Talk:FAIR data

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Open Access Low‑importance

FAIR data is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, it is a copy of that page. Here are the edits:

Special:Diff/929206384/941086073

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)[reply]

It needs to be presented as a quotation. Failure to do so is Plagiarism 101. Adpete (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]