it because it sticks to the old CC-by-SA 3.0 standard? --Korrigi (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that is problematic but I don't agree it was correct to replicate the the list here in the first place, regardless of copyright. Simply summarising the themes and then referencing their website would have been sufficient in my opinion.Polyamorph (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I intended to create an opening for further elaboration. The long memorandums of the IPCC are quite inaccessible. This list of 24 propositions is much clearer. It's a pity that one couldn't display it here because of legal technicalities the authors presumably didn't foresee either.--Korrigi (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

CC-by-SA 4.0 isn't a problem in the case of the 24 propositions

Thesis: Notwithstanding the problem of the new CC-by-SA 4.0 vs. Wikipedia's old CC-by-SA 3.0 one can incorporate the list in its original form because the small difference between the two versions of Creative Commons doesn't play out here: The intent of the authors is clearly to share it with the wider community on a free basis. And it was their work to make a clear and concise summary of the information they got from the scientific community for ordinary people who don't have the time to read the original papers. That work is important (at least in my opinion) but its threshold of originality is nevertheless not so high that the small difference would play out here. It's definitely at least fair-use. --Korrigi (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Don't you concur? --Korrigi (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has determined that CC-by-SA 4.0 is not a compatible license. Legal matters such as this are not a matter of editor discretion. Linking to the content in the external links section, and/or writing a short summary of the content in your own words, is appropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

But legal matters are based on the law. And the law should be open to the public. Why not expound here or on WP:Compatible license? --Korrigi (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Korrigi— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a non-reply. Case closed. --Korrigi (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC) (as far as it concerns me) --Korrigi (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: Responding here even though though there are more than 2 editors. There are three arguments for not removing the text on copyright grounds: compatible licensing, threshold of originality, and fair use. Diannaa is, as usual in copyright discussions, correct that the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license is not two-way compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0. Creative Commons licenses are "same or later version" compatible, so you can not add 4.0 content to a 3.0 work like Wikipedia. That of course assumes that the work is actually protected by copyright. The copied text is clearly above the threshold of originality in the United States, so it is protected by copyright law. Now on to the fair use argument. The English Wikipedia community applies strict rules to fair use content in order to make The Free Encyclopedia as free as possible. The relevant policy and guidelines are detailed at Wikipedia:Non-free content. The relevant non-free content criteria in this case are 1. No free equivalent, 3b. Minimal extent of use, and 8. Contextual significance. The copied content would likely fail those three criteria because it is not necessary to present the fact sheet verbatim in order to increase readers' understanding of the topic. Most of the fact sheet is descriptions of other's research and can be simply summarised in the article prose. The sections, if any, that have been the subject of sourced commentary can of course be quoted in the article if the specific language used is necessary to understand the commentary. In short, the copyright holders of the text made the decision to release it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. We are required by English Wikipedia policy, the TOU, and US and international copyright law to respect that decision and can not include the text in the article verbatim. Using it as a reference and/or external link and making small quotes where necessary is permitted. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber, for offering your third opinion. I think, this gives a good summary of the situation, and supports what I suggested above as a possible solution: Reworking the desired information into prose or substantially rephrasing it in our own words. Polyamorph instead suggested to not include the information at all and just provide an external link - a content dispute addressed elsewhere.

For those interested in copyright and legal matters, it would still be great to find satisfying answers what exactly in CC BY-SA 4.0 makes it incompatible with CA BY-SA 3.0 and Wikipedia:

The table referred to above includes a note reading:

"According to the WMF legal team, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, mixing text licences under 3.0 and 4.0 would be problematic, however media files uploaded under this licence are fine."

This was added by User:Moonriddengirl in 2014 ([2]) with edit summary

"adding CC-By-SA 4.0 to the "cannot use" list for now."

as if this would have been some kind of ad-hoc or preliminary measure still subject to a more in-deep analysis later on.

Since everyone now seems to cite this note without actually knowing its background, it would be great to see this being explained in detail. Unfortunately, the only discussions I could find so far are:

• Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright/Archive 1#CC-BY_4.0_compatibility?
• Talk:Creative Commons license#CC_BY-SA_4.0_not_backward_compatible_with_CC_BY-SA_3.0

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul I clearly advise above (in my comment timestamped: 10:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)) that summarising the content and linking to the website would be a correct course of action. Also note I have actively assisted Korrigi in coverting the list to prose in the mainspace article. So I ask you, please drop it. It is upsetting for you to continue attacking me in this manner for no good reason. No one cares, drop the stick. @JJMC89:,@AntiCompositeNumber:, @Diannaa:, I am feeling overly harrassed by this editor now Polyamorph (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Polyamorph, your pings did not work. I don't see anything here that would be considered harassment--just a content dispute. You two seem to be in agreement now that summarising the source is the best way foreward. I'd suggest that you both work on expanding the article and clearly establishing the subject's notability.

@Matthiaspaul: The clearest reason for the incompatibility is that Creative Commons is in charge of deciding what licenses are compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0, and they have decided that only 4.0-or-later works. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses has more information about that. As far as what changed between the licenses that would make them incompatible, 4.0 contains an express waiver for some moral rights and allows license violators 30 days to correct their violation before the license is terminated. CC-BY-SA 4.0 allows reusers to consider only the terms of the current license, while CC-BY-SA 3.0 may require reusers to consider the terms of the original license and the current license. The details of the attribution requirements also changed. You can see a comparison between the license versions at https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License%20Versions. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)