Talk:Scientists for Future

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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (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 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
??? 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
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 for adding some sources, I have removed the notability tag. Polyamorph (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and CC-by-SA 4.0
As I think that it's relevant here, too, I've copied that from my talk page:
 * 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."  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)

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

(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 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) 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)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 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 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 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
 * Talk:Creative Commons license
 * --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 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. ,,, I am feeling overly harrassed by this editor now Polyamorph (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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. 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)