Talk:FAIR data
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cost of FAIR
[edit]I see the number 5% in various presentations and reports. I do not know the origin of this estimate, but I see it often enough that it must have come from some influential original source which I do not know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Completely plagiarized?
[edit]The "FAIR Principles" section is a direct copy of the text from this page. There's no further explanation or anything provided. This doesn't seem like it meets Wikipedia's standards... 142.79.198.243 (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a copy of that page. Here are the edits:
- The content has a Creative Commons license which is compatible with Wikipedia, so it can be copy/pasted, but yes also, it is plagiarism and a violation of the terms of the license without attribution.
- I was going to message the user who posted this. They already got a warning months ago when they posted this text, see User_talk:HanaPS. Also that user claims to be employed by GO FAIR, which is the organization holding the copyright.
- I will give the opinion that with the discussion here and with there we have provided attribution of the source as best we can in Wikipedia's technical infrastructure, considering the posting was some time ago and someone else already documented a judgement to keep it. Anyone still could rewrite this to make it better for Wikipedia's audience. Do you recommend anything in addition or otherwise? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It needs to be presented as a quotation. Failure to do so is Plagiarism 101. Adpete (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have turned it into a blockquote, and italicised it because it is so long it is not easy to see it is a blockquote otherwise. But really I would rather remove the section and replace it with a link to go-fair.org, plus some commentary from secondary sources if any can be found. Adpete (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Adpete: I agree that it is plagiarism, but Wikipedia still supports this practice on the principle that some concepts of plagiarism are outdated. For example, Wikipedia incorporates public domain text from other reference sources when they are good for reuse. The concept of plagiarism developed outside the concept of digital publishing and open licensing and I do not see it as a useful way to describe sharing open text with attribution.
- Despite my not seeing it as plagiarism, I recognize that this text does not flow with Wikipedia's style and do not find it very helpful in Wikipedia in its current format. I support your deleting it so that readers go to the source website.
- I am dissatisfied with the available guidance at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying_material_from_free_sources because the options for attributing copying text seem much the same as citations, and I would like to better distinguish citing sources from copying sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I think having WP articles cut+pasted from public domain sources, with a little attribution note at the end, is extremely bad practice. The problem is it is not really attributed: the reader knows that some parts of the article came from the public domain article (assuming they notice the little disclaimer 10 screenfuls down), but they have no idea which parts. So I think everything should be properly referenced. End rant :)
- What we have in this article is not so bad because it is now marked as a quotation, but as I think we agree, it does not make for a good article. So I will try to find a secondary source which summarises the 4 points instead, unless someone else does first. Adpete (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
redirect from FAIR/O
[edit]I just made a redirect from "FAIR/O" which indicates "FAIR and open data" — the latter attribute showing a recognized data‑capable open license is embedded with the metadata. It might be worth considering a "FAIR and open data" page in addition to this one? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)