Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snoyes (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 4 January 2004 (infosearchpoint.com corrected all the problems ... I think they read this page. mv to appropriate section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Wikipedia does not give legal advice

The Web sites listed here use content original to Wikipedia as a source for at least some of their content.

Wikipedia's copyright, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) requires that any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license, must state that it is released under that license, and must acknowledge the main authors (which can be accomplished with a link back to Wikipedia's article). This does not apply to material that was released into the public domain, to material whose authors have given permission, and to use that can be defended as fair use.

If the following websites have not followed those rules, any Wikipedia contributor to an article they have copied can send them a standard letter to notify them of their possible copyright violation. If they decide to release their derived works under the terms of the GFDL, we may harvest those derivative works for content.

Please add newly discovered sites to the top of the respective categories.

Compliant verbatim copies

See Wikipedia:Verbatim copying

Solely for the purposes of this list, we include in this list of compliant copies sites that either:

  • Do not link to a local copy of the GFDL, but instead point to the copy on gnu.org, for example.
  • Have modified the article to remove or edit the "Title Page", comprising "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

Doing either of these things may be in fact be in breach of the GFDL.

InfoSearchPoint

  • Gives credit and links to the wikipedia homepage and the corresponding article page
  • Mentions the license as GFDL, and links to a local copy

WorldHistory

  • States the GFDL license the articles are under.
  • States that the original article is at wikipedia, gives link to the article on wikipedia
  • Does not have "title page".
  • Example: Aleksei Yeliseyev

ArtPolitic

  • Says that it is GFDL, but links to an explanation page of the GFDL ([1]), instead of the license itself.
  • Names Wikipedia and links to source article.
  • Does not have "title page".
  • Example: [2]

Knowledgerush

  • Links to GFDL at GNU.
  • Names Wikipedia and links to source article.
  • Does not have "title page".

Several articles copied, hard to say how many. Tualha 19:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

TutorGig

(basically all wikipedia articles)

  • Link to current version of article, labelled "Edit this article".
  • Link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
  • Removed "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

ScienceDaily

(basically all wikipedia articles)

  • link to current version of article
  • link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
  • "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" present

Din Cyclopedia

  • Contains a number of pages of Wikipedia, with all links. The links point to the local copy if it is there, otherwise to the current Wikipedia article
  • Links to both edit page and current page on Wikipedia.
  • GFDL link Links to Wikipedia's article on GNU Free Documentation License
  • "Find out how you can help support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth." present

Filmbug

  • Uses ca. 240 Wikipedia articles, see [3] eg, Elia Kazan
  • Links removed
  • Provides links to current articles
  • Contains links to local copy of GFDL
  • Removed "From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia"

They say "Copyright © 1998-2003 Misja.com", but they don't say "All Rights Reserved" or similar, so that's fine.

Derivative works

Derivative works have many additional obligations that are not required for verbatim copying.

"Partially Compliant"

"Partially Compliant" articles, for the purposes of this listing, are articles which have at a minimum:

  • A link back to the original Wikipedia article
  • A link to the GFDL (local or from www.gnu.org)

ezresult.com

Brough's Books

  • link to current version of article
  • link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
  • Example: [4]

Nationmaster

(basically all wikipedia articles)

  • link to current version of article
  • link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
  • Not a verbatim copy, because the copyright statement from the printed version has been modified, both the text, size of text, and location.

The copyright notice uses a rather small font. Database was downloaded about September 18, 2003

Their terms also state "You may not use any robot, spider or any automated or manual device to monitor or copy any aspect of this site (including content) without the NationMaster.com prior permission". This is an additional restriction on copying and distribution, and is expressly forbidden under the GFDL.

Their terms also state "You are permitted to quote no more than 20 individual figures (eg. US GDP per capita, Andorran life expectancy, etc) or lines of text from this site, provided you provide a link back to a valid page at NationMaster.com". If this is an additional restriction, it is forbidden as a breach of copyleft. If it is an additional permission, they do not have the ability to grant that permission.

Their terms and conditions page does not mention the GFDL, which is regrettable.

====Abacci books==== (biographies)

  • link to current version of article
  • link to current version of article
  • link to GFDL on gnu.org
  • Removed "From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia"

Not a verbatim copy: Embedding/aggregation failure: "Researching John Jacob Astor for a term paper or essay?" essay after the title.

CapitanCook (wiki)

(ca. 630 articles on geographic locations [5])

  • Link to Wikipedia article
  • All content is already under GFDL (notice on each page)
  • No local copy of FDL text (just a link to the GNU's FDL page)

Not a verbatim copy - is a wiki, all articles may be edited.

====Malaspina Great Books==== (biographies)

  • Link to current version of article
  • Links to non-biographies removed.
  • Link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org

Not a verbatim copy: images added, some links changed to link to Encyclopedia Britannica articles rather than Wikipedia aricles. Removed "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

About.com

  • acknowledgement without a link
  • no mention of GFDL. Standard letter sent by: MB 08:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Point of contact, Mary Bellis inventors.guide@about.com.
  • Response received Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:26:14 -0700.
  • Portions of affected articles at inventors.about.com (as of July 14 2003) link back to wikipedia and are released under the GFDL.

Any examples of the affected articles? Can't find any trivially.

====Internet-Encyclopedia (wiki)==== (note: this site "was inspired by wikipedia" and uses its software). Also at (at least temporarily). http://www.internet-encyclopedia.info ; see Internet-Encyclopedia.

Has copies of about 5000 Wikipedia articles; the intention is that they will be edited according to their different policy. Obviously, not a verbatim copy.

  • link to current (or sometimes older) version of article
  • link to GFDL

Dr. Damerow

Cold war article , French Wars of Religion (also Henry II of France)

  • Links to the articles
  • Links to GFDL on gnu.org

Not a verbatim copy: embedding failure - text inserted between title ("Cold War") and start of Wikipedia text ("The Cold War (September 2, 1945 - December 25, 1991) was"). Either needs the inserted text placed above the header (to make it a verbatim copy) or it needs to comply with the stricter rules on derivative works.

The French Wars of Religion article is a combination of two Wikipedia articles. There are rules on how you can do this, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

History of Scotland

  • Link to Wikipedia, not article though
  • No link to GFDL, funny because it's on the Scottish Law Online web site.
  • Standard letter sent by: dave 07:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • They've fixed it now dave 16:57, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Link to GFDL on gnu.org
  • Link to original Wikipedia article

Not a verbatim copy: embedding failure - they've inserted additional content (eg, Wikipedia logo, Wikipedia search box, link to Wikipedia front page) between the title and the start of the article. It is absolutely crazy that this should require them to follow the more complex regulations for derivative works, but this seems to be the case.

We could aid Scotiishlaw.org, and others in similar situations, by providing vastly more customisable skins. In this case, Wikipedia would be the publisher, and Scottishlaw could take a verbatim copy from Wikipedia. Hmm.

Web Hosting Glossary

(uses a couple dozen technical/Internet related entries)

  • link to current version of article
  • link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org

Fair Use

These articles are ones which use Wikipedia content in a way which we believe is probably fair use.

widescale.com

onelook.com

  • The first part (ca. 230 characters, sometimes less) of basically each article
  • almost certainly fair use
  • link to current full version of the article
  • link to GFDL on acknowledgments page
  • contact form

The Logo (A Book)

  • Uses the article about the book: "No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies"
  • Mentions Wikipedia, and provides a link to the front page
  • No GFDL Link
  • Looks like fair use.

Axiomization

  • Link to original Wikipedia article
  • no link to GFDL
  • contact point: Jón Erlendsson <joner@hi.is>
  • Standard letter sent by: dave 07:43, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Link to GFDL on www.gnu.org dave 16:55, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not a verbatim copy: changes in formatting and links, and not the full article. It should qualify under fair use, being a small extract of the entire article, giving credit to us, and licensing the extract under the GFDL.

Sites with issues

These are web pages which are in some kind of violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights.

ExplainPlease.com

The website is of three parts. The "The Directory" part has got the articles. They claim "Writers from all over the world contribute to explainplease.com ...". Jay 08:14, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Standard letter sent by mav 10:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

InfoSearchPoint

  • Gives credit and links to wikipedia, although not to individual article
  • Mentions the license as GFDL, but links to a page on its site that doesn't contain the license
  • Example: [7]

PRC People's Daily

  • I posted a message. --mav 10:45, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians Montrealais and Menchi basically wrote that article from scratch, so it is original, to Wikipedia. I'd know, I'm Menchi and I think I know Montrealais well enough.

famous-astrophysicists.com

  • Uses Wikipedia articles
  • No mention of GFDL
  • No mention of Wikipedia
  • Examples: [8] from Frank Drake, [9] from Thomas Gold
  • Standard letter sent. --snoyes 18:34, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Standard follow-up sent by mav 10:53, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

wordIQ

As of December 7 2003:

Seems to be a mass copy. Searching for wikipedia found hundreds of articles containing the word in boilerplate stub text, links to Wikipedia: pages, etc. Anyone who contributed before August 2003 (which unfortunately doesn't include me - Tualha) has probably had their copyright violated.
Analysis of the history of Cognitive science shows that this article was copied sometime between August 17 and September 1 of 2003. Compare the August 17 Wikipedia article with "their" page.
I found no explicit point of contact. Their "About wordIQ" page gives an email address and the phone number 626-226-8279, which would be in the Los Angeles area. Their terms mention California law. Whois merely reveals that they're hiding behind Domains By Proxy.
I don't think this is an honest mistake. I think this is a massive intentional grab of Wikipedia content with no intent to abide by the terms of the GFDL. Let's nail these bastards.
Tualha 17:18, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Standard letter sent. --snoyes 17:59, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Everyone, please see Daniel Quinlan's excellent advice on remaining calm and polite on the Village Pump. I get a little too combative when someone displays such colossal nerve. Tualha 18:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Snoyes, did you get a reply? I sent one too through their feedback form (before I had read here that you sent one) and have heard nothing, although they do promise to reply within two-three days. I would have the nerve to phone that number if we don't hear soon - though will hold off until there is wider agreement on that as there may be reasons for it to be better for an American to phone from a legal POV. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Yip, got a response. (Only the second response I ever got to a standard letter.) Here it is: --snoyes 15:40, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
We are a dictionary website and are in the processing of adding an encyclopedia section. Our developers will most definitely include the source from which we get our encyclopedia information. Unfortunately, our entire website is still in Beta and we have not done very much to promote it -- it is really just online for our developers to test with until it is ready to launch. You can be assured that once it is launched, all copyright information will be included and complied with from Wikipedia. We plan to do this within the month and prepare for a launch of our website early next week. We thank you for notifying us of the copyright information and will comply with all terms and conditions for using Wikipedia information before our official website launch before the end of the month (our developers are aware of this and is working on including links back to wikipedia for all encyclopedia pages).
Sincerely,
wordIQ support
Well the cynic in me is not too happy about this (for multiple fairly obvious reasons). However they've made a commitment to comply with GFDL by the end of the month, let's give them that grace period before getting difficult. In the interim I think it would be good to send a reply along the lines of "..pleased you want to use our content and licence.. please do ask for any assistance/clarification you need in complying with the licence to get your site out of beta by the end of the year.. we only ask for credit not payment for our work" . Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm not actually too worried. The mere fact that they responded is already quite good in comparison to most other sites. (I haven't heard from about 5 sites listed below that I contacted). I think we can just wait untill the end of the month and then contact them again if necessary. --snoyes 16:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Guess their developers are going to have a busy christmas changing that one line of code that would bring them close to compliance... cos they've done nothing about it so far... :-(... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:21, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Snoyes, would another letter be appropiate now - it's beyond the end of the month. They've been working on their site but ignoring the copyright issue. They probably need to change very few lines of code. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:20, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This one really pisses me off! They claim ownership to my text!!! I sent them a very stern letter demanding immediate action. Since both they are in California and I'm in California, I'll take them to small claims court if need be. --mav 11:25, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

pharma-help.com

virtualvermonter.com

  • Mentions & links to wikipedia, but not to individual article.
  • No mention of GFDL
  • Claims to own copyright
Where the heck are the violations? Please provide links. --mav 11:30, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sorry. [10] from Green Mountain Boys; [11] from Baker v. Vermont. According to google there are about 6 such texts. --snoyes 15:47, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Standard letter sent through their web-based form: [12]. --snoyes 15:48, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

greatsite.com

  • No mention of wikipedia
  • No mention of GFDL
  • Claims to own copyright

Similarities with Wikipedia's Martin Luther passage:

  • [13] appearts to be based on Martin Luther. If you look at the history of our article (for example, the creation of the second paragraph of the "Exile at the Wartburg Castle" section in [14]), it seems to have been built up piece-by-piece, so I think it's pretty clear that they've copied us rather than the other way round. Camembert
  • Sent the standard letter. --snoyes 02:49, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • As the one who started this whole thread, I believe the evidence is more consistent with either Wikipedia copying this site or both copying a third source (hopefully public domain). The problem was introduced in the 18:18, 01 July 2003 revision; see the new sections "struggle to find peace with God", "Warburg Castle" and "Luther's writings" which are almost verbatim quotes. It is quite possible both were taken from a 3rd source (since it reads like the work of a scholar or theologian) but google did not find it. GreatSite.com lists a specific author with its copyright, and is willing to let the work be reproduced with credit (scroll to bottom). Joelwest 01:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • But much of the content we had before that July 1 edit is included in the greatsite version as well. For example, compare the beginning of greatsite's "Martin Luther and Judaism" section with the penultimate paragraph of this Wikipedia version of January 7, 2002. They are nearly the same. So if the Wikipedia version has been copied from another source (either greatsite itself or a shared third-party publication), then it's been copied in bits and pieces by many different people in many edits over the course of two years. That seems unlikely, to put it mildly. More likely, greatsite has copied a Wikipedia version and edited it a bit. Don't underestimate the ability of Wikipedia contributors to write like scholars or theologians - some of them are. --Camembert
  • I have ruled out the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopediaand the Catholic Encyclopedia as the source of both articles; see the Luther stories at CCEL.org. Joelwest 01:58, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Possible GFDL violation by greatsites. The 05:51, 9 Aug 2003 Melanchthon correction is present there. The 00:45, 30 Sep 2003 Pope Leo III to X correction isn't, so the copying seems to have happened between those two dates. The remaining edits between those dates don't help to narrow it down further. Lots of other corrections and edits prior to 9 Aug are at greatsites, so I conclude that it almost had to have been after that 9 Aug edit. In more detail: greatsites.com appears not to have had much coverage of Martin Luther on 2003-02-06 [15]. Regrettably there is no more recent archived copy of that site to compare with. The Luther's German Bible section is present and that was added at 20:26, 25 Jun 2003 so the copying seems to have happened after then. There's an extra sentence in the copy which doesn't seem to have ever been present in a copy of ours and the 1922 date differs from ours as well. Luther's early life was expanded at 17:47, 5 Jul 2003, including a mention of a copper mine starting from this 17:47, 5 Jul 2003 edit so the copying happened after this edit. this 14:17, 6 Jul 2003 edit changes text from "a few days later" to "the next day" and greatsites has that change. The changes in the 21:02, 8 Jul 2003 edit at the start of this examination are present. Until this 15:04, 11 Jul 2003 edit our text contained "From the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church". The greatsites version doesn't contain that, suggesting that the copying happened after this edit. Until this 18:34, 11 Jul 2003 edit our text contained "called to testify". The edit changed it to "summoned to either renounce or reaffirm them" and greatsites contains this change. The edits of 19:43, 11 Jul 2003 are present at greatsites. The Eck change of 21:47, 11 Jul 2003 is present at greatsites. The 18:28, 30 Jul 2003 near to nearby change suggests copying after this edit. The first of the 18:39, 30 Jul 2003 edits is present. The 07:31, 31 Jul 2003 changes are present, so it was after this. The 05:51, 9 Aug 2003 Melanchthon correction is present. Jamesday 10:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Here is a second example of similar text between Greatsite.com and Wikipedia:

  • Their Tyndale article has wording in it that was made to the old encyclopedia article on wikipedia by an anon user: [16]. Again it should be clear that they copied from us and not the other way arround. --snoyes 06:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem clear to me. If there's copying from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, they probably both borrowed from the CCEL.org version; I caught this (and credited the source) in the Philipp Melanchthon article. Joelwest 01:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It seems clear to everyone else but you. The only theory that you have offered is that both numerous (probably in the double digits) _different_ wikipedia editors and the creators of greatsite.com misappropriated material from a mysterious third source. I'd like to know what this third source is. Take the example that I named above. The edit adds a paraph starting "Besides translating the Bible, Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, ...". Now do you honestly claim that a wikipedia user and the creators of greatsite.com both found the same paragraph somewhere and copied it? Do a google search for this first sentence: [17] - you'll see that the only websites that contain this material have taken it from wikipedia. (Funny enough the wikipedia page is not listed there.) I don't see how it could be more clear that they took the material for the Tyndale article as well as others from us. Please give some valid arguments besides saying that it is not clear to you. --snoyes 19:10, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

SCA wiki

  • Link & mention of GFDL
  • No link to/credit given to wikipedia article; only a generic notice: "some of the initial information in Cunnan was taken from the Wikipedia but has been, or will be rewritten to make it relevant to people interested in medieval re-enactment"
  • Example: [18]

TypeEncyclopedia.com

  • I emailed them. --mav 11:46, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Opps! They are in full compliance after all (link to individula articles is under "This article"). --mav 14:07, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Chinese Psychology Online

  • Mention of wikipedia
  • No mention/link to GFDL
  • No link to wikipedia homepage or the article at wikipedia
  • Instead _they_ claim copyright of the article(s)
  • Examples: [19], [20], [21]
  • Sent the standard letter. --snoyes 18:16, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Got the following autoreply - most probably chinese (don't know what character encoding they're using), can anyone translate it?:
ÄúµÄÓÊ??<thorn>ÒÑ??-ÊÕµ½¡£
ÓÉÓÚ1??ÖÏÈÉ??ú£¬¡¶Ö<ETH>1??<ETH>ÄÀíÈÈÏß¡·ÒÔ¼°¡¶½ñÈ??<ETH>ÄÀí¡·´??????<eth>ÔY´»ºÓʼ<thorn>*Éѯ»Ø¸´¡??
ºÎʱ»Ö¸´Áí<ETH><ETH>֪ͨ¡£
This seemed to be in Simplified Chinese. The first line is "Your mail has been received". The second is scrambled by the markup text beyond recognition ("due to...."). The third one seems to be "we would notify you separately on when to resume...". --Hlaw 15:10, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

phillywire.com

  • No mention/link to GFDL in some articles
  • No mention of wikipedia
  • Instead _they_ claim copyright of the article(s)
  • Examples: [22], [23], [24]
  • They didn't list an email address to contact them, so I sent the standard GFDL vio letter to webmaster@phillywire.com and admin@phillywire.com --snoyes 04:46, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Reply received: It is being worked on. --snoyes 17:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

worldsexexplorer.com

  • Standard follow-up sent by mav 11:53, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

phatnav.com

  • Confusing display of license and authorship information
  • No link to wikipedia homepage or the specific article page
  • Standard letter sent by mav 11:59, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

goobig.org

  • Note that at the moment (18/11/2003) their front page does not work.
  • No mention of the GFDL, instead they have their own notice: "Copyright 2003 GooBig.com All rights reserved"
  • No mention of wikipedia.
  • Example URL: http://www.goobig.org/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Transport
  • They didn't list an email address to contact them, so I sent the standard GFDL vio letter to webmaster@goobig.org and admin@goobig.org &mdash both emails bounced --snoyes 18:16, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    The website looks like an older, broken version of http://www.wordiq.com/ --mav 12:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

allabout.cc

  • Link to GNU FDL
  • Link to www.wikipedi.org
  • Says that "it [the article] uses material from Wikipedia"
  • Nolink to original article


informationheadquaters.com

  • Link to GNU FDL.
  • Link to Wikipedia homepage via "Help build the worlds largest free encyclopedia".
  • No link to original article.
  • Novemver 19: Now says the content is from Wikipedia.

www.basicclassics.com's people section

  • "It is believed that all material on this web site is in the public domain." (Most of the website appears to be out-of-copyright literature, so it's mostly true)
  • No link to/mention of Wikipedia or GDFL.
  • Point of contact: Steven J. Hayes
  • Standard letter sent by mav 03:06, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Standard follow-up letter sent by mav 03:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Final notice letter sent by mav 12:19, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

4reference.net

  • link to main page only
  • no mention of GFDL. Standard letter sent by: MB 08:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Points of contact Wilson, Jaret jaret@msn.com.
  • Response recieved Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:44:48 -0400. "I'll be glad to include a GFDL notice. The site is new and still a work in progress, so it doesn't surprise me that I've missed something. Thank you for pointing this out. I'll make the change within the next couple days."
  • No note visible yet -- see [25] for example. -- Gutza 02:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Whatever they do over there, it's not particularly clever. One of the first pages I randomly clicked was this: http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Elisabeth_in_Bavaria.html . --KF 00:38, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Sternly worded followup letter sent to mr. Wilson by: Gutza 10:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • They now show a GFDL notice at the bottom of each page copied from Wikipedia, and they link to Wikipedia, as they always used to. This is good enough for me, I think these guys are GFDL compliant. IANAL though, so I won't strike them in this page on my own accord. --Gutza 23:02, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • They don't seem to be overly discriminating with regard to what they vacuum out of here, either. [26] - Hephaestos 08:04, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • LOL. dave 07:22, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • My issues with 4reference:
    1. They use image captions without the images. Clever, eh???
    2. They remove the original paragraphing so the articles are solid blocks of text.
    3. Subhead captions are bigger than article headings.
    4. No search function - you have to select from alphabetical lists.
    5. Lags behind Wikipedia updates.
    • Lee M 23:43, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • (IANAL) They're still not compliant, because they don't link back to the specific article, making it unreasonably difficult to retrieve a list of authors. Martin 20:34, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I agree. Just sent a letter asking them for per-article direct link-backs (or a list of 5 authors per article). --mav 12:37, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

TYPEsyria.com

(bizarrely, they have a copy of our Jordan disambiguation page! Amongst other content.)

  • no link to article
  • no link to GFDL. Standard letter sent by: MB 08:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • no response received as of Jul 18. Will contact via domain name administrative contact arasa@emirates.net.ae. Does anyone know what country .ae is? Does anyone know of a translator program, or know the language of this country? MB
      • Sounds like United Arab Emirates. Guessing from their location, I'm guessing they speak Arabic (perhaps a different dialect, but I doubt it), like all the other countries around there. There should be a lot of English too. dave
      • .ae is the United Arab Emirates, and the main languages include Arabic, English, Persian, Hindi, and Urdu.
  • Looks like typesyria is down, but typenetwork.com still has several coppies of Wikipedia, including almost the entire site typeencyclopedia.com. It uses a very old, outdated version of Wikipedia. LDan 04:09, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

magnet-university at rare-earth-magnets.com

  • Lots of stuff taken from Wikipedia, like Magnetism article, biographies under "Magnetic personalities", and a few others.
  • It says Copyright 2002 - GNU Free Documentation License. This is hyperlinked to a year 2000 version of the GNU license!
    • Linking to the old version is OK. We used that initially.
  • No mention of Wikipedia anywhere, no link to article
  • Is this a breach? If so, what should we do?
    • Yes it is a breach. Wikipedia has to be credited and either a link back or list of 5 authors is needed. Time to send a letter. --mav
      • Actually Wikipedia doesn't have to be credited, since it's just another publisher of the user-copyrighted text, like all the other sites on this page. Only a list of five authors is necessary (the link back can be in lieu of that).
  • Standard letter sent by: dave 19:28 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Received reply from scott.madsen@nationalimports.com, and they are willing to fix it. Can someone tell me exactly what to tell them to do? I know they need to link to the original Wikipedia article, but what about the GFDL? Can they link to a local version or a gnu.org version? Anything else? dave 18:44 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • See above ^"Linking to the old version is OK." However you should suggest they link to the newest. MB 20:08 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Finally sent reply to Scott Madsen today outlining what he should do to fix it, and telling him all the articles that were lifted from Wikipedia (he had emailed me asking which articles were from wikipedia). I'm confident they'll fix it although I'd expect it to take a while. dave 07:25, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • They have the very odd 'Copyright 2002 - GNU Free Documentation License' at the bottom of each page now which does not give any author info or links to Wikipedia. I just sent them a letter and noted that I am the primary author of the bismuth article they copied. --mav 12:51, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Palestine article

  • No link to Wikipedia article
  • no link to GFDL
  • No contact information on the main page of their website. Can anyone find it?
  • Standard letter sent by: ?


RSA article

  • No visible link to current Wikipedia article
  • no link to GFDL
  • Standard letter sent by: ?
  • It is an HTML copy of the print version so "Retrieved from "http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=RSA"" is on the page. But there still isn't a link to the GFDL. We really should add that to our print page template. --mav 02:19 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Type United Kingdom

  • No link to original wikipedia article
  • No GFDL link
  • standard letter sent by LDan
  • The same network as typesyria.


Wikipedia printable version

  • Links to current Wikipedia article, but not at the stable URL (not a clickable link either)
  • No GFDL link
  • I think we should send the developers the standard letter - I already submitted a feature request and mentioned this issue on their mailing list; no response whatsoever. It is very important that the printable version is OK per our copyright since that is a nice clean HTML copy of an article. --mav 10:46, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Works now. :) Martin 14:27, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

PostgreSQL General Bits

  • Link to main page of Wikipedia
  • Very small section of article about Edgar F. Codd (1 paragraph)
  • No link to GFDL or the article

SearchEnterpriseLinux.com

  • Contains a small section of the article about vendor lock-in
  • Mentions Wikipedia, but has no link
  • No GFDL Link

Catholic University of Brussels

  • Most of main site is in Dutch
  • Copies the Semantic Web article completely
  • Mentions Wikipedia and has a link on the bottom (not clickable)
  • No GFDL Link

Public Domain

  • Uses a part of the article about Public Domain (1 paragraph)
  • Mentions Wikipedia with no link
  • Contains a section of the Fair Use Doctrine of the U.S. Copyright Act, stating something about "fair use", but no GFDL Link.
  • More than one paragraph, AFAICT. Martin 10:22, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Chessbase.com

(article about Howard Staunton)

  • link to current version of article, mentions Wikipedia as source
  • no link to GFDL (perhaps not needed - very short text)
    • I agree, but we could tell him to put source: wikipedia (under GFDL). wikipedia would link to article, gfdl to license?
    • It's long enough to be copyrighted, so they should probably license the entire thing under the GFDL. Which will be nice, because they have some nice photos we could use. Martin 10:41, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Any more feedback for this? Should we tell them to license the entire article, or just add "(under GFDL)" with a link to the GFDL. The rest of the article is unrelated to the first part about Howard Staunton IMHO, so I don't see how it is even an extension of the Howard Staunton article. dave 18:28, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Complexity Theory page

  • No link to original article
  • No mention of GFDL

basicmusic.net

  • No mention of / links to wikipedia articles
  • No mention of / links to GFDL
  • John Cage article
    • quotes John Cage (14 April 2003 edit, looks like) in its entirety, without crediting the source
    • no mention of Wikipedia
    • no mention of GFDL
  • The same site has Leonard Bernstein [27], maybe others. --Camembert
    • no longer online. Check again in a month. dave 18:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • It's back. Still no attribution or mention of GFDL. --Camembert 23:40, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Just checked out their use of our Bob Dylan article here. They stuck on a new opening paragraph, made tiny changes to the rest of the text and make no mention of Wikipedia or GFDL. So, this has been going on for at least six months. How do we bust em? JDG 00:25, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Just looked at Bryan Adams they use wikipedia content.
  • Sent a Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter to the webmaster. --snoyes 23:58, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • No reply. Sent the email again. --snoyes 23:52, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • No reply received. What happens now? A "cease and desist" letter? Or a threat of a takedown notice to their ISP? That should get some more attention. --snoyes 21:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
More:
Martin 22:16, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Still in violation as of 2003-12-22. What about a telephone call to the webmaster? It's simple to retrieve the information from whois "whois basicmusic.net" telephone numbers are listed. Is there a policy on this? How does one go about making a phone call as a "representative of the Wikipedia community" to ask them to stop. A phone call can be worth a hundred e-mails to a webmaster account, it would make somebody sit up and pay attention I suspect. --Lexor 01:25, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

EncycloZine

( http://encyclozine.com/ )

Many articles, sometimes older versions, for example see Artzia/Law EncycloZine is organized into subsites which include: Artzia.com, Eluzions.com DiXionary.com Kosmoi.com and possibly others, all very liberally plastered with links to books available on Amazon. Wikipedia articles are most likely to be met with on Artzia.com and Kosmoi.com

  • Not always link to current version of article
  • Not always link to GFDL

eurovisionarchive

Year Pages for Eurovision takes from wikipedia for example see: http://eurovisionarchive.members.beeb.net/Years/1969.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_1969 (they have added the interval sections witch i amn finsihing at the moment and its not exactly the same).

  • No mention of Wikipedia
  • No mention of GNU FDL
    • If there is any its not on each page.
      • Standard letter sent by Angela, 11 November 2003 via the feedback form on their site.
        • They now have a link with "From Wikipedia, licensed under the GFDL", but they link to the main page, not to the specific article. Angela 01:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

ancientsites

(A forum post.)

See Talk:Alamanni.

  • No mention of Wikipedia
  • No mention of GNU FDL

Chess and beyond

(Several pages. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40])

  • No mention of wikipedia
  • No mention of GFDL
  • Claims to own copyright
  • Standard letter sent by Arvindn 15 Nov 2003.

ezResult.com

(Internet directory and encyclopedia)

  • Uses Wikipedia articles as encyclopedia
  • At top of article states 'From ezResult.com, the open information source.' - Updated
  • at bottom of article states 'Layout Copyright 2003 ezResult.com Open Search Engine. Text on this page is available for download under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License by visiting Wikipedia.org' - Updated
  • at bottom of article only provides link back to Wikipedia main page not the original article itself - Updated
  • at bottom of article provides link back to license.
  • Question: see this page http://www.ezresult.com/article/Computer_science for example. There is a link back to the original article. It does not say "original article" or anything like that, in fact the link back to the original article just says "wikipedia". It's a bit ambiguous. dave 19:46, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I have updated it to say "Original Article" - thanks for your help!

non-violence.org

  • Uses Wikipedia articles
  • Mention of GFDL
  • Link to Wikipedia

Obsolete

These are articles which either no longer exist, or they no longer use Wikipedia content.


==

Gyrocoptor article====

  • References Wikipedia, but no link back to original article.
  • No GFDL link.
  • Contact: gyrocopter@sympatico.ca, j.ednie@sympatico.ca, John Ednie. Letter sent to both email addresses by dave 15:46 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Article no longer exists. dave 07:13, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Judgement of Paris

  • Link to Wikipedia article
  • no link to GFDL
  • Standard letter sent by: ?
  • Article no longer exists

Bicycle article

  • Link to current Wikipedia article
  • no link to GFDL
  • contact point: webmaster (tailwindwebmaster@tailwindtandemclub.com)
  • Standard letter sent by: dave 07:38, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I think they removed it. Waiting to hear from webmaster if they changed URL or not. dave 18:18, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks&oldid=2083900"