Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (medium degree of compliance)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angela (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 3 October 2004 (→[http://www.asinah.net Asinah.net]: * No mention of Wikipedia on the [http://india.asinah.net/ Hindi version].). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mirrors and Forks : (Numbers) ABC - DEF - GHI - JKL - MNO - PQR - STU - VWXYZ - All - Archive

This page lists sites that, in the opinon of the people that list them here, make some effort towards complying with our licence, but failed to do so in some significant way. Action is likely to be taken against the websites listed here. See the parent article for the process.

Please help preserve alphabetical order within each section.

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 received 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 [1] 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. [2] - 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)
I just got this response: I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for alerting me to it, I'll take care of it soon. Jaret Wilson --mav 22:59, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • They have this text at the bottom of each page:

"This article courtesy of Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license. GFDL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html"

It thus appears that they are still not GFDL compliant. David Newton 16:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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.

Allabout.cc

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

All Science fair projects

Copy of WP content. Maybe just taking the science articles. Although mentions where it is from, does not mention GFDL, link back to wikipedia or the articles. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Mentions GFDL and has local copy
  • Acknowledges wikipedia source
  • No Link back to wikipedia original article

moved from main page Davelane 22:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Arts and Design Info

  • Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
  • Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
  • No link to original article
  • Example: [3] from Digital Art

Asia Information 01

  • Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
  • Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
  • No link to original article
  • Example: [4] from China

Asinah.net

  • Acknowledges wikipedia authorship, links to wikipedia
    • Not for their Dutch version.
  • States that the article is licensed under the GNU FDL.
    • Though it links to what looks to be a partial copy or commentary about the license rather than the actual text of the license.
  • Does not link to the relevant wikipedia page, but does link to the edit function of the individual page (under the heading "edit this page")
    • It no longer does this, at least not for an not logged in user.
    • It now only links to their copy of our article on Wikipedia. [5] Guanaco 16:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Example: [6] from Kyoto Protocol.
  • forum page include some comments on articles and replies from site admins. Reading a few replies, it seems that the admins encourage people to edit articles on Wikipedia.
  • The placement of their own copyright notice makes it unclear exactly what they are claiming copyright for.
  • I could not find any link to the history of the article nor any attribution of authorship aside from the link to the Wikipedia main page.
  • No mention of Wikipedia on the Hindi version.

Brough's Books

  • link to current version of article
  • link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
  • Example: [7]

BrainyEncyclopedia

United States Department of Defense]

From Anti-French sentiment in the United States to Anti-French sentiment in the United States --> loss of neutrality

chess.go.ro

  • All (?) chess related articles
  • Link to GFDL (but not local copy)
  • Links to www.wikipedia.org but not to corresponding article

Dr. Damerow

  • 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.

CapitanCook (wiki)

  • Exs: (ca. 630 articles on geographic locations [8])
  • 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.

Casinozone.info

  • Site seems to have updated with the wiki copyright
  • Mentions Wikipedia and GFDL, however links back to the main page, and not the individual article.

Disease-Reference.com

  • Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
  • Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship, links to Wikipedia
  • Includes disclaimer releasing Wikipedia of any medical liability
  • No link to original article
  • Example: [9] from Autoimmune disorder

ExplainPlease.com

  • Uses Wikipedia articles. Examples: Call Center:Call center, Yoga:Yoga. External links section have been removed in articles. Titles of some pages have been changed (Oracle:Oracle database, Linux:GNU).
  • Mention of Wikipedia
  • Mention of GFDL
  • Local copy of GFDL linked
  • Linkback to Main Page
  • No link to exact articles
  • Contact mail ID given is [10]

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)
    • Received this reply: Thank you for the heads up, I will get on it when I get back home next week. --mav 18:29, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Two weeks elapsed since last contact. Just checked, and they haven't changed a thing. →Raul654 05:06, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Still no change. Perhaps mav (to keep the contact-person consistent) should send the standard follow-up letter? --Delirium 02:51, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Received this reply:

"Everything should be in order for compliance. Please upgrade my site from low compliance, or let me know what else I need to do."
"I added the contributed by and link to wikipedia on every page that uses articles from wiki. I added the GNU license and a link to the GNU license on every page that uses articles from wiki."

I upgraded the status and sent a reply that the only outstanding item is the direct article linkbacks. --mav 22:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FactBook.org

TheFreeDictionary.com

  • Only mentions wikipedia in JavaScript
  • Link to GFDL only works with JS enabled
  • Claim copyright with JS Disabled
  • Abuses HTML tags such as <span> to impede copying Guanaco

Therefore i'm moving this to Medium Compliance --Davelane 22:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


  • Credit to Wikipedia with links is given at the bottom of each page.
  • Not any more. See this example http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Separation%20axiom. The letters "wiki" appear nowhere in this document. However, the bottom of the page states "Copyright © 2004 Farlex, Inc.". That is false; in fact, I wrote almost all of the material on that web page. -- Toby Bartels 05:41, 3 Jun 2004
  • Ah, I see what's going on! The word "wiki" does appear twice in the docment source, once in the URL (local to their site) of an image (also made by me), and once in directive to Javascript. If I turn on Javascript, then I see the Wikipedia link (albeit much less prominently than the copyright notice); if Javascript is off, then it goes away again. This is, of course, not good enough; but it's more likely that they mean well and a note will fix things. -- Toby Bartels 05:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is what their Javascript pops up (for that example): "This article was derived fully or in part from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License." Note that while the first link is to the article on our site, the second link is to their copy of our article GNU Free Documentation License -- which is still one click away from the licence itself, which they don't appear to have on their site. -- Toby Bartels 06:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think this fragile and subtle JavaScript copyright notice is sufficient at all. -- Julian Mehnle 10:14, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • An important consecuence of putting the link in a JavaScript is that Google won't see it. This means that Wikipedia doesn't get the inbound link count it deserves, allowing TheFreeDictionary.com to beat Wikipedia's PageRank on many articles. -- PeR 09:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Which is probably why they did it. Doing say, a google search on "cow encyclopedia" has "the free dictionary"'s copied page at the top with wikipedia's 4 down. Although wikipedia is public domain, it can benefit from more readers, as if a reader sees somthing wrong they can simply change it. However, if they are on the mirror site they cannot and wikipedia is less exact because of it. Has anyone sent out emails etc? I personnally don't know about wikipedias policy on it, but it certaintly seems quite wrong when the actual quality of the information is possibly damaged. I have to admit the formatting is nice.DivisionByZero 08:41, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)


  • I doubt they are GFDL compliant. Although I'm not lawyer, look at this:
    • "By printing, downloading, or using the content on the freedictionary.com, including general dictionary, medical dictionary, computing dictionary, legal dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, encyclopedia, and any reference data you agree to our full terms. All content on thefreedictionary.com, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional."
    • and the mention of Wikipedia is in the font smaller then article text and their copyright notice.
    • it's written to be (c) farlex
    • 'link to GFDL' on their pages is really link to local copy of Wikipedia article about gfdl, and from there there is broken link to gfdl text on www.gnu.org
*http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Alexander%20Stirling%20Calder thefreedictionary.com
    • I have sent them an email threatening legal action if they don't give Wikipedia, and by extension, me, proper (not half-baked) credit as one of the authors of only three articles I've made major contributions to. Johnleemk | Talk 05:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I sent an email to these folks saying that they had not given me recognition as the photographer, since they had lifted [is this mirrored] the whole article including the pictures. They did give wikipedia recognition. I think that I will send them a little stronger message, but not time to mention my cousin Vinny, the lawyer yet. Carptrash 15:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) .

- Okay, well I sent off another, slightly stronger worded message. We shall see. Carptrash 15:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I received a reply from them stating that the photo credits [or lack of them] would be fixed by the technical department. Which is good. However it has not happened yet. Carptrash 14:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


  • Moved from High Davelane 22:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't they be in Low instead? Ambi 03:41, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • No the reason being they do acknowledge Wikipedia and the GFDL _however_ not in a correct manner -- we should work out what we want changed and email them AFAIK --Davelane 13:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[www.freepedia.org freepedia.org]

All the articles seems to be linked back to us and the are explicitely stated as GFDL. The disclaimer notice seems to present the work as an original one.

-- Looxix 21:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I've moved this from the main page to here as:
  • Their main page has a disclaimer which makes no sense and doesn't mention GFDL or wikipedia
  • They also seem to have a logo which is Googlelike so they need watching
  • Articles link back to wikipedia & local GFDL which is fine

--Davelane 21:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Guajara.com

  • It mentions our name in the <title> :) -- Fennec 06:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Footers on every page indicate: El contenido de Wikipedia se publica bajo la Licencia de Documentación Libre GNU.
  • Does not seem to have page history.
  • Does not seem to link back to articles.
  • Does not link back to Wikipedia, even from the page about Wikipedia.
    • It DOES link to the Wikimedia foundation from one page.
I wrote to them in may, but no response so far. --AstroNomer 15:42, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

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.

InfoHeadquarters.com

  • Acknowledges wikipedia authorship, links to wikipedia
  • States that the article is licensed under the GNU FDL.
  • Does not link to the relevant wikipedia page
  • Example: [11] from February 22

informationheadquaters.com

  • Link to GNU FDL.
  • Link to Wikipedia homepage via "Help build the worlds largest free encyclopedia"
  • No link to original article.
  • November 19: Now says the content is from Wikipedia.
Jan 8 2004: This is still the case. A lot of the wikipedia pages have dead links (eg the September 11 pages), but what is there is acknowledged as wikipedia material. Perhaps this site should now come out of this list and be placed in one of the other ones? Arno 22:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ipedia

  • Link to GNU FDL.
  • Link to www.wikipedia.org
  • No link to original article.
  • Link to GNU FDL.
  • Mencion Wikipedia Source.
  • No link to the current version of article
  • Example: [12] from Mesothelioma

====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"

Memory Alpha (wiki)

Has some adapted articles about Star Trek and those such as "Welcome, Newcomers". Not a verbatim copy, but is in fact most harmless. We will probably one day be copying articles back from this site, knowing they are in capable hands.
  • links to current version of article, with date & time of copy of article
  • links to GFDL.
Update: Memory Alpha is now under the Creative Commons License; not sure whether there is still Wikipedia content in it. Andre Engels 01:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia content is still used for user guide and documentation-type pages (example: [13]). We don't use the GFDL anymore (changing early when all pages were by but a few authors who all could agree on the change); based on my reading of the GFDL, I believed that the similar spirit of the GFDL and the Creative Commons License was sufficient. Links to the original Wikipedia pages have been preserved in all cases, anyway. Feedback would be appreciated if there is some potential conflict concerning the licenses. (I am one of the webmasters of Memory Alpha.) -- Dan Carlson 02:40, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
Update: Memory Alpha no longer uses duplicates of Wikipedia pages for our policies; we've rewritten or removed copied pages. Listing here should no longer be necessary. -- Dan Carlson 03:51, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)


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.

Non-violence.org

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


No-Gambling.com

  • Does not acknowledge wikipedia authorship
  • Does not state that the article is licensed under the GNU FDL.
  • Does not link to the relevant wikipedia page (or wikipedia at all)
  • Example: [14] from Shuffling playing cards
  • Standard letter sent. --snoyes 17:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now mentions Wikipedia prominently, links to Wikipedia main page, and GNU/FDL license at gnu.org. Andre Engels 01:19, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

www.objectssearch.com encyclopedia

Appears to be a complete clone of the en: Wikipedia.

  • mentions Wikipedia at foot of page, with link back to www.wikipedia.org
  • mentions GFDL, links to GNU online copy
  • no link back to Wikipedia source article: this needs fixing

phillywire.com

  • No mention/link to GFDL in some articles
  • No mention of wikipedia
  • Instead _they_ claim copyright of the article(s)
  • Examples: [15], [16], [17]
  • 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)
    • Seems to be in 'almost' compliance now: Mentions Wikipedia, mentions GNU/FDL, links to article, links to GNU/FDL. Only minus points: says the article "uses material from" the Wikipedia article, where it seems to be copying almost-verbatim, and GNU/FDL is linked at gnu.org (can we propose to GNU to allow that for the next version?) Andre Engels 01:41, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I think they are perfectly fine. No reason to be nit-picky, IMO. --mav 11:36, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

SmartPedia

(Upgraded from low compliance)

  • Apparently only Wikipedia content
  • No mention of any copyright other than:
Some contents copyright 2004 QuotesPlace.com. All rights reserved world wide.
at the bottom of the pages.
  • No mention of Wikipedia
  • No mention of GNU/FDL
  • No link to original article

First standard letter sent by Kwekubo 20:40, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As of May 31, Smartpedia now says in small type at bottom:

"This document is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.

GFDL | SOURCE"

GFDL links to the gnu.org text, and SOURCE links to the Wikipedia article, but there is no actual text credit given to Wikipedia.

On the main page: "Smartpedia is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation." Someone going to write them? This is not only a cheek, it could also get us into legal trouble. -- stw (Talk) 20:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Teachersparadise.com

  • Listed here - August 10, 2004. →Raul654 21:06, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Therfcc

  • Large amounts of Wikipedia content
  • Acknowledges GNU/FDL
  • Mentions Wikipedia, but no link to main page or individual articles.

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)

Travel Destinations

  • Link to GNU FDL.
  • No link to Wikipedia homepage, but mention as a source.
  • No link to original article.
  • Says the content is from Wikipedia.
  • Example: [19] from Beijing

TopArticle.com

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

USA Information 01

  • Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
  • Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
  • No link to original article
  • Example: [20] from Jazz

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

Wikinfo (wiki)

Also at Internet-Encyclopedia (note: this site "was inspired by wikipedia" and uses its software). See Wikinfo.

World Geography Information

  • Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
  • Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
  • No link to original article
  • Example: [21] from Country

Has copies of about 25,000 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

Xasa

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copies_of_Wikipedia_content_(medium_degree_of_compliance)&oldid=6342403"