A separate page explains that the content in the "Language" section is taken from Wikipedia and available under GFDL, but does not link to original articles, doesn't list authors and doesn't provide local copy of the license (just a link to gnu.org is provided).
A compilation of Wikipedia and other online articles published by Global Vision Publishing House without attribution.
Contact info
nsingh_2004@vsnl.net, info@globalvisionpub.com
Actions
2violent.com
2violent.com
URL
http://www.2violent.com/
Description
Sample
http://www.2violent.com/sharon_tate.html
Rating
Medium
Compliance
There is a notice that mentions Wikipedia and the GFDL. The whole thing links to wikipedia.org, but there is no history section, link to the original article, or link to the GFDL. Other pages besides "Sharon Tate" appear to be a partial derivation of older wikipedia articles, or, just possibly, some text from them has been uploaded to wikipedia, as I have found exact word for word passages in Jay Sebring and Charles Manson from around 2004 November 8 or later. -Wikibob - Talk 19:32, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
Note: I've changed this to medium, as both Wikipedia and GFDL are mentioned, and the images are not being ripped off WP's servers.
Contact info
webmaster AT 2violent.com, clasione AT verizon.net (domain admin), abuse AT godaddy.com (host)
Actions
Emailed webmaster AT 2violent.com, clasione AT verizon.net (domain admin) politely referring to Sharon Tate copy.
Got 553 sorry, relaying denied from your location from webmaster AT 2violent.com and 4.2.1 mailbox temporarily disabled from clasione AT verizon.net Superm401 - Talk09:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99Colors
99Colors
URL
http://www.99colors.net/
Description
Sample
http://www.99colors.net/name/dark-candy-apple-red
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
List of colo[u]r details, such as names & RGB values, at least partially scraped from en.wikipedia. Contains some problematic content which was removed from enwiki for other reasons (ie. simply made up by an editor); existence of this (mirrored) content has been used to justify re-adding it.
Contact info
contact@99colors.net
Actions
Repeated emails; all bounced.
A–Am
abcdef.wiki
abcdef.wiki (title: QWERTY.WIKI)
URL
https://abcdef.wiki
Description
formerly xcv.wiki, qwerty.wiki, que.wiki, qaz.wiki and other.wiki: they all redirect to abcdef.wiki at the moment; it may change domain again in the future. It seems to use live machine translations from the English Wikipedia to generate mirrors in 16 languages, without references. Some translations are very poor (e.g. Russian) while others are very good (e.g. Italian). Too many invasive ads, some of which are mildly pornographic.
They have started mirroring the whole thing - see http://experts.about.com/e/a/index.htm. They seem to be compliant, albeit in a very discreet way.
They are putting a "copyright 2006 About.com" on the content--which (in my view) violates the terms. I find this extremely objectionable.Proyster 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) As of the current time, they do not display an About.com copyright, instead: "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia". AnonEMouse(squeak)19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed a complaint today regarding their page at http://experts.about.com/e/j/jo/Joshua_Scottow.htm and (a few hours later) the page now re-directs to the Wikipedia original page.Proyster20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this mirror, I don't see any acknowledgement that the articles originally come from Wikipedia, or any history of contributions. FreplySpang01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off-site GFDL. Javascript required to view mention.
This website formerly violated the GFDL. I am uncertain whether they currently use Wikipedia articles. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/planets/Uranus.htm , for instance, is similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus but I haven't determine whether there's still copying. If you remove this entry, be sure to archive it.
I am one of the creators of this site. The GFDL violation was related to displaying source information inside javascripts. This created problems for visitors who had javascript disabled. The problem was corrected when it was brought to our attention.
No obvious sign of GFDL, copyrighted by website and no mention of wikipedia - http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Alice%27s_Restaurant_(film) L∴V15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"COPYRIGHT - AbsoluteAstronomy asserts its legal copyright for all original works of authorship or intellectual property published on AbsoluteAstronomy.com. You may not publish, modify, or transmit this content without express written permission from AbsoluteAstronomy"
This implies that AbsoluteAstronomy has copyright to the content on it's site, but mostly it doesn't. The vast majority of content on the site is copyrighted by wikipedia authors, and licensed to AbsoluteAstronomy under certain terms (GFDL I guess?), which include the right for others to 'publish, modify, and transmit' the content of the site. IMHO it's a bit misleading. Decora23:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether they often crib from us, but the last paragraph of the cited sample page on "Archival Investigations: Early Electro-mechanical Sound Works and Artifacts from Trimpin’s First Five Years in Seattle" is a straight-out copy of the first two paragraphs of our article on Trimpin - Jmabel
Contact info
Telephone: 740-587-3326, Fax: 740-587-4103
Email: help AT wwar.com or help AT absolutearts.com
Snail mail: World Wide Arts Resources; absolutearts.com; 3678 Loudon Street; Granville, Ohio 43023; USA
Actions
Academic Accelerator
Academic Accelerator: The Most Up-to-Date Encyclopedia, News, Review, & Research
URL
https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/
(That page is identical to the one at https://academic-accelerator.com/, with no mention of any encyclopedia, mostly just a search field of unclear purpose saying "Enter Journal Full Title" and an ad for their scientific publication blockchain (?) thing. You have to go to a specific article to access the encyclopedia.)
Description
Apparently a complete mirror, though badly done and apparently disguised.
Articles (at least the Alouette 1 article that I found) are badly formatted with no internal links present in the text (but see below), all text styling removed, lists presented as flat text (including the "See also" and "External links" sections), and subheadings presented as full headings wrapped in equals signs, indicating poor parsing.
Ironically, while they claim to be academic, the References section is completely omitted. So are all categories and infobox content. They add a dynamically-populated "Scholarly Articles" section right below the introduction, though it's empty for the Alouette 1 article, as well as sections of videos (that look like they're from YouTube, and some of which are irrelevant (anime, etc.) that happened to include the word "Alouette") and images (all images in the article, even those used only as icons in navboxes). Images are also shown all combined into one thumbnail at the top. Clicking an image in either place opens a lightbox where you can cycle through them. In all three of those places, the captions are all missing.
In the "Related topics" section at the very bottom of the page, below the videos and images, there is a list of what I guess are the target articles of all of the links from the article, including those in navboxes, in alphabetical order, meaning they've lost their context and link titling. And, because they apparently tried to reinvent hyperlink functionality using scripting and failed, the links don't work, even with scripts enabled in the browser.
They seem to have modified the text in various ways, presumably to avoid detection. For example, the wording "deactivated Canadian" in the first sentence of the Alouette 1 article is changed to "Canadian deactivated", and "Parts used for the construction of Alouette 1 can still be found in the Musée des ondes Emile Berliner in Montreal…" became "The parts used in the construction of Alouette 1 can still be seen at the Emile Berlina Museum in Montreal…", both wordings that, as far as I could tell with a bit of WikiBlame and manual searching, have never appeared in Wikipedia. If you do a simple diff (with an external tool), you'll find many more examples. To do this in so many places in presumably every article, it must have been automated.
No mention of or links to Wikipedia, copyright, or licensing anywhere, even with scripts enabled. Text is modified in ways that look like the goal is to avoid plagiarism detection.
If you point at an image, before opening the lightbox, and look at the target URL your browser displays, you'll see the URL of the bare image (not the file description page), e.g., /media/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Alouette_1.jpg; it can also be copied from the contextual menu there. That's the only hint of any connection to anything Wikimedia-related.
Only contains top edit in article history, looks to be a mirror of the WP database as of June 23, 2005. No links back to Wikipedia, no mention of Wikipedia as a source, GFDL is mentioned via its link to Wikipedia.
Contact info
http://academickids.com/contact/index.htm lists jd4ga7 AT yaoo.com [sic] as the contact, WHOIS lists jd4ga AT classroomclipart.com, (310)832-5686.
Actions
Academie.de Net-Lexikon
Site: http://www.net-lexikon.de/
copies German-language Wikipedia
indicates Wikipedia as source
links to original article
links to copy of the WikipediaDE GNU/FDL page, which links to GNU/FDL at gnu.org (minus point for indirect link; however the GNU/FDL is mentioned directly, so not a grave one)
Does not contain "aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie"
The contributor whose content was copied wrote to the webmaster and the content has been removed. There may be no future issues, but the listing here can be helpful in case the problem recurs. It is particularly important to document these issues in the event that they should continue and should become less obvious, to avoid our contributors being unfairly accused of copyright infringement. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alchetron
Alchetron.com ~ Free Social Encyclopedia for the World
URL
https://alchetron.com/
Description
Wikipedia articles mixed with some info and YouTube videos.
A seeming verbatim copy of all Wikipedia. It does not seem to use remote loading except when it has no copy of the article. In other cases, it appears to refresh a cache occasionally. However, it does appear to load images remotely, which is unacceptable. This should be verified. Now has text "Source: this wikipedia article, under CC-BY-SA", with appropriate links, on every page.
He replied stating, "But I do say all of those things on the bottom". I replied noting that the requirements had changed due to the licensing transition, and KForge (which I cited) is CC-BY-SA only. Superm401 - Talk00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He replied, "so if I say CC-BY-Sa I will be fine?". I responded, "Generally yes, since all Wikipedia text is now available under CC-BY-SA.", with some further details. Superm401 - Talk01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL licensing information is now included on the web site, giving credit to Wikipedia and linking to the article. However, the GFDL is not hosted locally, but is a link to Wikipedia's GFDL page. I changed this site's compliance rating to Medium. Sancho23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon books published by Betascript, authors Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, and Susan F. Marseken
URL
http://www.amazon.de/Sachiko-M-Lambert-M-Surhone/dp/613110610X/ as just one of over 80.000 articles by this author
Description
Sample
Rating
Compliance
The abstract is taken from the Wikipedia article Sachiko Matsubara with no attribution. This is not just a single incident, but a massive misuse of Wikipedia material. The publisher advertises "High Quality content by WIKIPEDIA articles [sic]!" on the book covers. It is a books-on-demand publisher.
Contact info
Actions
This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury (Annotated and Illustrated) [Kindle Edition]
The articles are translations from en:wikipedia, this is nowhere mentioned, GFDL and original authors are not mentioned.
Contact info
main page says write to webmaster AT animefanboard.de
Actions
de:Benutzer:Don-kun pointed to the copyright violation at main page discussion before it was deleted and the discussion page was blocked. Then he tried to discuss it in the forum but was dismissed.
Subject of the Article on Wikipedia is upset that the page removed her unsourced information and put in referenced information she didn't like, so has now gone and created her own verion of the page but linked to a time when it was full of false information
Copy of Wikipedia article seen was a much earlier version which suggests that Answers.com may not be able to cope with Wikipedia's "ongoing editing" format. The unsuspecting visitor to Answers.com has no means of knowing this. Nor does this help Wikipedia's image. A mere external link on Answers.com rather than the article in full would be more satisfactory. Portress19:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they might do some kind of fact checking on the article version they mirror. But they should mention the date of the last edit on the article they mirrored and mention that the article could have undergone further changes since then. --L33tminion(talk) 17:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
They have started making "Answer Notes". These are shortened versions of Wikipedia articles (and possibly other content). At least one of them is a derivative work of the below Wikipedia article. This is certain because the first sentence is an exact copy. However, it is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Others are probably also illegal deriviative works. Hence, they are now at medium compliance. I have sent a violation letter. Superm40120:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than license the note under the GFDL, they rewrote it to attempt to stop it from being a derivative work. I suspect that other notes are derivative works, so I'm keeping it at medium. Superm40118:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image pages now appear to display copyright correctly. See, e.g., [6]. Are there any concrete objections at this point? Slow mirroring isn't a valid compliance issue, and I don't see any concrete examples of pirated AnswerNotes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the Absolute Power page above, the content appears to have been kept up-to-date with our version, including the image, which is also identical. There is a large bar at the top of the page including the Wikipedia logo and name, and their framing of the image looks distinctly familiar. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ20:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of GNU FDL either on individual pages or on http://www.armageddononline.org/disclaimer.php (site disclaimer and legal information).
Some pages contain links to original article and/or Wikipedia:Copyrights (eg, http://www.armageddononline.org/comet_shoemaker-levy_9.php, but not all of them (eg http://www.armageddononline.org/worldwar3.php, http://www.armageddononline.org/biowarfare.php). Appears to be haphazard.
http://www.armageddononline.org/contact.php says "All articles on Armageddon Online were written exclusively for Armageddon Online and may not be used under any circumstances with out explicit permission from the administration."
Contact info
amazingbible AT verizon.net, http://www.armageddononline.org/contactadmin.php, http://www.armageddononline.org/contactwebmaster.php
They have a feature called "embeds". If someone links to Wikipedia in a comment, it will have an option, "show embeds". If you click this, it includes a significant chunk of the Wikipedia article. They could argue fair use, but I think it may not be when done on a consistent basis. It has the Wikipedia logo, the text "Wikipedia", and the full URL (which is also a link). However, there is no mention of the CC-BY-SA.
User:Achalmeena has been inserting spam links to this site in wikipedia and claims that industrial.org is his website. The top level of the domain http://124.125.21.126/ identifies itself as software.org, with the contact details of root AT industrialsoft.org. Whois doesn't return the users name (Achal Meena), but ??
Every page has a Copyright citations section at the bottom. "It says This article is licensed under the GNU License", with GNU license linking to an off-site copy of the GFDL. The next line is " Click here for original article: ABBA". The article name links back to Wikipedia. At the very bottom it says "Copyright 2007, iCubator Labs, LLC, All Rights Reserved."
Contact info
corporate AT artistopia.com (WHOIS), http://www.artistopia.com/About-Us/Contact.asp
Non-compliant. Page appears to be an image of some sort, not HTML text, but it is our content (I know, because I wrote this one). I haven't examined beyond the one page. - Jmabel
Multiple of their 'artist' pages are either close or identical copies of the relevant article from here. The site appears to have been created in 2020, and the content seems to have been forked around about that time.
Sample
https://artvee.com/artist/claude-monet/
Rating
"Low/None"
Compliance
Non-compliant. They do reference Wikimedia in one of the terms & conditions in relation to 'some of their images', but no reference to Wikipedia anywhere as far as I can see.
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.
Site takes some text and tables from Wikipedia articles on television and radio technology in the UK, no GFDL mention or links. GFDL violation became apparent after a suspected copyright violation discussion, with evidence on the Birdsong (digital radio channel) talk page.
http://www.backgammon.co.uk/strategies.htm (only article I can find)
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Does not link to enwiki article, but has GFDL notice.
Contact info
info AT backgammon.co.uk
Actions
The site uses an image I created, licensed under the GPL. I sent an email stating that the page should note the GPL license of the image, and the GFDL license of the article. I included links to the licenses at gnu.org and a link to Backgammon.
4 October2006: Webmaster replied to my email noting the updated copyright notice.
You may freely contribute to this article using the authoring tools provided at the article's source, Wikipedia.org, sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition, this article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you may copy and modify it as long as the entire work, including your additions, remains under this license. Iraq Museum International always displays the most recent published revision of the article; all previous versions may be viewed here.
High Compliance
In addition, the paragraph above includes the article title and a link to the Wikipedia article itself, the GNU Free Documentation License, and to the history of the article on Wikipedia.
A site-wide copyright notice -- which may have been misinterpreted by Wikipedians as a claim on the Wikipedia article appearing on a particular page -- has now been dropped altogether on all the Wikipedia pages. (Wikipedia articles can link to pages protected under US Copyright law, but do comments and sidebars added outside a Wikipedia article on the same webpage count as additions under the GNU License? In other words, if a Wikipedia article appears on a web page and Gore Vidal writes an essay about the Wikipedia article just below it, can the essay be copyrighted?) On the BaghdadMuseum/Iraq Museum International site, where the copyright notice used to be is now the statement: "The Iraq Museum International Open Encyclopedia is offered to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License" with yet another link to the GNU Free Documentation License.
Yes, they're better than most. However, I'd still like to see a direct link to the original Wikipedia article. I think that's reasonable, given how generous we are in interpreting some GFDL provisions(like what's a "modified work", including our copyright notice, 5 original authors, history...). I sent an email asking for a direct link today. Superm401 | Talk01:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are now direct links for the original article, editing the original article, and the article's history. The GFDL link is to the FSF copy, but I don't think that's really an issue. Superm401 | Talk20:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL. Excerpts of various ticket-related articles are used.
Contact info
info AT barrystickets.com, (800) 928-7199 (818) 990-8499 FAX (818) 990-5433, Technical Contact: Katz, Randy randyk AT CCSALES.COM, (213)307-9581 fax: 123 123 1234; Administrative Contact: Rudin, Barry info AT BARRYSTICKETS.COM, 818 990-8499; IP=66.114.252.14 = Broadwing Communications
Example Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/nh3n/ a version of the Rolling Stones article; and many more
Disclaimers at the end of the articles state that "This entry is from Wikipedia, the user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you find the biography content factually incorrect, defamatory or highly offensive you can edit this article at Wikipedia" with links to Wikipedia home, the GFDL at gnu.org, and the Wikipedia article.
Comment at http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/faqs#why_is_the_bbc_using_wikipedia
We know that many people using our website would like to find out more about artists, and basic biographical information is one of the key things that people expect to find on our pages. We feel that we provide best value to the licence fee payer by concentrating our resources on providing great original content (mainly through broadcast) and making it easy to find that content on the web. Biographies are a standardised type of content that are expected across thousands of artists. Wikipedia offers good quality biographies with very good coverage across artists. There are two good reasons to use this content rather than recreating similar content in-house or sourcing it from a commercial supplier:
It's available under the GNU Free Documentation Licence, which means not only is there no licensing cost to the licence-fee payer for this text, but it is freely available to all our users to use and share in turn.'
It's editable by anyone. This may seem like a mixed blessing, but the entire Wikipedia model is a living demonstration that openness to user contribution and amendment tends to improve content over the long term and not vice versa.
Clearly based on WP; copy and pasting as well as using the same citations word for word and the exact same UI and format. Easy to confuse with WP if not knowledgeable. No mention of Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA, or licensing except end of page disclaimer, which reads: "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. This article may uses material from the Wikipedia article Earth, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (view authors). Bharatpedia® is a registered trademark." It is the exact same wiki-format inc. lots of templates and the MOS.
Contact info
All help links e.g. speaking to an administrator are red links
Note: looks like it may be mirroring the site by crawling, since it handles section edit links poorly and has specific error pages indexed all over the place where the crawler has tried to follow them wrong (this is a mirror, so of course no actual vehicle for editing).
This is a mirror as of June 23, 2005 that has apparently had minor forking since then. However, almost all instances of Wikipedia have been changed, even in people's talk comments. This makes it a modified version, and these modifications have not been specifically mentioned on page history. Also, the GFDL specifically states that "The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version." However, the bottom of every page states, "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2.", with a local link to the GFDL. With images, it also says "This document originates in his first or later version from the English Wikipedia. You can find it there under the keyword (ARTICLE). The list of previous authors is available here: (link to Wikipedia's history of ARTICLE). ... This text falls under the same license (GFDL). Additions to biocrawler (starting from 23.6.05 will be doubly licensed under the GFDL and CC-by-sa)." Without images, it also has simple links to Wikipedia, the original history, and Wikipedia's copy of the GFDL.
Received apparently form reply that didn't address complaints. It ranted about things like "Biocrawler being a fork, you can edit pages yourself." and "Please edit each page being aware that this is a biological Wiki." The closest it came to addressing the fraud and improper page history was "There is a full detailed disclaimer on every page stating the source of each article, and the history of each page." I replied asking for a direct response to the real issues. Superm401 - Talk06:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to original en.wiki articles and histories, GNU FDL note is reported correctly in bottom of page.
Contact info
Actions
None. Website is now a search-spammer and no longer mirrors wikipedia content; last wikipedia mirror found archived from 8 February 2008 at [17]. 84user (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Site does copy wholesale biography articles from English wikipedia. It does not provide information of the source of the articles, it does not give attribution to authors or link to wikipedia history page, the site does not acknowledge that content sourced from wikipedia is licensed under GFDL.
Sent standard GFDL e-mail. - Evil saltine 22:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Removed from main page (duplicate)
Now, at the bottom of each page, it reads: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article <article name>. Where <article name> is appropriately filled in. It links to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html and to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, but no link to the actual Wikipedia article. I'm moving this to Medium compliance. -Rholton 03:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Biolicense.net
Biolicense.net
URL
http://biolicense.org
Description
Sample
http://biolicense.org/index.php/Shareware
Rating
None.
Compliance
No information about articles being copied from Wikipedia, imposes its own weird license called Biolicense. The site states: "Biolicense is a license scheme to enable human beings and machines to openfreely share information and knowledge for limitless number of purposes. It is a license that tries to protect information and knowledge from being exclusively owned by limited number of classes, races, and economic groups in the world. It also aims to maximize human creativity and entrepreneurship." Also see http://biolicense.org/index.php/Biolicense.net:About The site seems to be a part of some spammer's link farm. See its links to other sites.
Contact info
admin phone and email from whois: +82.01077996754 (Korean number); j@bio.cc
There is a notice that says the content is from Wikipedia and links to a local copy of the GFDL (part of a copyright page). Wikipedia is linked to the main Wikipedia URL backwards (gro.aidepikiw.www//:ptth). A javascript function reverses the link (if you have JS enabled). There is also a link to another section on the copyright page that is meant to tell users how to view the "transparent copy"; it just tells them to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<PAGENAME> by typing it in. Arguably, XHTML itself is transparent so this isn't necessary. However, it does vaguely help users vaguely find the history section.
No mention of GFDL. Claims copyright. No links to original article or mention of Wikipedia. No history section. Contains copies of the old wiki entries. Apparently related to gamelow.com, which infringes similarly and has the same graphics.
Has notice, "User Bits and Wikipedia articles licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. The wikipedia articles uses material from the Wikipedia article name.". However, this links to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/article_name" (i.e. that actual URL, unsubstituted), and an offsite GFDL.
At http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html, they make it clear that they will consider only complaints sent to them on paper or by fax. Kind of amazing: this is Google, and they provide no online means to complain when they plagiarize. And the wording on that page is very belligerent: "Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/ for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees."
Fax number is 650-618-2680, Attn: Blogger Legal Support, DMCA Complaints. I think someone should follow this up, and also Wikimedia Foundation, who I understand have some working relationships with Google, should ask about setting up a procedure to streamline it when their bloggers plagiarize us so blatantly.
Further examples from Blogspot are listed on the talk page, to document other Blogspot users' WP usage without messing up the format above.
Brief mention of Wikipedia on homepage, copied articles lack attribution. [EDIT]: On their sources page (linked at the bottom) they cite "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Data from Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL". There are no backlinks to the Wikipedia article, there is a notice at the bottom 'Copyright 2010, Discovery Media'.
The site includes a page on the chessplayer Paul Morphy that mirrors full paragraphs of the Wikipedia article Paul Morphy. This is also the case for numerous other chessplayers.
Contact info
chuck_ayoub@hotmail.com, ISP=TUCOWS INC. (according to whois)
http://bookonlinesale.com/ and http://booksonlinesale.com
Description
Sample
http://bookonlinesale.com/258082_edgar-prestage_1131743628lettersofaportuguesenundiscountbookstores.html and http://www.booksonlinesale.com/623250_margaret-mitchell_113517007xautantenemporteleventbookreportforfree.html
Rating
High
Compliance
Includes text "This artikel <ARTICLENAME> is licensed under the GNU free Documentation License. There is a list of authors available. You can edit this article if you like. " The article name links to the original wikipedia article, "GNU" links to the GNU's copy of the GFDL, Authors links to the history tab, and edit links to the edit page. However, on some pages none of these links are colored or formatted distinctly from normal text (until you hover over them); thus, it is hard to tell they can be clicked.
Contact info
INFO AT 100000BOOKS.COM (whois), http://www.cd-music.org/mailform.php (contact form), info AT server4you.de (host)
"Wikipedia Introduction": http://booksllc.net/book.cfm?id=3744759 Sample title and summary on Amazon:[19]. Google Books search:[20]
Rating
Compliance
The website states that "Paperbacks marked "OCR" may have numerous typos or missing text. Other paperbacks contain Wikipedia content." The FAQ states that: "All content cam [sic] from Wikipedia. Please check the book's Publication page, Introduction and the end of each chapter for further details. For example, you can click the hyperlink at the end of any chapter and then click the history tab to see a list of each chapter's contributors. Our license with Wikipedia is at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0"
States "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" and contains direct copy of the start of the article as a blurb, which is then published online (the creation of the book itself is a separate issue). No links to original article or authors. Claims to be published by VSD and/or authors Ronald Cohn and Jesse Russell, but the article content is still copyrighted. See also VDM Publishing.
Articles end with "borgfind.com, 2005. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Albania"" with links to local GFDL and to original article. Redirects from geeks.dnip.net, e.g. http://albania.geeks.dnip.net/
Like the section above: mentions Wikipedia and license, but has clearly incorrect info as well, like "It uses material from the Wikipedia article " USA"" More worryingly, this looks to be a live mirror, which is normally not allowed. Fram (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions Wikipedia, which leads to this explanation: "This is a static mirror of the wikipedia site. It exists for the purpose of testing experimental interfaces, made for wikipedia. It is my own project. I am using wikipedia content to gather anonymous user navigation behavior as a statistical sample for a centroid cluster based recommendation system" No links to the original article.
Seems to combine links to ads and other non-wikipedia content with links to related articles on bopedia, which in turn has proper compliance info. This is the result of a brief look, however. DES(talk)21:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Without JavaScript, no mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL. With Javascript, has notice that "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL" with link to Wikipedia main page and local copy of the GFDL. Is not clear what "the Wikipedia article" is. There is no link to the original Wikipedia article or included history section."
Home page gives 403 Forbidden as of 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
Contact info
domain.names AT xplore.com (whois), service84 AT brainyquote.com (customer service email)
Actions
Standard complaint letter, modified to include request to remove copyright claim and request for link back to individual articles, sent to domain registrant (as found via whois) and customer service (as found using Inquire link in the drop down menu on their pages) on 12 November 2006 by User:WAvegetarian
Address info AT brassbandinformation.co.uk is mentioned. WHOIS says very little:
Registrant: Carl Wilkinson
Registrant type: UK Individual
Registrant's address: The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.
Registrar: GX Networks Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG] URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk
There are ostensible ripoffs directly from Wikipedia in the Resident Evil articles, mostly from past, unmodernized versions of them, while making no mention at all to Wikipedia.
I believe that site is compliant. However I have only imported one article as above and request that someone more up to speed with this advise whether current efforts are acceptable. Thanks in advance Nicholas Perkins (T•C)14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contact info
supernicko AT gmail.com
Actions
Britain tv
Britain tv
URL
http://www.britain.tv/articles/publish/ and http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php
Description
Sample
http://www.britain.tv/articles/publish/parliament_house_of_commons.shtml from British House of Commons and http://www.britain.tv/articles/publish/belly_dance_belly_dancing_music.shtml from Belly Dance and http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php?title=Philippines.
A separate mirror has also been created. This is located at http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php. An example is http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php?title=Philippines. Articles in this section clearly note that Wikipedia is the source. They say "extracted from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" with a link to the Wikipedia main page; Wikipedia also appears prominently elsewhere on the page. However, there is no link to Wikipedia or the GFDL, and "Copyright (c) 2006 Britain.tv All rights reserved" appears at the bottom in a graphic.
As of 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC), this second set (/wikipedia.php) appears to be dead.
Contact info
webmaster AT elite-media.co.uk
Actions
I sent an email asking that the ad hoc copies in the article section be removed outright, and explained how to make the articles in the Wikipedia section GFDL-compliant. Superm401 - Talk23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another dynamic loader. Uses a dynamic loading script (http://www.vacilando.org/index.php?x=7065) Links to Wikipedia Main Page, but claims that Wikipedia content is under a Creative Commons license. Not just any Creative Commons license, but a NonCommmercial license. Never mind that this is a commercial site with ads (see http://breathittteens.com/vb/index.php).
Domain expired 07/19/2009 .
Contact info
BREATHITTTEENS.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com (private whois), DMCA AT liquidweb.com
Almost completely copy and pasted from the Tabitha and Napoleon article here on wikipedia but not written verbatim. It's written in the author's own words but clearly all the information is taken from wikipedia with no attribution at all. It's even in the same arrangement (early life, career, directing, married life) but without the section headings.
Contact info
email: vlado AT thracetech.com and andrewiliu AT yahoo.com phone number +1.2068594180 Full WhoIs summary here ISP: easydns.com
No mention of the GFDL or Wikipedia on individual pages. On the About page, it says "Copyright: much of Bvio contents are directly from Wikipedia that follows GNU license." but there is still no link to the GFDL, even there. Website is badly mirrored, with misparsed formatting and broken images.
Still non-compliant as of April 2006. Any WP content there is badly outdated ([23] is marked "last updated 2004", for instance) and provides no attribution as to the origin of the text. --carlb15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calendar of historical events births holidays and observances is an e-book published by MobileReference for use on mobile devices. The URL links to Google books' incomplete copy. A complete copy has to be purchased from a commercial supplier.
Medium, judging from the Google books copy. Precise degree of compliance is difficult to evaluate without buying a commercial copy
Compliance
The licensing information provided on the "back cover" acknowledges that material from Wikipedia has been used, and that this material is licensed under the GFDL, although it also wrongly implies that this material is also "public domain". However, it also asserts "all rights reserved" over the work as a whole, whereas the GFDL requires that the whole of any modification of a work licensed under it—which is what this is—must also be licensed under the same licence or a substantially similar version.
A copy of the GFDL licence doesn't appear to be included anywhere in the publication, as required by the terms of that licence, although a link to an on-line copy of the licence appears to be provided with the licensing information. The licensing information includes an apology for not listing all the authors of the Wikipedia material, and asserts that these can be seen "by following the hyperlink at the bottom of each article". As far as is possible to tell from the Google books copy, such links do appear regularly throughout the the publication, but it doesn't appear to be possible to use the Google books copy to check that these links work and do in fact point to the proper articles.
States: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Partial differential equation". In the Wikipedia, a list of the autors/history is available."
Articles state towards top that "Portions of the summary below have been contributed by Wikipedia." but fails to identify the readers rights nor link back to Wikipedia. As an example the sample URL contains content that is word-for-word identical to this diff [24] which I do not believe is WP:COPYVIO. The text at the bottom says that "Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information." which is wrong as Wikipedia is not published originally in print form.
Copies a portion of the University of Oklahoma article with no mention of Wikipedia anywhere on the page. Has CampusEmpire.net copyright at the bottom.
A link back to individual wikipedia articles from the top of the page. The text of the link is quite prominent.
Confirmed. High Compliance. -Rholton 15:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
update - Doesn't seem to be using wikipedia content any longer. \Rexruff
update - I am the owner of campusprogram.com and only removed the wikipedia mirror because I believed I was not in compliance and that it was generally frowned upon. There are 1000's of backlinks that now go to a 404 page which is a shame. Any advice would be appreciated.
I've told him by email that he was complying perfectly, and he has expressed interest in setting up the mirror again. I referred him to some information on how to do so. Superm401 | Talk20:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Low compliance with GFDL (matches Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance). Full compliance.
Compliance
Has a note at the bottom of article, which includes several photos from wikipedia, that says "courtesy of Wikipedia" with a link to our main page. No GFDL, no link to the article (dog agility), no clarification that both text & photos come from there--and they have their own copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Have link back to article, GFDL text, and link to gnu.org copyleft page.
Contact info
Patricia Hunter is owner, cannot find email or phone number of admin and ISP. Patricia's company's phone number (UK: 01608 73 83 77) is on their web site, along with snail-mail address. April 4, got response from info (at) canineconcepts (dot) co.uk, signed Peter Hunter.
Actions
01:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC), emailing standard letter from Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter using GFDL letter for site that doesn't acknowldge WP (since compliance is so minimal). Used their form-based emailer since that seemed to be the only way to get them email. User:Elf . April 4, 2006: They revised this page and are in full compliance. Note: I have not checked their site for other wikipedia-source articles. User:Elf
Has a note at the bottom of article (which includes photos from wikipedia), that says "courtesy of thefreedictionary" with a link to their main page. No GFDL, no link to the article (dog agility), no clarification that both text & photos come from there--and they have their own copyright notice at the bottom of the page. (freedictionary is a wikipedia mirror)
Contact info
info (at) canineconcepts (dot) co.uk, signed Peter Hunter.
Actions
4 April 2006 (UTC), sent nice email about breed articles in reponse to his fix of the agility article (above). User:Elf
Have just sent another email using the standard wikipedia gfdl & linking text as recommended on this page's main page. Elf - Talk23:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just sent 3rd warning using standard 2nd warning modified with note about takedown notice if they don't comply, with list of some specific photos (there are too many on their site to list individually if I don't really have to go through the whole thing! but one can start comparing their photos to what we have posted at Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs). Sent again to caninecrib AT caninecrib.com. Elf - Talk01:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just got this email (email address syntax edited by me):
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:19:47 -0700
Subject: re: invalid use of Wikipedia material on your site
From: "CanineCrib" <caninecrib(at)caninecrib(dot)com>
Apologise for the late reply. Photos were sent to me via the public.
I will go through them and take them ones that are from wikipedia
regards
Chung
That page is dynamic and displays different versions at random on each load. Three of the versions contain quotes or very close paraphrases from Wikipedia articles Paper, Book, and ISBN. The only credit is "[Source: Wikipedia.com]". No GFDL information, no link, and entire site purports to be covered by a license that seems very much incompatible with GFDL: [26].
but on start page http://www.caribbean-forum.com/ has same message, this sounds like the site is affiliated with Wikipedia, even though on that page there stand only forums, no Wikipedia content
Examples failed to load. Main page www.caribbean-forum.com said "Lo sentimos, este sitio web está temporalmente cerrado" i.e. "Sorry, this website is temporarily closed" --Rumping17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each article ends with: " The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy" with link to www.wikipedia.org (using backwards Javascript) and to local copy of GFDL plus link to local description of how to find original article.
Mentions Wikipedia and has a link on the bottom (not clickable)
No GFDL Link
Sent standard GFDL email. David Newton 16:36, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If problem persists, and Dutch translation seems needed, add a message to my talk page. Don't expect a quick response from me, though. --Kasperl 19:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Page is now 404 missing. Diderot 10:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No mention of Wikipedia or GFDL. Pages copied verbatim from Wikipedia.
Contact info
No contact details listed on site. Whois lists contact as Ian Hawkins of AcornSearch, ian AT acornsearch.com, with a UK postal address & mobile phone number. Webhost appears to be Easynet, who publish an abuse contact email on their website & in whois.
Actions
Standard letter emailed to whois contact at 23:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC) by User:AJR. Awaiting response.
contact link at bottom of page with organizational email adress
Actions
CelebYOLO
CelebYOLO
URL
https://www.celebyolo.com/
Description
Repackages the first lines of Wikipedia articles about celebrities and their photos, adds a gallery of photos from random non-attributed sources.
Sample
https://www.celebyolo.com/celebs/abbie-cornish
Rating
None
Compliance
No copyright information whatsoever, links back to the English Wikipedia article with a sentence like "Read More about Natasha Bedingfield on Wikipedia".
I don't know what the term for this is, but it's basically link spam, they try to attract every search engine match possible to their link pages. That particular page rips off content from Limb darkening. There are lots more on that group of sites. No wikipedia credit or gfdl mention whatsoever. Actually the several that I looked at all use Sun-related snippets. Weird.
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)
I suggest completely ignoring it. We're prominent enough that a link to our article with our name is ample notice that people can reuse that text. Chances are that we're better recognised as meaning open content than the initials GFDL are at this point... The picture of Howard Staunton appears to be a simple reproduction of a work made during his life and given his date of death and US law that means it is now in the public domain and can be taken from their site and used in the Wikipedia. Jamesday 21:05, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe this site should be listed as Low compliance (as it currently is). It may not be a shining example to hold up, but they sure made it clear where the article came from. Anyone following the link would then become aware of its GFDL status. There are better things than this to worry about. -Rholton 04:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"High" compliance with CC-BY-SA (matches Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance) (compare against GFDL if they choose that license).
Compliance
In sharing information about IJM's work, Christians on the Left Web site used some of IJM's own language, descriptions and case studies to best describe what IJM does.
Contact info
E-mails, phone numbers, contact form URLs, etc. of admin and ISP.
Actions
IJM will contact Christians on the Left to ask to reference material/Wikipedia.
Main page seems to have copied dating, including a vandilism
No mention of GFDL, lot of other site too, just look for "Dyersburg, Tennessee, illegal for a woman to contact a man by telephone"--Rayc23:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Partial. Some articles credit Wikipedia, some do not
Contact info
admin AT citizendium.org
Actions
At 14/07/2009 I sent the standard letter about the article Chess. SyG At 25/07/2009 I sent a follow-up letter. SyG At 27/07/2009 I received a letter from "constables@citizendium.org" saying they had started a discussion on their forum at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2787.15/topicseen.html and they added a mention on Wikipedia on their "Chess" article. SyG At 01/08/2009 I checked that the link to WP was in their "Chess" article indeed, and I sent a reply saying thank you (among other things). SyG
has a policy that articles that take content from wikipedia should credit but not all do. Situation with images worse. However the site is new so it is to be expected they will take some time to find their feet. No action taken at this time.
Actually, they are now widely violating the GFDL and they explicitly intend to do so according to their founder on their forums. Last I looked, their plans were not yet finalized but they were bouncing between either taking Wikipedia content and calling it cc-by-nc or calling Wikipedia content GFDL and keeping CZ originated articles as CC-by-nc with the explicit intention of using a non-free-content license to avoid any cooperation with Wikipedia (from whom they take a significant amount of content). Their frequent copying of images from commons, even in approved articles, with zero attribution or license data is especially troubling. --Gmaxwell01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where on their forums do they explicitly say that they intend on violating the GFDL? I checked out this topic on the GFDL but I couldn't find what you are talking about. I saw something on CC-by-NC-SA: is that the same as CC-by-nc? Even if it is the same, how does CC-by-nc violate the GFDL? I'm only asking because I don't know. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am of course not a lawyer, but it does seem re-releasing GFDL under CC-by-nc might require a day in court at some point. But that may be okay. We don't really know what the GFDL means until such a time, nor the interoperability between the GFDL and any CC licenses. A "day in court" could be a considerable societal good.
That's reply #3 in above mentioned thread. The idea is then re-inforced several times in that thread, also by Larry Sanger. But it's only one of many alternatives discussed there.
I edit Citizendium and I will not link back to Wikipedia or give any credit to Wikipedia when I am the only author of the Wikipedia entry. Andries21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In very small print: "(Source: wikipedia.org)" The text "wikipedia.org" links to www.wikipedia.org. Does same thing for some pages taken from IMDb. No mention of GFDL. Claims copyright at bottom of page. On its "disclaimer" page, it quotes U.S. copyright law on fair use.
Contact info
Admin: webmaster AT classictvhits.com 978-886-2357 ISP: domains AT ev1servers.net 713-333-7873
This Pot Smoker of the Month is in significant parts a copyvio of Wikipedia's article on Melissa Etheridge
clearups.com
clearups.com
URL
http://www.clearups.com/
Description
Sample
http://www.clearups.com/af.html
Rating
"Low/None"
Compliance
[32] "Content is for general informational purposes only and any copyrighted materials with be removed immediately if requested by the rightful copyright owners."
Book's copyright page mentions Wikimedia Commons as the source of the images, but there is no mention of the GFDL. The text is clearly stolen from a variety of articles related to Manchester United F.C. but no mention of Wikipedia is made.
Contact info
info@codabooks.com
Actions
I attempted to email the company using the email address on their website, but I immediately received a failed email notice. I have also submitted a copyright (or copyleft) infringement notice to Amazon.
Currently in non-workable state, full with "\n" and "font=", etc. I would assume noone with any sense would use it --Msoos13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely false copyright claim on Wikipedia data, inappropriate usage of Wikipedia Trademark as logo
http://wikipedia.cognition.com/info/tos.html
Ownership of Materials
Materials are copyrighted and are protected by worldwide copyright laws and treaty provisions. They may not be copied, reproduced, modified, published, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, without Cognition Technologies' prior written permission.
GFDL notice with mention of Wikipedia and local link to the GFDL on all economics page copied. However, every page links to our list of economics topics rather than the particular page copied.
Contact info
duran AT colombialink.com, sales AT ifxcorp.com (host)
Actions
Received message that they have fixed problems and appreciate my notice. However, I replied noting that they link to the wrong page for most articles. Superm401 - Talk23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Site features numerous comedian profiles; all four I checked were cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia articles with minor editing. Pamela Stephenson article includes material written by me. Comedy Zone notices claim copyright to site content, no mention of Wikipedia, GFDL, or link to source. I checked threefour more comedian profiles at random, and all were simply cut-and-pastes of corresponding Wikipedia articles with some abridgement.
Contact info
ray.chapman AT comedy-zone.net (registrant whois), hostmaster AT POSITIVE-INTERNET.COM (technical whois), good AT positive-internet.com (host email listed on their site)
Actions
Sent copy of PD letter (modified to note the other pages besides the one I contributed to) to technical contact with request that they pass on on to Mr/Ms Chapman. --Calair00:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://books.google.com/books?id=9dNOT9iYxcMC (at Google Books)
Description
Sample
http://books.google.com/books?id=9dNOT9iYxcMC&lpg=PA1104&pg=PA1104#v=onepage&q&f=false (at Google Books). This was questioned as a source for Etymology of Assam at WP:RS/N.
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
Note that this is a book, not a website. I don't see any credit given to (nor any other mention of) Wikipedia. Publisher claims "All Rights Reserved."
Contact info
www.atlanticbooks.com, info@atlanticbooks.com (as given in the book)
Actions
None.
concordchrysler300.com
Site: http://concordchrysler300.com/wiki2.php
Just raw copy of Simple English Wikipedia.
The only mention of GFDL and Wikipedia is from the links in the actual Main Page of the Simple English Wikipedia.
Notes that material ("information" as the site says) is from Wikipedia, with link to original article and main page (at top and bottom of article respectively) and links to local copy of the GFDL. Specifically disclaims copyright of Wikipedia material in copyright section (with another local link to the GFDL). Authors and dates are not listed.
Contact info
jrutherfordmd AT hotmail.com (whois), support AT oar.net (host)
Received reply stating "I am forwarding this to my webmaster, who only works on this in his frre [sic] time, to make corrections. We will stay in touch and follow-up." Superm401 - Talk03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consumer's Research Council of America
Consumer's Research Council of America
URL
http://www.consumersresearchcncl.org
Description
Sample
http://www.consumersresearchcncl.org/Healthcare/Dermatologists/derma_chapter1.html (compare [33], which shows page was put together on wiki slowly)
The site uses Wikipedia (and Wikibooks) content about cooking, kitchen appliances, diets, ect (all of their recipes come from Wikibooks). They provide a link to the text of the GFDL at the GNU's site, and to the Wikipedia Main Page, but not to specific articles (and make no reference to Wikibooks at all).
I received a reply from Chris Anstey, letting me know that the links have been changed to the relevant articles, and wikibooks content is now properly attributed. Gentgeen 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think I would call them medium compliance overall, slightly higher compliance with respect to Wikipedia, and slightly lower in respect to Wikibooks.
Changing to high compliance, after checking the site. Gentgeen 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Standard letter (modified to include Wikibooks issues) sent on January 5 by Gentgeen
Received reply January 15, 2005. Gentgeen 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Like #Algebra.com, it looks like a nearly complete copy of Wikipedia from May 18. Links to the corresponding Wikipedia articles and notes that each article is licensed under the GFDL at the bottom of each page. However, it appears to be dynamically fetched, which is a major drain on Wikipedia resources. See for instance http://www.cooldictionary.com/words/Portal:Current%20events.wikipedia.
The main page is the Wikipedia article on Nicolaus Copernicus, but they seem to have copied all of the article namespace but none of the other namespaces.
They link to the GFDL at GNU.org, and to the respective Wikipedia article, and mention Wikipedia, at the bottom of every page.
However, as of 03:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC), google seems to still pick them up even with "-wikipedia" added. Strange. JesseW 03:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Example www.cottagebuddy.com/cottage_resources/en/Mormaerdom_of_Moray
States: 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. The source of this article is Wikipedia and a list of the authors can be found here. with broken links failing to reach GFDL at gnu.org, original article and history
The above sample is a slightly amended and shortened version of the Wikipedia article Bowling machine. No mention is made of GFDL or Wikipedia. I found two other examples: [36], a significant portion of which is lifted, with only minor re-wording, from Hawk-Eye and [37], which consists of a few extracts from Hot Spot (cricket). These pages aren't complete copies of whole articles, but they are clearly derived from them and consist mainly of shortened and slightly modified extracts. At the foot of every page it says "This blog copyright � 2008 Cricket Updates. All Rights Reserved"
Example: engdic.daum.net/dicen/search.do?m=all&q=agreement%20concerning using Wikipedia as a text corpus. Phrases include extracts from (sometimes old versions)
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/ is the root, though http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/AEmain.html and http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/ETEmain.html are the main home index pages.
Some (not all) pages are verbatim copies of old Wikipedia articles. No mention that the content is under the GFDL, no mention of or links to Wikipedia. "All original content, including text, code, page design, graphics, and sound, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Science, which is part of The Worlds of David Darling web site, is protected by copyright." Please see conversation at Talk:David_Darling_(astronomer)
Contact info
daviddarling@daviddarling.info
Actions
None
DBPedia
DBPedia
URL
https://www.dbpedia.org
Description
Has "Global and Unified Access to Knowledge Graphs" directly on its front page in huge text; further information is at https://www.dbpedia.org/about
Sample
https://dbpedia.org/page/Hirokichi_Nadao
Rating
High or Medium.
Compliance
"This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" at the bottom of pages.
Contact info
Has a write an email button on the top right on at least the about page.
Adds own copyright notice, no mention of wikipedia, source
Contact info
DCULT.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com (private whois), abuse AT domainsbyproxy.com, abuse AT godaddy.com (registrar/host), http://domainsbyproxy.com/LegalAgreement.aspx?prog_id= (post only)
admin = Richard Vaughton (richard AT torquay.com, +44.1803211116); hosted at 213.171.219.1 = Fasthosts Internet Limited (abuse AT fasthosts.co.uk, +44 1452 541251)
Actions
Owner contacted. Has promised to address the situation in the next couple of days (as of 2007/11/30)
Site is still unchanged (2009/02/14)
Site still unchanged (2009/03/08)
DictionPedia
DictionPedia
URL
http://www.dictionpedia.com
Description
Sample
http://www.dictionpedia.com/en/Civilization
Rating
low
Compliance
Each page gives correct (sortof) license at the bottom, but the link to further information on the license (the link "copyright") does not lead to a functioning page. No proper explaining of the GFDL, and no backlinks to Wikipedia.
References to Wikipedia are not explicit, even though Wikimedia is mentioned.
A bottom link pointing to About:DictionPedia leads to a page about Wikipedia.
The site is heavily filled with Google AdSense Ad's etc.
What's worse, the site's main page which is simply a search field, claims that content is (C) DictionPedia.
The page title still has "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"!
Contact info
Unknown - tried to find one, but miserably failed. Hopefully someone will be able to do dig deeper
Happy to comply private registration through DomainsByProxy Inc, Contact is DICTIONPEDIA.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com - Abuse contacts abuse AT domainsbyproxy.com (hidden omain registration) and abuse AT godaddy.com (registrar) mail those if you have no luck with the above MttJocy (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links to Wikipedia, no GFDL I can find, no authors, also includes copyright notice
Contact info
Actions
Dirpedia
Dirpedia
URL
http://www.dirpedia.com
Description
Sample
http://www.dirpedia.com/hobbies.html Compare with Hobby
Rating
"Medium"
Compliance
Fairly poor site that credits Wikipedia and the GFDL without linking to the articles in question, except in their silly "edit this page" links at top. Discovered it because the site spammed a good deal of Europe recently (Email dated May 5, 2006)
No mention of copyright, authors or license. Links back to the original English Wikipedia article with a confusing "read more". No links or attribution whatsoever for images. Direct hotlinking of images.
DMCA request sent via CloudFlare for personal non-free non-Wikipedia site that is also mirrored by dir.md, as an even more obvious case of copyright violation. Awaiting response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this site copies entire Wikipedia articles or only parts of articles. I don't know how much the site has copied in total. This requires further research.
Contact info
Ian Langtree, who lives in Chateauguay, Quebec, Canada. The site owner provides an "email us" form, but doesn't list his phone number on the site. The site owner's email address and phone number are available via whois. "If required we will send you a reply via email as soon as possible usually within 24 - 48 hours. Our general office hours are 8:00 to 6:00 Monday - Saturday, New York time (USA EDT) or UTC/GMT -5 hours."[41]
Will complete later, most pages copy the lead, the contents page and any categories
Rating
Medium, I think.
Compliance
Links to article page in miniscule text, stating "Some data may have been obtained" when some definitely has. States at bottom of page "Copyright 2010, Discovery Media"
Contact info
E-mail, phone number of admin and ISP. To be completed
Actions
Actions taken (if any) to attempt to make the website comply. None yet as at 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Diseasesign.com
Diseasesign.com
URL
http://www.diseasesign.com
Description
Sample
http://www.diseasesign.com/cancer.html
Rating
Medium
Compliance
States that content is from Wikipedia (with link to article at www.wikipedia.org), no mention found of license, no history link. Adds obnoxious adverts.
Contact info
contactus*at*diseasesign.com
Actions
None as yet
Disease Reference
Disease Reference
URL
http://www.disease-reference.com
Description
Sample
http://www.disease-reference.com/Autoimmune.htm
Rating
Medium
Compliance
States that content is from Wikipedia (with link to www.wikipedia.org) and licensed under the GFDL, which it links to a local copy of. Also includes medical disclaimer. Does not include history section or link to original article. Superm401 - Talk16:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find any indication that the articles are taken from Wikipedia
Contact info
Actions
dogedaos.com
The Ultimate Dog Breeds Information Guide and Reference
URL
https://dogedaos.com/
|name=Dogedaos
|sample=https://dogedaos.com/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh.html from [[Vincent van Gogh]]
|rating=Low
|compliance=Full [[IPFS]] copy of Wikipedia
|contact
|action
}}
===dogluvers.com===
{{Wikipedia mirror
|url=<nowiki>http://www.dogluvers.com/
Uses popular mirror template. Includes "The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy" with local link to GFDL and instructions to get to original article.
Contact info
Actions
Requested that they mention Wikipedia on every page, as well as briefly describig the GFDL and changing the "Terms of Use" text to "GFDL License". Awaiting response. Superm401 - Talk06:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uses Wikipedia's Logo and default MediaWiki color scheme, might confuse people into thinking they're reading or editing wikipedia. Not a fork per se, but I didn't know where else to put this.
Contact info
none listed
Actions
Left note on the wiki's main talk page, and also suggested content might make a good wikibook. [42]
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.
Medium. While the DFW is a fanon wiki, it has dozens of links to both the English and Portuguese Wikipedias, with most of the English links coming from one template. The site also steals a lot of content from both Wikipedia articles and templates.
Wikipedia mirror site operated by the "Consulting Center for Study in China in Ho Chi Minh City". Some of them are even copies of sandboxes and userpages.
Mention that the article is from Wikipedia but without link to Wikipedia, GFDL, or the individual aritcle. Claims that the page presents copyrighted material under fair use doctorine of the U.S. copyright law. The publisher seems to be a Dutch. Fair use for an entire article is quite dubious. The extent of their use is not investigated. It may be just one article.
Contact info
Leendert Geerts: webmaster AT GEERTS.COM (admin whois), abuse AT 4rweb.com (host)
Some Wikipedia-scraped listings give GFDL notice with local copy of the GFDL (actors, eg. http://listing-index.ebay.com/actors/Pat_Renella.html), others do not (games, eg. http://listing-index.ebay.com/games/The_Bloodstone_Wars.html). Includes link to original article. No authors or dates listed.
Contact info
No general contact address. Web form about "Reporting Intellectual Property Infringements (VeRO)" (http://cgi1.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=InlineSelfHelpWebform&wftype=2024&rcode=VE%25V00024&subject=Reporting%20Intellectual%20Property%20Infringements%20(VeRO)&bcrumb=+Home+%3E+Help+%3E%A0Transaction+Problems+and+Protections%A0%3E%A0What+eBay+Can+Do%A0%3E%A0Reporting+Intellectual+Property+Infringements+%28VeRO%29&instruction=&expirationDate=). registeredagent AT ebay.com (DMCA).
Still badly non-compliant; www.economicexpert.com/a/WPBS.html returns the text of the original 2004 version of this page "New York broadcaster WPBS-TV is one of two PBS flagship stations, the other being KPBS in California...". Content is mangled in such a way as to insert random bits from the California-related articles being wikilinked, before resuming with the description of the New York station. No attribution to author and no GFDL notice on page. (I'm running NoScript under Firefox; any search engine retrieving this page would also see the no-JS version) Not much correlation to the real WPBS-DT article here as is mangled, unattributed and five years out of date. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Economy-point
English-language translation of (parts of) the German wikipedia
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<office AT economy-point.org>:
213.17.224.150 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Giving up on 213.17.224.150.
Willy on Wheels (confirmed via dialogue on another editthis) plagiarized Wikipedia's Adolf Hitler page word for word. Also, vandal and admin templates were plagiarized. Finally (obviously), the logo was used
footers show all rights reserved mark although the sample is a carbon copy to the photos (leads to upload.wikimedia.org) Even has a "Recent Changes" page.
Confusingly lists Wikimedia Foundation as the author, though the republisher is not affiliated. Lists names of Wikipedia editors who contributed to the articles.
Listed at Scholarly Open Access: "repackager of online content and wikipedia entries. Seems to specialize in study guides for professional certifications and celebrity biography. Often have 'what you need to know' or '20 most asked questions about' in the title. Over 3000 titles by this publisher are listed via Amazon". Example linked above seems to involve word-switching, which mangles the grammar of the original Wikipedia articles. Other samples: [46][47].
In at least one item, the cover provides no information about the publisher, author or sources, but the first page mentions GFDL (although the last page actually includes only a link to CC-BY-SA in very small font) and all the individual authors for all Wikipedia articles are listed at the end. The format is identical to PediaPress mwlib and preserves both tables and infoboxes (centred at the beginning of each article). There is no attribution for images, although all of them are listed with their authors at the end.
Was probably downscaled in 2016 after negative reviews [48][49][50], as with earlier complaints. As of 2018, about 100 books are listed on Amazon.com, largely marked as unavailable.
emporiumbooks.com.au
Said Mohammad Ali Jawid, ISBN9786131474835 - Books, Discount Books, Cheap Books, Australian Bookstore - Emporium Books
Links to original article at top. Links to offsite GFDL with notice "This article is from Wikimedia Commons. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." with boilerplate copyright notice at bottom.
Contact info
ssamoylov AT gmail.com, team AT allaboutall.info, domains AT superkate.net (whois), abuse AT blacklotus.net (emycontent host)
Received reply from ssamoylov AT gmail.com, noting that there is a link to the original article. Replied back asking for local link to the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
enacademic.com
enacademic.com
URL
https://enacademic.com/
Description
Appears to attempt to be an "index of dictionaries".
Sample
https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/4071423
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
Mentions Wikimedia Foundation but not CC BY-SA, site in Russian.
Contact info
Actions
en-academic.com
en-academic.com
URL
https://en-academic.com/
Description
Appears to attempt to be an "index of dictionaries".
Material says "Copyright � 2005 Par Web Solutions All Rights reserved.". Is that a valid copyright claim, alongside the GFDL link and the link to Wikipedia? Corvus cornixtalk22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt is an e-book published by MobileReference for use on mobile devices. The URL links to Google books' incomplete copy. A complete copy has to be purchased from a commercial supplier.
Medium, judging from the Google books copy. Precise degree of compliance is difficult to evaluate without buying a commercial copy
Compliance
The licensing information provided on the "back cover" acknowledges that material from Wikipedia has been used, and that this material is licensed under the GFDL, although it also wrongly implies that this material is also "public domain". However, it also asserts "all rights reserved" over the work as a whole, whereas the GFDL requires that the whole of any modification of a work licensed under it—which is what this is—must also be licensed under the same licence or a substantially similar version.
A copy of the GFDL licence doesn't appear to be included anywhere in the publication, as required by the terms of that licence, although a link to an on-line copy of the licence appears to be provided with the licensing information. The licensing information includes an apology for not listing all the authors of the Wikipedia material, and asserts that these can be seen "by following the hyperlink at the bottom of each article". As far as is possible to tell from the Google books copy, such links do appear regularly throughout the the publication, but it doesn't appear to be possible to use the Google books copy to check that these links work and do in fact point to the proper articles.
Article ends with "This article is provided by contributions of Wikimedia Foundation. All text is available under the GNU free documentation license. View live article. Copyright & Disclaimer ". Links to local GFDL and original article. No authors or dates listed.
Contact info
Ali Ocalir: Gmail address his first, then last name lowercase with no punctuation. See whois.
Actions
Sent letter to address above asking that notice links be underlined. Superm401 -
Received reply from address above saying it would be done. It looks line some CSS was changed, but it still doesn't quite work in Firefox so I suggested a fix. Superm401 - Talk23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find any indication that the articles are taken from Wikipedia, but the style and the listing of topics are similar
Contact info
Actions
Encyclopedia PRO
<name of the webpage> (not url)
URL
http://www.encyclopediapro.com/mw/Main_Page
Description
Sample
http://www.encyclopediapro.com/mw/Acetone
Rating
"Low/None"
Compliance
No mention of Wikipedia, articles are a complete copy of Wikipedia articles.
Contact info
info@goldenframe.com
Actions
None
Encyclopédie française
URL: www.encyclopediefrancaise.com
Example: www.encyclopediefrancaise.com/Conférence_de_Berlin.html appears to be a translation of en:Berlin Conference (1884) rather than a copy of fr:Conférence de Berlin and similarly with other pages
No obvious mention of Wikipedia, GFDL, source, history or copyright.
Nearly every article is a complete copy of a Wikipedia article on wine with many images uses. There is a vague and generic disclaimer on their license page saying that some material is from Wikipedia but there is no link from individual articles or images to their original Wikipedia source.
Contact info
webmaster AT encyclowine.org, Dixie Maquet
Actions
12/26/2007 sent email with links to Wikipedia's GFDL compliance page and requesting attribution on all articles and links using Wikipedia content. AgneCheese/Wine17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EncycloZine is organized into subsites which include: Artzia.com, Eluzions.comDiXionary.comKosmoi.com and possibly others, all very liberally plastered with links to books available on Amazon.
Not always link to current version of article
Not always link to GFDL
Contact info
kosmoi AT btinternet.com (whois)
Actions
Sent standard letter. There is no webmaster email address posted, so I posted it on the forum. Vacuumc 21:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
The "Named Colors" section was at least partially scraped from Wikipedia due to containing several colors that used to be on the Wikipedia list, but were later deleted due to being poorly sourced or made up by a Wikipedia editor. Examples include zinnwaldite, AuroMetalSaurus, medium candy apple red, awesome, and Cal Poly Pomona Green. No indication of CC-BY-SA license anywhere on the site.
Says to edit user submissions, but clearly does not care about copyright: example is a copy-paste of Thermal diffusivity, this page is the table of contents of a likely copyvio of [51], etc.
Wikipedia text is copied with no attribution at all which is in violation of the GFD license. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin which was copied at or after 03:33, October 27, 2007.
Contact info
Registrant:
ePier Inc.
1503 North Regal
Spokane, WA 99207
US
Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :
Kim, James
jkim@epier.com
1503 N REGAL ST
SPOKANE, WA 99207-5361
US
Phone: 509-534-0334
Fax: 509-534-0334
Content copied from wikipedia articles, even including clean up tags in some cases ([52]), but otherwise no mention of wikipedia or gfdl anywhere to be seen.
Contact info
EQUITYEDU.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com (proxy whois), abuse AT godaddy.com (host whois)
Overall site contains links to smaller domains such as sample URL. Text and photos from outdated version of article, no attribution to Wikipedia or mention of GFDL.
Appears to be primarily focused on biographies, with no notability requirements whatsoever. The unnamed creator of the site appears to have started the site off with a database dump of a number of wikis, including Wikipedia, and, based on the poor spelling and grammar throughout the site's interface, is probably not a native speaker of English. Site includes copies of deleted mainspace articles. Also copies from draftspace can be found.
Entire wiki is listed as under CC-BY-SA. They apparently at some point imported around 45k BLPs from enwiki, but provide full attribution and links back to Wikipedia on each imported page.
Is now hosted on a blockchain, with a focus on cryptocurrency. A lot of the content is copied from Wikipedia.
Claims to include every wikipedia article. Claims to allow creation of articles on any topic that can be sourced, without regard to notability requirements. Claims to encourage verified celebrities to edit their own pages. Claims to be an improvement on Wikipedia.
Articles aren't credited to Wikipedia. Terms of Service claims that the content is licensed under CC-BY 4.0 (note the lack of SA), which is definitely a violation.
Main page and FAQ say everything is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Individual pages have an Everipedia CC symbol but no direct CC link. Links back to source Wikipedia article, and to other cited sources. Explicitly says article is based on a Wikipedia article. Terms of service page say everything is under CC-BT-SA-4.0, and are linked to from each article
DCMI takedown sent for Great_American_Lesbian_Art_Show (DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)) Response that said everything is under CC-BY-SA, and pointed out (small) CC symbol which I had mistaken for a copyright symbol. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Seems to have dropped the links back to Wikipedia, which would provide the required attribution. I've send another e-mail to see if I'm just missing this or it's been hidden (like with World Heritage). Kuru(talk)22:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Update: Site owner identified this as a bug; seems to have been corrected now.[reply]
Has thorough GFDL notice with links to www.wikipedia.org, original article, and local copy of the GFDL. States, "Just like any written work the authors or contributors of the article own the copyright but by contributing their work to Wikipedia they are licensing it under the terms of the GNU FDL This license means that you are free to print and share the articles with anyone you wish, provided that you comply with the GNU FDL. If you share them please let recipients know they are free to continue sharing the article under the same terms." No authors or dates listed.
Contact info
support AT everythingpreschool.com, m.gutting AT comcast.net (whois), abuse AT pair.com (host)
Actions
Standard email sent. -Rholton 02:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Received reply from support AT everythingpreschool.com (correct address) noting that the GFDL was reuploaded and the disclaimer improved. I replied thanking them but noting that part was cut off. I also brought up some wording problems. Superm401 - Talk22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Received another reply from support AT everythingpreschool.com . Notice was improved to note copyright and GFDL requirements, and is less cut off now. I replied suggesting using SSI instead of an iframe. Superm401 - Talk03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
States: "Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Notation and examples", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki"
No obvious link to original article or GFDL
Explained.At
Explained.At: The Information and Knowledge Portal
ls_services_eire AT yahoo.ie,info AT explanation-guide.info, feedback-1607 AT explanation-guide.info
Actions
Follow up. Since explanation-guide (EG) did not give attribution for the image at Gbe languages which I created and released under CC-by-2.0, I thought I'd send an email. Below I paste the contents of my first mail, the answer of mr. Lawrence Smith of EG, and my response. I sent my mail to feedback-1607 AT explanation-guide.info and to info AT explanation-guide.info and I got an answer from info AT explanation-guide.info. I will be posting further results soon. - Mark Dingemanse(talk) 21:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The images are released under the Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0). Explanation-Guide, unlike Wikipedia, does not give the required attribution, thereby violating the license.
I trust that you resolve this issue soon, either by not using the images or by giving proper attribution to the creator.
Thank you,
Mark Dingemanse
Dear Mr. Dingemanse,
Please accept my apologies: I was not aware that the images are licensed separately to the texts. Thankyou for pointing this out.
As a short-term solution we have linked each image to an information page which links to the relevant page at Wikipedia. I hope this established attribution. We will try and add a more user-friendly and informative solution in the near future.
Yours sincerely
Lawrence Smith
Dear Mr. Smith,
thank you for your quick response. However, the short-term solution you propose does not work at present for the images I mentioned. The problem is that the respective Wikipedia articles contain scaled down versions of the original images. In the Wikipedia articles, this scaled down version is linked to the original image and to the attribution information, thereby fulfilling the license requirements. On explanation-guide, this link is lost, the scaled down version is copied, and the information page instead refers to a non-existent page on Wikipedia. Which leaves the issue unresolved.
I do trust that you will find a solution soon.
Thank you,
Mark Dingemanse
Dear Mr. Dingemanse,
Once again my apologies. The links now take into account scaling issues and link to the correct Wikipedia page.
Attempted to view website, domain servers at 8.8.8.8 & 8.8.4.4 (Google) were unable to resolve the domain name. Annotated status of this entry to reflect this using the description property. 0x6949441116:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without images, links to original article and local GFDL with text "This page and the Original Article used for this page are available for download under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."; no mention of Wikipedia. There is an image that says "From Wikipedai, the free encyclopedia" beneath the title.
Contact info
EZRESULT.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com, abuse AT ev1servers.net (host whois)
Actions
First email sent with a proposal for improvement. Andre Engels 00:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Reaction: "We will take up your suggestion during our next database/site update." Andre Engels 10:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This has been updated. (ezresult webmaster) 10:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
essentialresults: No substantial content at examples; site is domain parked
Links to www.wikipedia.org and local copy of the GFDL.
states: "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." but ends with "copyright ? 2004 FactsAbout.com"
Keeps "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Links to original Wikipedia article. Uses Wikipedia's GFDL notice ("All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.") but links to GFDL article, not actual license. That version of the article does link to the license very early. Pages say "modified by Geona".
Links to www.wikipedia.org and local copy of the GFDL. Has donated $2500 to Wikimedia. Notes this as "Fact-index.com financially supports the Wikimedia Foundation."
Forum rules prohibit posting of copyrighted materials. Unattributed text from Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray) has been copied verbatim and posted on the forums. Forum moderator both fails to acknowledge a copyright breach has occured and asserts no obligation to remove copyrighted material from the site. Attempts to communicate with Icarus directly have resulted in no response.
Sent a letter using contact form asking for link to original article, proper GFDL notice (without bogus copyright claim), and local copy of the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Received an email in reply from Mark Ayres. Email states: "Thanks for your email and your comments regarding GFDL compliance at www.famouspeople.co.uk. I have no record and don't recall receiving the earlier email that you refer too. However, we've reviewed the licence [again] to try and clarify your comments, and we stand corrected on a few points. Personally I don't find this licence a very straightforward one to interpret, but I agree that some changes are needed. As such we've added a locally hosted copy of the licence rather than the remote one at FSI, and this page is linked to by the text "GNU Free Documentation License" on every page on the site. The "Copyright 2007Splashweb, all rights reserved" statement was actually changed some weeks ago to "Copyright Statement. FamousPeople.co.uk is published by Splashweb".The "Copyright Statement" link leads to an updated Copyright Statement page with a link, in context, through to the copy of the licence. Many thanks for highlighting these points, not only to help ensure that compliance, but also these changes will make the copyright issue clearer to our visitors.". Site seems to be in 'medium' compliance from now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has notice, "This content from Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article Samantha Mumba" with link to www.wikipedia.org, original article, and offsite GFDL. Also lists Wikipedia as a "friend". :)
Contact info
Actions
Fastload.org
Fastload.org
URL
http://www.fastload.org/
Description
Sample
http://www.fastload.org/co/Computer_science.html
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Includes text "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
You may copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
To view or edit this article at Wikipedia, follow this link." "Follow this link" leads directly to the Wikipedia article copied. However, the GFDL link is to their copy of GFDL, not the actual license. That page links to Wikipedia:Text of the GFDL, which they include in the mirror.
Received response stating they would ignore copyright complaints that were not in the form of a DMCA takedown notice. [::Example redirects to computer-science.brainsip.com/ with no obvious Wikipedia content; www.fastload.org has links to Wikipedia but no substantial content --Rumping (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now seems that the site has fallen into disrepair. 16:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Complete copies of WikiPedia and simple at fixed moments in time. Link to wikipedia.org and local copy of GFDL, as well as disclaimer. No link to original article. Done by BozMo and others: so people can see the project development and cite a fixed text with certainty.
Direct copies, for sale, of scores of Wikipedia biographical articles. Published with a GDFL license, and copyrighted to Filiquarian Publishing, LLC. There are 48 such titles listed at Google Books.[54]
Contact info
Joshua Linsk 2020 Highland Pkwy St. Paul, S 55116
,
United States
+1.9523744322 Fax -- +1.6516980554
"High", "Medium", or "Low/None" compliance with CC-BY-SA (matches Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance) (compare against GFDL if they choose that license).
Compliance
Footer: "This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article: Electronic trading. Articles is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply."
Uses text from country / city articles to pad out car-hire listings for respective locations. No mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL. Apparently used to have links to Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:Copyrights, and possibly GFDL.
* Copies most of article (with minor rewording). Could not find the terms "wiki", "FDL", or "doc" on the page. Standard letter sent. --Astronouth7303 00:01, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fleetwoodmac.org appears to function as a live web scraper (as an anecdotal test, compare any page from Special:Recentchanges with the corresponding page at the Fleetwoodmac.org domain). At the bottom, the source (Wikipedia) is credited, but nowhere is the copyright status indicated.
Update: Uncle_Sam_(diamond) example has same content as frontpage , the three paragraph intro of Fleetwood Mac, and no obvious mention of Wikipedia. Some group related info also comes from Wikipedia, e.g from Mick Fleetwood, without mentioning source or GFDL. Not obviously scraping. 23:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Contact info
A WHOIS search indicates that the domain is owned by "Mesa Verde Enterprises"; contact information is admin AT mesaverdeenterprises.com
Response received by email 13 December, now uses attribution text from Wikipedia:Copyrights#Example notice (links to GFDL at gnu.org and to source article at Wikipedia.) Apparently the non-compliance was accidental, in an email to me they say: "We are ready to fully comply with the requirements. It just dropped through bug detection. :(" -- AJR - Talk17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Direct cut and paste of sections from nearly every football club article and also notable players. Falsely claims copyright. GFDL is not mentioned at all. No mention of Wikipedia or link to original article.
Contact info
Jonathan Kahn (via http://footballyears.net/contactus.htm) and janetzar AT aol.com (via domain whois)
This is a multi-lingual mirror. No mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL on article pages. There's an "About this article" link in bold at the bottom of the page, which acknowledges GFDL, links to the current version of the article, to the discussion page and to the version history. There is little to indicate the importance of this link. It's also always in English, even for mirrored versions of other language Wikipedias. Mentions Wikipedia on http://www.freeglossary.com/h.php?c=about . Appears to be a mirror of all articles.
Site now appears to be non-existent or broken, unable to http, tracrt or ping to it. I will try again in a few days and if not available I think we can presume it is now defunct. Sjc09:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contact info
webmaster AT freeglossary.com, bauer AT valuenetmedia.com (whois)
Actions
Violation letter sent October 21 2004 Sjc 09:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems to use dynamic loading. All pages link to original article, local copy of the GFDL, and Wikipedia's copy of the page history. Has its own disclaimer (http://en.freepedia.org/Disclaimer.html), which seems to present the work as its own authorship.
The standard CC-BY-SA-3.0 message was copied along with the rest of the content, but there is no link back to Wikipedia and the page history links are broken.
http://www.gamblingsitesforsale.com/craps/dice.html copy of Dice
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
"From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, by MultiMedia" (Multimedia links to http://www.multimedia.com.ro/). No GFDL visible.
Contact info
Actions
No actions taken yet.
gamelow.com
GameLow.com
URL
http://www.gamelow.com/
Description
Sample
http://www.gamelow.com/puzzles/logic.html
Rating
None
Compliance
No mention of GFDL. Claims copyright. No links to original article or mention of Wikipedia. No history section. Contains copies of the old wiki entries.
No mention of GFDL. Claims copyright with all rights reserved. No links to original article or mention of Wikipedia. No history section. Copies of Wikipedia articles date to approximately the first quarter of 2006.
Fork of Wikipedia designed for gaming. Everything (including original content) is licensed under GFDL. This is noted at the bottom of every page, with link to offsite GFDL. Articles using Wikipedia include text "This article uses source material obtained from Wikipedia, as well as links to main page and original article.
No mention of GFDL. Claims copyright with all rights reserved. No links to original article or mention of Wikipedia. No history section. Moonlightchest have other Wikipedia stuff that appears to be equally non-compliant but I have not looked at it in detail.
automatically translates en.wikipedia.org into several languages, adds an ad at the bottom
Sample
https://gaz.wiki/wiki/es/Ice_hockey
Rating
Medium-Low
Compliance
makes it clear the material is "from Wikipedia", but doesn't mention the license and doesn't link to wikipedia.org
Contact info
not yet
Actions
not yet
geekopedia
Geekopedia
URL
http://geekopedia.ipupdater.com
Description
Sample
http://albania.geekopedia.ipupdater.com/
Rating
Medium
Compliance
States (in very fine print) "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Link to Wikipedia is broken (en.wikipedia.org/title/Albania rather than correct en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania). Links to gnu.org copy of GFDL
Pages link to page mentioning GFDL, has local copy of GFDL. Does not mention or link to Wikipedia. Does not list or link to original history/authors.
Page updated 19-Feb-2009, so that it now mentions GFDL & links to that GNU.org license page, and now identifies the Wikipedia article as an origin. Still does not list or directly link to original history/authors. --Zigger«º»04:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Used their standard contact web form to advise of breach. But page warns "…queries out of subject … will be totally ignored." --Zigger«º»00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes confuses talk pages with real pages (see www.geodatabase.de/mozilla). In other cases, correctly links to original article, page history, and edit page (albeit all through tracking redirects) and a local copy of the GFDL.
They say (at bottom of page) "(...as imported from WP) article has not been saved locally". "About" page http://getwiki.net/-about says "GetWiki imports articles via XML from Wikipedia, Wikinfo, and SourceWatch, among others." They do say on http://getwiki.net/-GetMeta:Copyrights "The default imported contributions assumes GNU FDL terms", and that links to a copy of the GNU FDL, but it appears not to be linked from individual article pages.
Book, not a website: I wasn't sure where/how else to report this. Only bears an "all rights reserved" copyright notice. No credit to (nor mention of) Wikipedia, no mention of CC nor GFDL licenses. Some of the book's content does not appear (and from what I could tell, never did appear) in Wikipedia but other portions are verbatim copies. See also:Talk:Aissawa#Article issues.
Multiple articles in this encyclopedia appear to have been lifted verbatim from WP, including "Revanchism", "Scientific imperialism", "Rudolf Kjellén"
Contact info
nsingh_2004@vsnl.net, global.vision276@gmail.com
Actions
No actions taken.
Global Vision Publishing House (publisher)
Global Vision Publishing House
URL
http://www.globalvisionpub.com/AllBooks.aspx
Description
Sample
See the discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard: some (not all) books copy from Wikipedia. Do not presume that any book from this publishing house is a reliable source; do not link to copyvio.
Various Global Vision books have raised concerns of copyvio on wikipedia articles, but in each case the article text predates the date the book was published.
"Global Encyclopaedia of Environmental Science Technology and Management" copies extensively from Wikipedia and other sources (see its articles on Affluenza or Afforestation, for example).
"Global Encyclopaedia of Welfare Economics" duplicates content that appeared first on Central limit theorem.
"Encyclopaedic dictionary of Marathi literature" duplicates content that appeared first on various Wikipedia articles (first example: Abhanga).
"Philosophy of scientific creationism" duplicates content that appeared first on Teach the Controversy.
"Indian Administration Vol. 1" duplicates content that first appeared at Bureaucracy.
"History of Afghanistan" duplicates content that appeared first at History of Afghanistan.
Copied from other (non-wikipedia) sources
"Spiritual Value of Social Charity", in which the first visible page of text - apparently written by the publisher themselves - is a direct copy of "History and philosophy of social work in India" (published by somebody else, decades earlier).
A randomly chosen sentence from "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Sanskrit Literature" also appears in a 1996 book from a different source: [55]
"Nuclear weapons and national security: emerging challenges for Asia" copies extensively from [56]
A randomly chosen sentence from "21st Century India : View and Vision " also appears in a 2003 book from a different source: [57]
The first sentences of "Rāvaṇa and Laṅkā", [58] nominally written by R.K. Ramakrishnan, is copied from "India in the Rāmāyaṇa age: a study of the social and cultural conditions in ancient India as described in Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa", published 1967 [59]
"Basics of guidance and counselling" appears to copy from a 1984 book by a different Indian publisher which in turn copies from the 1965 "Testing for Teachers".
"Role models in management (leadership and communication)" copies from "Effective Leadership" by Adair
Mentions Wikipedia and the GFDL; links to original article and also GFDL.
Contact info
contact AT glosk.com
Actions
goddessflight
Page: www.goddessflight.com/biorhythm/biorhythms_explained.php shortened copy of Biorhythm
States: "Excerpt above is from The Global Oneness Commitment at www.experiencefestival.com/a/Biorhythm/" though www.experiencefestival.com/a/Biorhythm_-_The_basic_theory/id/617210 would be a better link (see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Def#experiencefestival)
No mention of GFDL
Gogeeky.net
No compliance. Same site format (and violations) and apparently same webmaster as Wikix.ipupdater.com
No mention of Wikipedia, GFDL, or any other copyright info on any page. Contains old copies of articles
Contact info
abuse AT domainsbyproxy.com, abuse AT godaddy.com (registrar/host), GOVERNPUB.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com (privacy whois)
Actions
Gpedia
Gpedia
URL
http://www.gpedia.com
Description
Sample
http://www.gpedia.com/en/gpedia/Main_Page
Rating
High
Compliance
Every page has a statement at the bottom that it is a derivative work under CC-BY-SA, with a link to the original article. No specific mention of Wikipedia, except as happens to occur in the text of pages.
Contact info
not found
Actions
Greatestinfo.org
Greatestinfo.org
URL
http://www.greatestinfo.org/Main_Page
Description
Sample
http://www.greatestinfo.org/Christ
Rating
Compliance
Was once a disturbingly exact copy of Wikipedia but all articles now redirect to http://www.greatestjournal.com/. Should be monitored occasionally.
I've placed requests for the site owner to come here and explain further in a couple of visible places on the site. —Charles P.(Mirv) 19:57, 26 Feb 2005 (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: [60] - 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)
Greatsite discussion
Similarities with Wikipedia's Martin Luther passage:
[61] 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 [62]), 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 [63]. 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: [64]. Again it should be clear that they copied from us and not the other way arround. --snoyes 06:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
-Dose not mention wikipedia at all
-Duplicates Spring (device) page and possibly others- have not checked
-Has a note at the bottom of the page “2000-2005 guideofcasinos.com”
Mirrors Hebrew Wikipedia. Includes text (underscoring used in what follows to indicates hyperlinked text) at page bottom reading, "Some of the contents of this site are from Hebrew Wikipedia. Page represented in the end and / or at the start of his previous releases that comes from the Hebrew Wikipedia, the text on the page is provided courtesy of the Wikipedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 . (You can see the original page and the list of contributors ).
"Other texts on this site were created and published it without otherwise expressly expressed in them - all rights reserved Institute for Literacy and knowledge Correctly (Ltd., PBC, non-profit organization). Sometimes there are other conditions see disclaimer." Thus, there are (1) links to original article and offsite GFDL; and (2) their copyright statement. Also: Has tab to view article history.
Contact info
Actions
handwiki.org
HandWiki
URL
https://handwiki.org
Description
It mirrors scientific, technological, computational and biographical articles. Only registered accounts can edit, only people with at least one publication can register. Some aesthetic changes, though appears to largely mirror Wikipedia.
States "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)"
States "Donate to Wikipedia" with link to wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
States "Wikipedia information about Mathematics. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Mathematics". More from Wikipedia" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article
hallencyclopedia.com
Hall Encyclopedia.com
URL
http://hallencyclopedia.com
Description
Sample
http://hallencyclopedia.com/Tehuantepec
Rating
Medium
Compliance
It is a copy of all languages. Includes text "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Links to original article and offsite GFDL. Copyright statement at very bottom. No history section.
Gives a link to wikipedia as the 'citational source', but attribution given to other mirror 'World Heritage Encyclopedia'. Page footers implies they own copyright to the content.
The site is an exact copy of Hebrew Wikipedia with a very big banner at the top. Besides the "ברוכים הבאים לוויקיפדיה!" ("Welcome to Wikipedia!") at the top of the front page, it makes no mention of having taken its contents from Wikipedia.
The site claims to be in Beta and adds "Copyright 2005 HelpFox.com" at the bottom of each page. There is no mention of Wikipedia, Wiktionary or GFDL.
I ran into this when I googled for "Suoczil" a language that apparently a pure product of our contributor's mind. The only other site to use this language name is Helpfox where they had copied entire lists of translations from Wiktionary.
From book descriptions on Amazon: "Hephaestus Books represents a new publishing paradigm, allowing disparate content sources to be curated into cohesive, relevant, and informative books. To date, this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under Creative Commons licensing, although as Hephaestus Books continues to increase in scope and dimension, more licensed and public domain content is being added. We believe books such as this represent a new and exciting lexicon in the sharing of human knowledge."
Contact info
Actions
Herbal Freak
Herbal Freak
URL
http://www.herbalfreak.com/
Description
Sample
http://www.herbalfreak.com/medical-condition/ailments/tourette-syndrome/ from Tourette syndrome
Rating
High (commercial)
Compliance
No mention at all that the page is verbatim from Wikipedia
No mention at all that the page is verbatim from Wikipedia
Contact info
mahiti AT mahiti.org
Actions
email to webmaster sent 25 Nov 2007, no response JFW
Hi.is/~joner
Hi.is
URL
http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps
Description
Sample
http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/y3_80493.htm from Axiomatization
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Links to original Wikipedia article and offsite GFDL; clear GFDL notice. This is definitely a modified version, because articles are truncated. However, it probably is not fair use because articles are copied throughout the site. Note this Google search. No history section.
Contact info
joner AT hi.is
Actions
Standard letter sent by: dave 07:43, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Does not display a CC license or cite wikipedia as a reference at all even though some material was taken directly (not verbatim) from the article here on b-boying --> [b-boying] was practiced as early as the 19th century by Arab street performs who incorporated flips and acrobatics into their dance.
Contact info
E-mail: Peter Berger, dns AT suite101.com and Matthew Van Cura, wannabewriter20@livejournal.com; Phone: 604-682-1402
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.
States "The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy" with links to local copy of GFDL
Broken javascript link to gro.aidepikiw.www//:ptth
No obvious link to original article
Has pop-up ads.
The History Search
The History Search
URL
https://thtsearch.com
Description
Mirrors of Wikipedia articles, containing only the first image of each page and omitting all table/infobox markup. Claims to focus on "interesting tidbits that happened throughout history" but seems entirely indiscriminate in what subjects it covers.
Sample
https://thtsearch.com/content/Boronia_algida/
Rating
None
Compliance
No attribution on any pages, does not mention Wikipedia anywhere. Claims copyright of all work on content pages. The about page claims to have drawn on "multiple sources".
Real time mirror that ignores "no index" consequently revealing BLP issues related to arbcom and other space. Using the mirror filse should solve it. See [66] as example
Retains bytitle "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and very big footer with link to original revision, another with a link to the current revision "From Wikipedia" and another with copyright blurb and link to article plus license but no mention of authors "This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "X"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA".
Contact info
Type: PERSON
Name: Bookis Smuin
Address: 1645 10th Ave E
PostalCode: 98102
City: Seattle
CountryCode: US
Phone: +1.2064090810
Fax: +1.2064090810
Email: bookis.smuin@gmail.com
Remarks: Created by LifeGuard at 10/22/2013 1:24:07 PM
Changed: 2013-10-22T22:24:05+02:00
[Zone-C]
Type: PERSON
Name: Bookis Smuin
Address: 1645 10th Ave E
PostalCode: 98102
City: Seattle
CountryCode: US
Phone: +1.2064090810
Fax: +1.2064090810
Email: bookis.smuin@gmail.com
Remarks: Created by LifeGuard at 10/22/2013 1:24:07 PM
Changed: 2013-10-22T22:24:05+02:00
License notices have been added to the bottom of each page. The site is now compliant; I changed the rating from "Low/None" to "Low", but it would be great if someone more familiar with rating mirrors could check it out. Sunmist (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copies only pages relating to Honda vehicles. Main page is basically List of Honda vehicles. No editing allowed at all, only one user edits it, with all pages except the main page unedited since 2009. Sidebar displays lists of similar sites for other makes such as BMW, possibly using same modus operandi.
No mention of Wikipedia, let alone link to article or the Main Page. No mention of GFDL, let alone link to the GNU copy or anything else. --WCQuidditch☎✎02:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only links to external links. No links to other articles. Only takes article namespace. --WCQuidditch☎✎
No mention of copyright, authors or license. Links to source English Wikipedia article. No links or anything for images, displayed fully in a slideshow.
Contact info
No contact information provided, private domain.
Actions
Hypothetical Spacecraft and Interstellar Travel
Hypothetical Spacecraft and Interstellar Travel (Book)
Each IBTimes site (there are 16 country editions in 10 languages) has a "topics" directory. Each subtopic has a short summary lifted from Wikipedia with apparently no attribution. The one I have linked above is the Australian version. I have also found vios on the UK and Canadian editions.
The mirroring is done in books published by this organisation, not at a web site. Over a thousand of these books are listed by this Google Books search
Releases content under GFDL. Has a copy of the licence and a pointer to the Wikipedia site. Says that the copyright is owned by the individual authors, but doesn't actually list them or point to transparent copies of the articles, so doesn't get a "high" rating.
Contact info
ICON Group International, Inc., 7404 Trade St., San Diego, CA 92121 USA
Fax: (858) 635-9414
Email: orders@icongroupbooks.com or phil.parker@insead.edu (direct to the owner of this company)
Previously non-compliant. Now a notice in footer reads "The information on this page was used from wikipedia.org in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation Licence" with links to Wikipedia and the GFDL. No history section.
Contact info
WHOIS information Private registration through Domains by Proxy, Inc. Email: I-GRATIS.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com Phone: (480) 624-2599 Fax: (480) 624-2599
Actions
Sent first GFDL notice via email on June 11, 2006. Sent follow-up GFDL notice via email on June 19, 2006. Sent final GFDL notice on July 3, 2006. Response received July 4, 2006, and website updated accordingly.
ijkl.nl
ijkl.nl
URL
http://www.ijkl.nl
Description
Sample
http://ijkm.nl/Mymensingh_Medical_College
Rating
Compliance
No evident link to Wikipedia or original article
Contact info
Actions
ijkm.nl
ijkm.nl
URL
http://www.ijkm.nl
Description
Sample
http://ijkm.nl/Uskok_War
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
None; no attribution. Apparent spam site similar to entry above.
Contact info
Unknown
Actions
None yet
Illinois State University College of Arts and Sciences
Makes it clear that it comes from Wikipedia, has a GFDL link (not locally though). Some pages like http://india.smashits.com/wikipedia/Help:Contents are totally screwed up.
Contact info
Actions
indopedia.org
indopedia.org
URL
http://www.indopedia.org/
Description
Sample
http://www.indopedia.org/Mind.html
Rating
Compliance
It seems to copy the User's namespace (that's how I found it), and be a topic-specific fork of Wikipedia. JesseW 23:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to provide some links back to WP, but these links are broken for anything outside of the main article namespace. --carlb15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indopedia began as a copy of Wikipedia as of December 2004. Since then some of this Wikipedia content has been modified by Indopedia editors, and 448 new articles have been added on Indological subjects.
Partial editing of Wikipedia content has produced false and misleading content.
For example, Project:About says falsely, "Indopedia is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."
And Project:How to edit a page says "Indopedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page." In fact one must be logged in to edit Indopedia, and registration is restricted. Perhaps this is why (as of July 2008) there are no Special:Recentchanges, and there are no Special:Newpages since December 2007. —teb728tc23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plamen Gradinarov
Eurasia Academic Publishers
Lyulin 332 B-25
Sofia, BG, 1336
Phone:+359.2272388
FAX:+359.2272388
Email:eurasia AT iztok.net, imago AT abv.bg
Actions
Two attempts have been made in early 2010, by the offended party and by a Wikipedia volunteer on the offended party's behalf, to contact an Indopedia administrator for assistance in blanking an AFD on an attack page which was created in 2004. (No indication that Indopedia ever hosted the attack article itself, but merely our AFD discussion about it; that discussion has already been courtesy-blanked on Wikipedia as it does contain discussion of some of the false claims in the article.) Both attempts have been unsuccessful thus far. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Footer "Content is Copyleft Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014 -2015 by Stephen Payne". The final page which includes part of the English Wikipedia text does not have a link. No mention of CC-BY-SA. No attribution for images?
Ends with: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and its copyright supersedes any copyright notice in Information About's Terms of Service below. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Factorial" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article.
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)
At the bottom, it says: This content from encyclopedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It does link to the GFDL but has no mention of Wikipedia (and incorrectly credits www.encyclopedia.com)
Says on the bottom of each article (in Czech) "This is a machine translation of an article from the Wikipedia encyclopedia. The entire text is available under the conditions of the GNU FDL licence."
Links to Wikipedia Main Page
Links to local copy of GFDL (machine translated to Czech, but with a link to the official text of the licence at gnu.org prominently at the beginning)
Removes "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
That's quite a neat site, actually! While on the whole it's pretty good, it does show up some of the limitations of machine translation. Looking up "Bitva Jutland" which is the translation of "Battle of Jutland" which I had quite a bit of input to, I notice that many of the names of British ships have been tranlated to their Czech equivalents (Lion --> Lev, for instance), but no German ship names have been translated. Also some of the British commander's names also get translated - Rear Admiral A.L. Duff of HMS Superb becomes zadního admirála. L. Bezcenn˘ of HMS Nádhern˘, while if my reading of Czech grammar is correct Vice Admiral Sir Cecil Burney gets a sex change as zlozvyku-sir admirála Cecil Burneyová! :) -- Arwel 00:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Note that they use javascript to recognize Wikipedia as source:
<script type="text/javascript">
document.write("<hr> Under the terms of the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License>GNU Free Documentation License</a> Thank you wikipedia.org <hr>")
</script>
Browsers that block javascript or can't handle it would not show this line at all.
Mentions GFDL but clicking on it gives "!! ERROR !! PAGE NOT FOUND"
No name or link to original wikipedia article
Mention of the word "Wikipedia", but no link available
I'm going after this one. Quite a few articles that I have written mostly or exclusively are on that site, and that rather annoys me to say the least. David Newton 17:32, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Standard letter sent. David Newton 17:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Received a reply "Thanks for the email, I'll make sure to make the appropriate changes to my site." That was pretty quick, so I am optimistic over this one. David Newton 18:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Second standard letter sent. David Newton 00:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This one is still not resolved; the situation is like described above. No direct link back to the original Wikipedia article, clicking on GFDL gives 404 error. The little line "Copyright Wikipedia Contributors", without link, is in fact the only thing about Wikipedia that can be found on the page.
Furthermore, something very nasty is going on: for links that do not exist on infopedia, a utility called webgrap is used to try to rip the info directly from Wikipedia, thus loading the Wikipedia servers. See for ex. Oncology and try the link to Adjunctive therapies in the article (it has a question mark behind it to indicate that the article doesn't exist on Infopedia). The operation does not succeed, but the Wikipedia servers are queried nevertheless; so this is a case of straight bandwidth theft. - Mark Dingemanse(talk) 07:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Situation unchanged. -Rholton 21:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mentions GFDL but clicking on it gives "!! ERROR !! PAGE NOT FOUND". (The main page of the website which is a copy of List of countries does not mention GFDL)
No name or link to original wikipedia article
Mention of the word "Wikipedia", but no link available
Wow. This one is really obnoxious. They copy the site layout, even the edit buttons, so it looks like you're really on Wikipedia. Looks like it's a fairly old snapshot. Isomorphic 02:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comment only: It demonstrates the run of a tool called infowrangler, as run against the Wikipedia database. Okay well, that seems like an interesting and innovative use of a wikipedia database. If they can tidy up their act a bit, this could become a good demonstration of what FSF licensing is all about. Now if only those folks could release infowrangler under the GPL ;-). Kim Bruning 12:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This site does not clarify that its material is a copy of the original source. Perhaps the owners thought that by including all Wikipedia namespace articles etc. with information about the project, that would suffice to clear them of legal issues. They were mistaken: the GDFL specifically states in part 4 to: "Preserve... the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on." This seems to be one of a multitude of policy breaches. Perhaps more importantly, usage of the Wikipedia name and logo (even a retired version) in this way is to be seriously discouraged as it leads to problems with retaining trademark rights. Has anyone sent a letter yet? -- Kwekubo 01:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
None compliance with any license. Lifts (copies and pastes) text directly from Wikipedia and passes it off as their own. No reference to sources, no links, no paraphrasing. Account has over 4000 posts, with nearly all text plagiarised from Wikipedia or other websites. States that words are all her own, that she doesn't copy and paste. Lifts most text from DC Batman Wiki page. All attempts to challenge the source material leads to blocked users, claims of harassment, and deleted comments.
Users have challenged and contacted the admin about her usage of copying and pasting. These users have been blocked and threats of reporting for sexual and racial harassment are made about them from herself and her husband through Instagram. She claims she doesn't copy and paste but the evidence is plain to see, even down to the typo's she copies exactly. All action so far has been ignored, she will not change her usage or even admit to using other sources and link to them within her posts.
Has notice at bottom "Article featured on Wikipedia. Used under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply." Links to original article and to CC-by-SA license.
Note: how you access articles is by replacing www.iqexpand.com with the name of the article you are looking for i.e. for Linux, you would put in http://linux.iqexpand.com, and for Wikipedia, you would type in http://wikipedia.iqexpand.com/ (but in this case they're REAL sneaky, replacing Wikipedia with I.Q. Expand in the entry but forgetting to change the bottom links)
No GFDL notice. Claims copyright over the site.
Broken images everywhere on every article.
Absolutely no reference to Wikipedia, instead refering to the "English Information Megasite" for about information for iqexpand.com, thereby dodging reference to Wikipedia. The English Information Megasite is but of course nothing more than a cheaply done mirror of Wikipedia (check out the front page here: the front page says Wikipedia, and has tons of broken links to news, featured article of the day, etc.)
Deserves an e-mail from us; anyone who wants to do it please sign their name below (I can't do it since I have no time). --Bash04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
iqnaut.net
Site: http://iqnaut.net
Note: the links at the top refer to news stories. Go to the bottom and go to the links; you'll see that they are mirrors.
Mentions that the info is released under the GFDL, link to local copy of the license.
Links back to the original Wikipedia article.
Contact admin AT iqnaut.net
Ireland information guide
Ireland information guide
URL
http://www.irelandinformationguide.com
Description
Sample
Rating
None
Compliance
Contains some wikipedia articles from 2004, some of them expanded with new information - i.e. a genuine fork using MediaWiki with its own edit buttons etc. GFDL link to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html. Link to wikipedia article with same name. No history section. Medium compliance. Uncle G11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contact info
Actions
None
irelocate.ca
irelocate.ca Canadian Relocation Made Simple
URL
http://www.irelocate.ca/
Description
Sample
http://www.irelocate.ca/mississauga/index.htm
Rating
None
Compliance
Contains full and partial copies of Wikipedia articles about Canadian towns and cities. Multiple copies of each article exist in that domain. This is a content mirror, not a fork. Does not mention the GFDL, fails to provide atribution to Wikipedia, and claims copyright of the work.
Mirrors articles on the Ivy League and the individual schools. Mentions WP and GFDL but claims copyright. Does not link back to us.
Contact info
Registrant:
Council of Ivy Group Presidents
228 Alexander Street
Princeton, NJ 08544
US
Domain Name: IVYSPORT.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Council of Ivy Group Presidents jorleans AT PRINCETON.EDU
228 Alexander Street
Princeton, NJ 08544
US
+1.6092586426 fax: +1.6092581690
Actions
None
Iwannarock.net
Iwannarock.net - music ringtones and mobile content
No mention of Wikipedia. Invokes Creative creations Attribution-Sharenot License. Live scraped, misattributed eg to "http://en.information database.org/w/index.php?title=Resource&oldid=622724039" (where "information database" is literally substituted for "wikipedia"
Duly mentions Wikipedia as source and the CC license.
Contact info
admin@jejakjabar.com
Actions
none
Jewish Virtual Library
I've only noticed one page here lifted from Wikipedia, but it has problems so I figured I'd mention it here. There may be others, I didn't look around. Bryan00:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claims copyright of content Mentions "some content from Wikipedia under GDL" [sic] No link to original articles No link to GFDL
Contact info
Benjamin Cohen — ben at pinknews dot co dot uk
Actions
Standard message sent 24 April 2007. Contact replied stating "Every page has a Wikipedia GDL [sic] license paragraph on it". Second message sent 25 April 2007, further clarifying GFDL's requirements. --Kwekubo22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Main page [84] has misleading statement "We have built open-content encyclopedia with most categories referring to Canadian content." (Misleading, because original source not credited.)
Example article: [87]; there are others. DanKeshet 23:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Sent first warning for including GFDL notice, as I'm not sure if notice was sent before. Cleduc 5 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)
Second example
Also Socialite is copied, but without any attribution. Sent notice -- don't know if anyone else has sent them notice before. Not sure, so we'll treat this as first notice. Cleduc 5 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)
Notice resulted in a "Reference" being placed on the page -- so the source is attributed. However, the GFDL notice is not placed on the page, just like the CPR article. I'm going to follow up with the editor/publisher. Cleduc 6 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
Govigama, Radala. See article talk pages for more detail.
Rating
Compliance
sample articles copied with no evidence of compliance. Likely more articles are copied.
Contact info
none
Actions
none
KatalogQLT.fm
Katalog(at)KupKomputer.pl
URL
http://katalog.kupkomputer.pl/
Description
Sample
http://katalog.kupkomputer.pl/archive/Tractor
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Links to Wikipedia article and Wikipedia GFDL. No local GFDL. No original authors. Has lots of Wikipedia articles, hard to say how many total.
Contact info
jeśli masz jakieś pytania, propozycje itp. napisz:
katalog AT kupkomputer.pl
Polecamy: Katalog Stron, Sklep internetowy, Maszyny budowlane, SEO Katalog Stron
Actions
None
Kelp media
Kelp media
URL
Innumerable low-quality domains, including ebhu.ml, fungoliostored.tk, datascraper.io, rainbowshopper.cf, freeebooksfaezdya.ml, ejakata.cf, rtwo.tk which redirect to old.book-index.ru and kelpmedia.com; possibly also happywestie.de, ebookslibrary.club
Description
Stores "ebooks" scraped from various sources across various domains, adding a paywall. URLs typically purport to serve a PDF file in order to be indexed as such by Google, but in fact contain nothing of the sort.
*Footer "All content from Kiddle encyclopedia articles (including the article images and facts) can be freely used under Attribution-ShareAlike license, unless stated otherwise." Second footer "Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Kiddle encyclopedia articles are based on selected content and facts from Wikipedia, rewritten for children and students. Powered by MediaWiki."
Does not seem to link the original pages or history.
Mirrors and links the file description pages, therefore the authors are attributed.
Seems to correctly exclude unfree images, e.g. from Kylie (album).
Albania example no longer has content: www.kiwipedia.com/canada.html is Canada or Cnaada (article looks deliberately dyslexic) and ends with "This is a static copy of Wikipedia" with link to www.wikipedia.org --Rumping (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from main page Davelane 22:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This was deleted by 212.174.228.10 (Removed Klasikoyun.com site has an attribution in the main page)
I've restored this as I beleve they are not in compliance -- if you disagree please move to disputed. --Davelane 16:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Site is down now, I'll delist it soon (feel free to do it if I forget). Rhobite 20:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
It's back up now, and still infringing. Rhobite 21:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a full mirror of Wikipedia, though without image pages. Pages attribute Wikipedia without link and link to offsite GFDL. Also links to Wikipedia's copy of disclaimer. Explicitly claims copyright. Uses dynamic loading (see http://knowledgegiant.com/search/current%20events).
Contact info
KNOWLEDGEGIANT.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com (private whois), legal AT nac.net (host whois)
Sent first letter to domainsatvizaginfo.com and AT kif (best contacts aval.) --Davelane 00:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Response: "Thanks for informing about the missing copyright message. The website is maintained by one of our client who has informed us back that the necessary copyright message has been put."
Ends with "This content from wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Brought to you by System0." Links only to Wikipedia main page; no direct link to article or inclusion of history.
Knowledgegeek now looks close to compliance, acknowledging Wikipedia as the original source and linking to the GFDL. Do people agree that they are now largely compliant? --Robert Merkel 04:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The site has definitely improved. However, witness all the 'summary' pages one level in from the root page (such as Coffee) still being composed largely of Wikipedia content without any acknowledgement. A sentence or two, lifted directly from Wikipedia is shown in many entries on those 'summary' pages (such as Drip brew, French press, Caffeine, etc. on the Coffee page above) yet you must click through to the full text before a Wikipedia or GFDL reference is made. A reference to Wikipedia and GFDL on all pages with even 'truncated' Wikipedia content (ie, the first few sentences of a bunch of articles) would still seem to be required. Potentially also worth mentioning is that the engine or template system used by KnowledgeGeek is used by StudioReview.com (documented on this page and supported/linked by Mark Coffman of KnowledgeGeek) and as of this writing, StudioReview has a low degree of compliance. I'm not suggesting that the owner/operator of KnowledgeGeek is able to accomplish this, but one wonders if it's possible to add compliance at an engine- or template-level for sites like this which are clearly copying Wikipedia content in huge quantities. Ds13 20:46, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
The remaining problems identified above seem to be addressed now. I would agree that they are largely compliant now. --Ds13 06:50, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
[Homepage of the site has no content of Wikipedia. No disclaimer/copyright information]
The pages not only fail to mention Wikipedia or the contributors, but in fact assert, at the bottom of pages, that the copyright is held by Knowledgewiki. Wikipedia is also not mentioned in their Terms of use.
Contact info
No specific DMCA contact found; general "Contact Us" at [96].
In en: and de:; I only really looked at the former.
Bottom of each page links to:
Source article on Wikipedia;
Wikipedia main page;
GNU FDL on FSF site;
Author list (history) on Wikipedia; and
Edit link on Wikipedia.
OK, so they should have a local copy of the licence.
But they also say "The article can be editted here." and I think that's fantastic!!!
-- Toby Bartels 04:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
no attribution of Wikipedia; claims copyright at bottom of each page; only one or two mentions of GFDL in a well-hidden page, though with a local copy of the GFDL; not using "any later version" language.
Contact info
bernard AT knowmore.org
Actions
just emailed contact about issues, waiting to hear back, put here in case I don't hear anything back from contact --Phish020203:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sent standard letter. Vacuumc 01:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
lakerplayers.org
Lakers Players
URL
www.lakersplayers.org
Description
Sample
http://www.lakersplayers.org/elgin-baylor.php
Rating
None
Compliance
Mirror/plagiarism of *many* Laker Player biographies without attribution.
Contact info
info AT lakersplayers.org
Actions
Sent two emails in late 2006 informing them of GFDL infringement, neither of which prompted a response. More recently (ending October 2007) sent standard sequence of GFDL violation letters, again receiving no response.
States at start of frame: "From Wikipedia [edit] This text is available under the terms of the GNU FDL" with links to original article (plain and to edit) and to local copy of GFDL
Unsure. The site seems to be such a good copy, it has the disclaimer footer on every page, just like Wikipedia. However, tiny details, such as using a link as a reference, and calling it "What is it with Lardydar Wiki?", when clearly that article has nothing to do with "Lardydar" Wiki. Also, they claim: "Lardydar Wiki® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", but that is because they have included the footer seen on every Wikipedia page, and simply changed "Wikipedia" into "Lardylar Wiki". Even their Contact us page is identical, leading the user to contact Wikimedia, instead. May be a valid mirror, but I could not find links to Wikipedia. Searching for the article 'Wikipedia' Comes up with the article 'Lardylar Wiki' instead, but they pronounce "Lardylar Wiki" /ˌwikiˈpeːdi.ə/, so... What bothers me most is that they have the "Donate to" Link, on the left, exactly as Wikipedia, and it leads to their Paypal account. Perhaps this is completely legal and valid, but it appears that this site takes advantage of the "feel" of Wikipedia to solicit donations that do not go to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Compliance
Copy of Wikipedia's footer, but name is changed to state owner is Lardylar Wiki, states: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."
Straight copy from recent version of 7 Year Bitch embedded in the one page I looked at. There is a GFDL notice, but the source is only visible on the edit tab.
Received reply correcting me and noting that there was a GFDL notice, and Wikipedia was attributed on the edit page. Replied that the GFDL must be local, and noting that the notice must visible to readers, not just editors. Superm401 - Talk15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed having sources visible only to editors was weird. Said he would host a local GFDL. Replied thanking him, discussing Wikipedia's use of external GFDL content, and agreeing that the GFDL was harsh (but noting that this is still easier than real compliance). Superm401 - Talk19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL does not seem to be available anywhere on the site. There are links at the bottom of all pages that purport to explain copyright, disclaimers, and the GFDL, but the links lead to pages that say "(There is currently no text in this page)". Wikipedia is not directly mentioned.
The site has copied various law-related articles from Wikipedia. The example page given above was taken from [98], a 2005 version of our article Settlement (litigation). Only the then–most recent contributor is listed in the history on LawGuru.
Contact info
No contact information was found on the Wiki, but the "About Us" page at www.lawguru.com lists the following, which is the same contact given by WHOIS:
WebSiteBroker, Inc.
73700 Dinah Shore Dr.
Suite 104
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Inverters copied from Grid tie inverter from Intro to end of Grid tie inverter#Technology. Includes Wikipedia reference link "then back to DC and then to the final AC output voltage.[1]", so text has been copied from Wikipeida, not the other way around.
The current text in the Linda Montano article was mostly added in December 2009, apparently at the request of the subject herself (diff). The "Artist Bio" page at lindamontano.com is apparently a mirror, using (essentially) the same text after 2011, according to archive.org (archived 2011 version).
Linked post copies some text from beverage can—see article talk page section linked below. No relevant mention of Wikipedia, copyright, or licensing anywhere. Linked post is actually a verbatim copy of an earlier post on a private blog, reported here. Poster probably does not know his post includes Wikipedia content, but must know it's not his content.
mirror of Wikipedia in 15 languages; it also has other mirrors using different domains in different languages (Norwegian, Greek etc.). It inserts ads from Google and another network.
Now seems to comply, having used the suggested text I sent them through the form letter. Am going to ask them to see if the copyright notice can be clarified, though. Johnleemk | Talk12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sample page is a blatant grab of Wedgwood, Seattle, Washington (maybe not the current version, and they stripped the footnotes, but I immediately recognized User:GoDot's plodding prose.) - Jmabel
My guess given that they direct comments to a site with a more generic name is that they've done the same not just for other places in Seattle but for other cities. - Jmabel | Talk00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Living Lingo: VCE English Language Units 3 and 4
Title: Living Lingo: VCE English Language Units 3 and 4
Compliance: On Page 168, two reasonably large paragraphs from the Cane toad article are printed in the book. The book acknowledges that the article is from Wikipedia, and is in fact listed under the section "The authors and publisher wish to thank the following copyright holders for reproduction of their material". However, there is no mention of CC BY-SA or the GFDL.
Action: I have not taken any action, since as a student, I am not in a position to do so. Would someone unconnected with VCE English Language be able to take action?
We can class this is as 'well behaved' mirror. Phil from logicjungle proactively read the listing here and emailed me. I suggested some improvements to the wording of the article links, to give proper credit to wikipedia, which were quickly implemented.
If any further contact is necessary, it might as well go through me, or a I can provide a copy of the email conversation we had -- Nojer2 10:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Novemver 19: Sent standard letter. --snoyes 17:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
November 20: Now contains GFDL notice and link. Also, their text is an excerpt of approximately one paragraph, so might be fair use anyway. --Delirium 10:09, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
You're right, that is most probably fair use. Nice to see them stick a notice on it anyway. --snoyes 02:57, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Informal polite enquiry sent via web form on 28 June 2009; no response received to date. Sent a standard letter to the email address on 12 July 2009. —Jeremy (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lumenlearning.com
Lumen Learning: Simple book Production
URL
courses.lumenlearning.com
Description
As part of its body it has full samples of several wikipedia articles.
All content on this site from Wikipedia now contains a link to the GNU Free Documentation License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) and Wikipedia. The site appears to be in compliance. 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Contact info
info AT nationalimports.com,
Actions
Standard letter sent by dave 19:28 17 Jul 2003 (UTC). Reply received from info AT nationalimports.com, who says are willing to fix it. dave sent reply to National Imports today outlining what he should do to fix it, and telling him all the articles that were lifted from Wikipedia (he had emailed asking which articles were from wikipedia). 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). Received reply: Were sorry for the oversight. We'll correct the link as soon as possible. --mav 18:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Unknown. Claims copyright. No Wikipedia material found in latest check. Includes text "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and uses material adapted in whole or in part from the Wikipedia article on <ARTICLE>." Documents may be using Wikipedia as a source without including copyrighted material wholesale. This should be verified.
Copies the whole mi: article namespace, apparently, though not very frequently (currently listing only 137 of the 280 articles), and converts our ordinary internal links to its internal links (but seems not to work out how to deal with piped links, using just the text - eg, the homepage links to http://maori.encyclopedia.st/Tikanga where WP has a piped link saying "tikanga" but linking to the "mi" style guide). Doesn't seem to change the text of the link in any circumstances.
Leaves most external links alone, even where they are to the English version, eg in the stub message "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." readers get directed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub. However, the bottom-of-page links to other language WPs are converted to related sites such as http://enzyklopadie.cc.
Not as careful as it should be with some links, giving us the kindly optimistic statement "There are at least 300000 articles already written (partly or wholly in te reo Māori) that need improvement." - similar "300000" on the other-language sites.
Readers will be puzzled at the homepage invitation to participate. There's not even a contact address apart from the "Advertise Here!" link, which goes to http://www.fastclick.com/.
Mentions Wikipedia and the GFDL quite prominently at the bottom (much better than when I looked a few months ago when the "Wikipedia" reference was in small black letters on a very dark blue frame background, impossible to notice unless one knew to search for it); BUT NO links to the original article, History page, and Edit page.
Largely appropriate "Ads by Goooooogle", similar to Wikicities, and sometimes a panel of articles, sometimes appropriate, or other ads.
Note: Do not click the Non-user link. It seems to cause the site to redirect all future requests from your IP to Google. I'm not sure what the motivation for this is. Copies the whole article namespace. When viewed without script enabled, no mention of Wikipedia and the GFDL. With Javascript, there are links to the original article, GFDL text, History page, and Edit page. This is an unacceptable implementation because the articles are distributed to those without Javascript, but the GFDL is not.
Contact info
http://www.masterliness.com/contact.php (contact page), postmaster AT registerfly.com (registrar; hidden whois info), abuse AT theplanet.com (host)
Site seems to mirror en.wikipdia.org, but only the article namespce. new articles can only be found in following the links ... we found the page in doing research for the german steam locomotive listing, which was thankfully copied and translated for the en.wiki. One of the top links in google was "our" translated article not only in en.wikipediam but also somewhere in the web.
Site provides a Link to "wikipedia" but not to the original article, as well as not to the author's list, the GPL links to GNU Free Documentation License on gnu.org, . Interesting - if you are klicking on the "edit text" in a stub article (try the link to "Beuth" steam locomotive) opens the original edit page of the original en.wikipdeia article ...
Contact info
Contact Page whois provides the following info: Registrant Contact: LinkdotNet, Link dotNet (), Fax: , 77 Misr Helwan St, Cairo, 11431, EG
on the page itself these info can be found: Contact Master Linux: Address: Egypt 1] 7 El Bahrain St., In front of El Merryland Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt / 2] 25 Manshyet El Bakry st, from El Khalifa El Maa'moun, Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt. E-mail: sales@masterlinux.net
Actions
not sure about legal actions to be taken, since only contributing to de.wikipedia, therefore posted here
It appears that this is not a fork but a copy. Can someone check this and post here? JesseW 00:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was meant to be a fork but not much was ever changed. Ashibaka✎ 18:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Most of the pages are based on the same wikisource. Deleted pages are generally kept, my parse code is not identical to Wikipedia's (thus resulting in different html output), and a few pages have been altered. Whether this makes it a fork or a mirror according to the GFDL is a legal question which I don't feel I can answer at this time. However, I've tried to be as closely compliant as possible with the GFDL requirements for a fork. In order to do this, I have released the entire site as a single GFDL document, parts of which are aggregated under non-GFDL licenses. anthony警告 17:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If anyone has any suggestions as to how I can be in better compliance with the GFDL, feel free to leave a message on my user talk page. anthony警告 17:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(i added the above strikethrough) the site only mentions wikipedia on the main page, it no longer mentions much of anything on the article pages. user:anthony DiPierro has stated on wikipedia talk pages in the past that he links the edit pages back to wikipedia; that policy has obviously changed as i was easily able to find content on mcfly which was added since its forking. it is not clear to me what policy is for this change, but i do think it should be attended to. i also would like to know whether there is a procedure for bringing in some of the changes made on mcfly; i found at least one bit (didnt look around too much) that i would like to have added to an article. i regret that the weakness of my license-fu is keeping me from answering this question myself. Burgher 14:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
text underWP:CCBYSAC, with "This page may contain content developed from Wikipedia or Meta." in footers. 'check commons for the licence' for most images.
Complete, dynamic, remote loading mirror. Does not mention Wikipedia or the GFDL. Appears to have downloaded entire Wikipedia article set using a scraper bot instead of using the database download archive.
Contact info
reinhard.f.busch AT web.de (whois), http://schlundtech.de/kontakt/ (host)
MediaWiki powered sub-section of a specialist media website - appears to be mostly original content with some content copied from Wikipedia (i.e. a derivative work), which is acknowledged. All content is apparently licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence. No mention of the GFDL.
This site copies some articles from en.WP CC-BY-SA licensed articles, doesn't attribute them to Wikipedia and licenses them CC-BY-NC-SA. I've advised an associated editor on his en.WP talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
medievalwarfare.info
medievalwarfare.info; Medieval Weapons & Armour; Castles and Manor Houses around the World
URL
http://www.medievalwarfare.info
Description
Sample
http://www.medievalwarfare.info/weapons.htm
Rating
No compliance
Compliance
No compliance; content aggregated from multiple pages without attribution of any kind, all published under their own copyright
Copies many drug articles verbatim copy&paste style including index , e.g. Codeine, Tramadol, etc.
No mention of Wikipedia whatsoever
No mention of copyright, except in source code where it claims it for itself
No contact info on site. Complaint should be sent to Yahoo by someone who has edited one or more of these articles, which appears to be hosting it judging from the source code (look at bottom)
1st complaint letter about meds4dumbbells.com rejected by Yahoo as I, the sender, have no personal claim to copyright
melayukini.net
melayukini.net
URL
https://melayukini.net
Description
live machine translation of en.wikipedia.org into more than 30 languages
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: [104]). 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)
Memim.com
Memim Encyclopedia
URL
https://memim.com/
Description
Appears to consist of articles machine-translated from the German Wikipedia (compare the sample with de:Camano Island)
Sample
https://memim.com/camano-island.html
Rating
None
Compliance
Articles have no attribution or link back to the original. All Rights Reserved notice at bottom of page.
Contact info
None found; domain is registered through Cloudflare, but no contact information is available in the WHOIS record
Text is copy and pasted without any mention of source, authors or license; instead, text is attributed to a site editor as if it were an original work.
This is a self-publishing forum where evidently some contributors find it easy to compile books by copying Wikipedia articles. At least two of the books of this contributor can be verified to have copied content from Wikipedia articles. More are probable.
Contact info
copyright@scribd.com; per [108] DMCA take-down is required.
Actions
No action taken.
mirrorpedia
Site: mirrorpedia.com
Example: mirrorpedia.com/wiki/Mathematics
Fork from around October/November 2006 but with broken code
States "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." with link to GFDL at gnu.org
Mirror of Wikipedia, doesn't mention Wikipedia nor GFDL on any page.
"provide quality information for even these errant queries, using the unique capabilities offered by searchspell." Searchspell itself does mention Wikipedia and GFDL. So maybe it's a mirror of a mirror or something. --Conti|✉ 23:07, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Pages contain "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "acrobat". --update --Davelane 16:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
MobileReference is a brand name of a publisher of e-books for use on mobile devices. Many of these publications, but probably not all, and not the web-page itself, are Wikipedia forks. A MobileReference publication which is such a fork should be separately listed under its own title and a link to its entry added to the list of links in the subsection below.
Difficult to tell precisely without buying commercial copies. From the Google books copies, compliance would appear to be Low to Medium, depending on the publication.
Compliance
As an example, the licensing information provided on the "back cover" of the Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt acknowledges that material from Wikipedia has been used and that this material is licensed under the GFDL, although it also wrongly implies that this material is also "public domain". However, it also asserts "all rights reserved" over the work as a whole, whereas the GFDL requires that the whole of any modification of a work licensed under it—which is what this is—must also be licensed under the same licence or a substantially similar version.
On the other hand, Alexander Pope's translation of the Iliad seems to contain no licensing information whatever that I could find in the Google books copy, even though it incorporates a substantial amount of text from Wikipedia's article on Alexander Pope. At the end of some of the incorporated material, however, there is an acknowldegement that "[t]his article uses material from:", followed by a hyperlink to what is presumably the Wikipedia article, although this seems impossible to verify from the Google books copy.
Contact info
support@soundtells.com
Actions
None as yet.
MobileReference publications that are forks of Wikipedia
The trance music page [112] has various articles copied from Wikipedia word-for-word (namely Psychedelic trance and Goa trance music, but possibly others as well).
No mention of GFDL or Wikipedia anywhere on the site. -Ld | talk 23:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Copies many Wikiedia articles on law and other subjects, such as corporations (Airborne Express copied at [113]).
Copying isn't very up-to-date. The article on the Supreme Court of the United States (at [114]) includes a typo ("which concisely summaries the case") that was corrected by this edit to our article almost a year ago.
At this writing, the Morelawinfo home page features a copy of our Murphy's law article, but perhaps they rotate.
Absolutely no compliance. No link, no mention of Wikipedia, no mention of GFDL. Each article has a "credits" link at the bottom but it's a dead link. JamesMLane 00:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment:most of the stuff on this site appears to be lifted from en.wikipedia.org without mentioning wikipedia and claiming their own copyright. Alex.tan00:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Samples: As near as I can tell the bio's of the people (chemists, etc) are copies of the corresponding wikipedia articles from between the June 20, 2004 and July 10th 2004. Compare the following:
Wayback machine reports no articles on this prior to 2005, so unlikely that wikipedia could have copied from them.
I have no idea what should be done here. I'd appreciate extra eyeballs to make sure I'm not making a n00b mistake. Wikibofh 23:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mtjlcs.com
mtjlcs.com
URL
www.mtjlcs.com
Description
Sample
http://al37.mtjlcs.com/scientiaestpotentia.html
Rating
Low/None.
Compliance
Site is designed to spam google with a jumble of keywords extracted from various sources, including Wikipedia - the sample page took content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marlowe
Contact info
Everyones Internet, tel: +1-713-579-2850, e-mail: abuse AT ev1servers.net
Says blog is under GFDL and that material comes from Wikipedia. Does not say what material, however, and there are no direct links or history sections. Also, there is no link to the GFDL.
Copies entire Wikipedia articles, keeping structure intact. Each article contains links to more articles copied from Wikipedia. Each article does seem to link back to the original article at Wikipedia and contains a link to this page (CC-BY-SA license). The website's "sources" page contains a link to the GFDL. Pages ambiguously state that "Some data may have been obtained from the [article] page on Wikipedia".
Contact info
Discovery Media, 3625 Earnscliff Place, APT #16, San Diego, CA, 92111
discoverysites@gmail.com
According to this page their administrative contact is named "Mr. Magic".
Seems to copy portions of articles without attribution. Compare the section of the 2007/03/02 page with our article on Sweet Sacrifice, and portions of http://musikkita.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/western-single-67-2007/ to Wait_For_You_(Elliott_Yamin_song)
Ends with: An article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, distributed under GFDL (authors) To view the original version of this article or to improve Wikipedia, just follow this link with links to en:Main Page, GFDL at gnu.org, history of original article and current version of original article
Advertising is a mix of money making google text adds, and also 'public service' ads. Interestingly they're also spending money on google ad words e.g. 'Integration Testing'.
A bit of lookup shows that this is hosted at 64.151.72.220 which belongs to the ISP ServePath.com in San Francisco - let your takedowns roll 28 Sep 2004
mirror of Wikipedia, but not with correct backlinking.---Dittaeva 08:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mentions GFDL but 'unbelivibly' links to a oscommerce site "Welcome to your Online Pharmacist" instead of the licence!!!
I checked this today 18/9/04 and it now links to a Nuke site -- my guess is its some kind of spam link device --82.43.209.114 18:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Appears to be a complete dump of Wikipedia taken at the end of March 2004. The site appears to have been operational since early April 2004. The site includes user pages and the pages fully editable with the exception of the standard protected pages. No mention of GNU Free Documentation License, instead it states "The site is Sponcored (sic) by Namibia Internet Gateway OaSyS, AfricaLinks, NamWeb, NIG". Judging by recent changes the site appears to be attracting a few vandals.
Wikipedia users seem to be disappearing. The pages are still there. [ alerante | “” 00:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) ]
Ostensibly CC-BY-NC-SA pseudo-wiki collaborative website, in reality a collage of copyright violations and contributions of unclear copyright status. Massive violations of Wikimedia Commons images' licenses.
The copyright notice at the bottom of each page states
"Copyright NationMaster.com 2003-2005. All Rights Reserved. Usage implies agreement with terms."
incorrectly attributes copyright
restrictions beyond those permitted by the GFDL ("all rights reserved")
restricts usage of material which is not permitted by the GFDL.
breaches "D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document." of GFDL terms for distribution of modified documents
The copyright notice links twice to a set of terms. These terms include the following
NationMaster.com holds copyright on all aspects of this site (including but not limited to content and layout), with the exception of the text from articles taken from Wikipedia and where copyrights are held by our sources.
Which means that it should partly be ignored, however the term
By using this site, you agree to the following terms and conditions
interacts with the term
You may not replicate, modify, reproduce, publish, distribute, display or transmit any portion of this web site, except as permitted in this document.
to form a breach of the GFDL.
The terms (but not the article) do link both to Wikipedia and the content disclaimer, but not to the Wikipedia copyright terms.
there is no copy of or link to the GFDL
there is no attribution to the original author of the document
This site seems to have nearly cleaned up its act. The disclaimer at the bottom of articles now reads:
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms.
"Wikipedia" is linked to the equivalent Wikipedia article. "GFDL" is linked to GNU's What Is Copyleft? page, which is probably not compliant (they should have a copy of the GFDL on their site, or at least a direct link to the text) but pretty close. — Gwalla | Talk05:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As of 27 July 2005, the Copyright notice still links to "Terms and Conditions" which says:
Terms and Conditions
By using this site, you agree to the following terms and conditions:
NationMaster.com holds copyright on all aspects of this site (including but not limited to content and layout), with the exception of the text from articles taken from Wikipedia and where copyrights are held by our sources.
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, unless your purpose is to index the content for a traditional search engine (eg. Google, Teoma, etc). You may not replicate, modify, reproduce, publish, distribute, display or transmit any portion of this web site, except as permitted in this document.
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. You may not copy graphs, maps, scatterplots, etc.
If you would like permission to quote the data in another way, or to make an enquiry about licensing, please contact us.
You are free to link to any page on the site, without needing to seek permission.
which rather implies restriction on the GDFL rights, but each page from wikipedia seems to have proper acknowledgement. DES21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several years later, there are still the same terms and conditions imposed. The site is very definitely not compliant because of these. Imposing additonal terms and conditions is against the very core principles of the GFDL. — Alan✉18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NationMaster.com looks okay to me, but its clone(?) (twin?, sibling?, ripoff?) StateMaster.com has the same text on its terms page minus the text ...of the text from articles taken from Wikipedia and.... — User:ACupOfCoffee@21:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
navajo.cz
Navajo otevřená encyklopedie
URL
http://navajo.cz/
Description
Sample
http://faktorial.navajo.cz/
Rating
Compliance
Czech automatic translation by Eurotran of en.wikipedia articles. Link to original article at top and says "Tento text je volně dostupný za podmínek GNU/FDL licence" with link to local (English) copy of GFDL at bottom
NBC runs an offical Wiki for their show, Heroes. Pages here seem to use Wikipedia articles, inculding much about the characters, with no acknowledgment of any kind.
Near end: "This article is from [small .gif file saying Wikipedia]. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." with .cgi link eventually ending up at Wikipedia and ordinary link to local copy of GFDL 1.2.
Page ends "Copyright 2004. All rights reserved."
No obvious link to original article
Netencyclo
Homepage: www.netencyclo.com
Example: www.netencyclo.com/en/Albania mirrored from Albania
Multilingual, but underlying appears French
Starts: Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! with link to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising then main heading Netencyclo, The wikipedia mirror - The biggest multilingual encyclopedia
Has notice "All credit for producing the original text goes to the WikiMedia Foundation and its selfless team of volunteer contributors. It was copied here in compliance with the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Any changes made to the original text since then create a derivative work which is also GFDL licensed. (Please note the current version here and at Wikipedia diverge over time. Check the edit history here and there for details.) " Broken link to local GFDL article, and working link to offsite GFDL in standard MediaWiki footer. All articles are vetted by paid editors, most with PhD's in their subject. Project started partially by User:Ed Poor.
Seems to give full content of wikipedia articles. Indicates source is wikipedia and content is under the GDFL with a proper link, and each article links to the corresponding article on wikipedia. Seems to be just a dump of wikipedia as of a fixed (but unspecified) date with advertisements added at top and bottom. DES21:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some (but not all) of their "Famous Supermodels" articles seem to be derived from Wikipedia content; this has come to lighgt as a result of Elona Bojaxhi and Bridget Hall being tagged as copyvios from there. However there are earlier versions of these articles whch differ from the newyorkcitymodel.com pages in small details.
Does not link back to Wikipedia or acknowledge authorship as far as I can tell.
Their legal notice is quite interesting - copyright reserved, and asserts Moroccan jurisdiction (the domain is indeed registered to a Moroccan company).
Standard letter not yet sent. --rbrwr± 20:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Links to more recent Wikipedia articles which had been found at the time of compilation are on each page, by way of link?
Links to local copy of GNU/FDL on every page, including main page
Pages which contain original Wikipedia articles state 'From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'. A link to the main page of Wikipedia is included in addition to a link to the original article.
Bottom of main page states 'All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, copyright Wikipedia contributors'
The compilation as a whole on CD is stated to be licensed under the GNU/FDL in the installation license and in the readme.txt file
For some reason, the site has only a few unlinked copies of Wikipedia articles on Nobel Prize winners. I can only find this site through google, does not seem to be linked to by any other site.
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)
http://www.nopactalent.com/speakers/Herschel-Walker/2633 contains text from Herschel Walker, specifically revision 57423888, including the bogus single-season record of 2500 yards from the end of the USFL section.
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
No mention of or link to Wikipedia or GFDL. Claims copyright NOPAC Talent, all rights reserved.
Contact info
From "Contact Us" Page: info AT nopactalent.com
WHOIS Admin Contact: Plotkin, Adam adam AT nopasports.com
Actions
www.northcyprustravel.eu
North Cyprus Travel
URL
http://www.northcyprustravel.eu/
Description
Sample
http://www.northcyprustravel.eu/places_to_see.html contains text and images from many articles including Antiphonitis and Salamis, Cyprus
Rating
Compliance
No mention of wikipedia or gfdl. In fact claims copyright "Copyright 2006. www.northcyprustravel.eu"
Contact info
admin AT northcyprustravel.eu
WHOIS northcyprustravel.eu:
Michael Gamble
80 watergate lane
LE3 2XP leicester
Leicester, UK
+447788558615
tom.gamble AT ntlworld.com
The article on Base Station Subsystem here [126] is a cut and pasted copy of this version of the Wikipedia page. The version on their site has the date 2006-06-18, it even has a copy of the expand tag.
No mention of Wikipedia or GFDL. Article says "Author : Raveex" on one of the first lines which is clearly not the case and as such a violation of gfdl.
Most articles (at least the ones I checked) listed here are cut and pasted from Wikipedia and claim the same author.
Example: Debridement (see talk). Bandage scissors, which they not only copied but also replaced an existing reference with their own!
No obvious link to Wikipedia or to original article. At their disclaimer, they say, "The contents contained herein have been produced by our staff based on textbooks and other reference materials that had been written by a certified professional author, while some of the materials here had been taken from certified resource sites."
description = aims to project the entire wikimedia realm onto 4K or even 8K screen tech (video/photo/tiled), with semi-transparent easy to read content.
rating = ?? high/medium i guess. i merely funnel data into my UI.
compliance = full, as far as i (the owner of nicer.app) can tell.
Observances, Holidays and Celebrations is an e-book published by MobileReference for use on mobile devices. The URL links to Google books' incomplete copy. A complete copy has to be purchased from a commercial supplier.
Description
Sample
p.112 contains a substantial amount of text identical to that in the the lead of an earlier version of Wikipedia's article Nowruz.
Rating
Medium, judging from the Google books copy. Precise degree of compliance is difficult to evaluate without buying a commercial copy
Compliance
The licensing information provided on the "back cover" acknowledges that material from Wikipedia has been used, and that this material is licensed under the GFDL, although it also wrongly implies that this material is also "public domain". However, it also asserts "all rights reserved" over the work as a whole, whereas the GFDL requires that the whole of any modification of a work licensed under it—which is what this is—must also be licensed under the same licence or a substantially similar version.
A copy of the GFDL licence doesn't appear to be included anywhere in the publication, as required by the terms of that licence, although a link to an on-line copy of the licence appears to be provided with the licensing information. The licensing information includes an apology for not listing all the authors of the Wikipedia material, and asserts that these can be seen "by following the hyperlink at the bottom of each article". As far as is possible to tell from the Google books copy, such links do appear regularly throughout the the publication, but it doesn't appear to be possible to use the Google books copy to check that these links work and do in fact point to the proper articles.
Only links back to en.wikipedia.org, does not link back to original article.
Mentions GFDL, linking to GNU.org.
This site is stealing Wikipedia bandwidth. When looking up an article, the script get.jsp queries the en.wikipedia.org server realtime , strips the result down to the text alone and places it its own page. Evidence: I tested various pages that I knew had changed very recently (not more than two hours ago), e.g. Tuareg languages. They all returned the most recent version.
The best example is of course looking up the main page: [128]!
Needs action. Probably standard letter is not enough. Someone who is more fluent and eloquent than I am in English, please help. - Mark Dingemanse(talk) 21:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) articles included on this page are licensed under the GFDL. Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright." Links to copy of GFDL rather than copy of GFDL. Example has at least 10 different articles in their entirety on it.
Contact info
pch AT qwe.pl, info AT pazwa.pl, +48.124244010 no other valid phone number given (unless 123456789 is a valid phone number) domain registered in Poland
Actions
None so far. I'm not entirely sure what would need to be done.
Some formatting issues and some articles missing (e.g. Albania)
No link to original article
Articles end with "This article uses material from Wikipedia and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License" with link to local copy of Wikipedia article about GNU General Public License rather than GFDL (or GPL) itself --Henrygb12:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Owner seems to be updating this page so to summerise requirements...
Each page needs to link to the original article
Each page needs to link to the GFDL and wikipedia
Thanks for taking notice of this -- I will leave this here for now, but i will move it in a couple of weeks out of low... --Davelane 11:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I will make the changes. I purchased this site from another individual and was unaware of the requirements. I do not wish to violate any guidelines set by the great effort by wikipedia.
Changes seem to have reverted back so leaving in low for now --Davelane 19:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, to summarize, as of Oct 20, 2004:
** Still only the sentence "Content from wikipedia.org is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License".** No link to Wikipedia, let alone a direct link to the original Wikipedia article
** No link to the GFDL; fulltext of the license not available. - Mark Dingemanse(talk) 20:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What are you talking about? NO changes have reverted back. Everything you mention above is and has been present for several weeks?
I had a quick look and I can't see a link back to the original article etc, the only link to wikipedia I saw was on the front page which is a lot better then some sites here -- have a look at the main mirrors and forks page, Regards --Davelane 16:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, everything should be right on every page. Please advise.
While the site does say "Content from wikipedia.org is..." nowhere does it say what content that is; i.e. that all of the text(AFAIK) in the encyclopedia articles is "content from wikipedia.org". This should be clarified. Also, links back to specific articles are still needed. JesseW 10:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As of 27 July 2005 there is a statemetn on their main page that Content from wikipedia.org is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License which links to wikipedia.org, but their links lead to pages that seem to be assempeld from multiple wikipedia pages on related topics. There is no acknowledgement on these pages that the content comes from wikipedia, no mention of the GFDL, and no link to wikipedia much less to the individual articles. Also thre is no history or acknoledgement of contributors. The copy of wikipedia used seems to be significantly out of date. DES21:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A ticket agency! I found [129], from our Duran Duran article, but spot-checks on other artist bios do not seem to be from WP. Perhaps they copied from another DD fansite who uses our material. On further research: it looks like they allow site users to upload bios and links. What should be done?
This guy has taken articles on Wikipedia on the television program American Idol, as well as bios of the contestants from Wikipedia, and created a website which is chock full of advertising links. He uses his own byline, and copyrights the material to himself.
Only Idol is published by Landon Howell and is owned by Bamassippi Media Group.
There is no mention of Wikipedia on the site. He has reorganized the American Idol entry into smaller segments: a main article, and shorter separate pages on individual seasons. He also includes biographies of contestants taken from Wikipedia. There is, as far as I can tell, not a single original word about American Idol on the site. It is all taken from Wikipedia. I e-mailed site owner Landon Howell months ago with a link to the GFDL, and he said he'd look into making his site compliant. Obviously he has not, but, rather, has expanded his site with further rip-offs from Wikipedia. He even seems to try to keep up-to-date with changes in the entries over time. The site is absolutely jam-packed with advertising links, so the guy is making a pretty penny off the work of others. I just made a comment directly on his site, but it may be screened out by him. I also linked this site in the Wikipedia talk pages of the main American Idol entry, and several of the bios of contestants which were used by onlyidol.com. I have also written to him via e-mail, using one of the suggested templates linked here. -Jmh12315:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
network-abuse AT cc.yahoo-inc.com (requires the use of DMCA)
Actions
Received an e-mail response from this guy this morning, and he claims he will have this corrected within 48 hours. -Jmh12317:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have e-mailed Howell that I'm now aware of the juiceenewsdaily site as well. I'll give him some time to make the appropriate changes. -Jmh12301:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far, Howell has removed his by-line from some of the articles. No other changes have yet been made. I have contacted him again, again including details about how to reach compliance, and this time mentioning further steps in the process which may be taken if he does not. -Jmh12301:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lengthy exchange of e-mails with Howell last night. He is very reluctant to comply, and tried various dodges, seeking what he calls "middle ground". [My favorite dodge: "But actually (I'm not picking at you but if we're getting technical), according to MLA and APA guidelines, any citation longer than 4 lines requires no quotation marks." Obviously I never mentioned quotation marks--just requested that for any article taken wholesale from Wikipedia he not use a byline or claim copyright, but, rather, include a citation and link to the original Wikipedia article, and also include a link to the GFDL.] He does not want to comply fully. He wants to put the byline back on the articles because his software will not permit him to add a byline only to "news" on his site that did not come from Wikipedia. I'll give him more time, as I think I was pretty clear about the issues and expectations.
Just now received the following from Howell: "I'll tell you what. The next fundraiser Wiki has (which should be in a couple of months). I'll promise to increase my gift by 25%. I'm not going to disclose what I usually give, you understand.... [my sites are] simply a way for me to take Wiki and make it more mainstream. I've been praised in the past for doing this, especially with Wikinews. You just seem to to care about the credit being more-than-obvious in the article... which is GREAT, don't get me wrong. I've just never had a problem with obeying the laws before. I'll take all the steps needed... and I'll probably pull alot of the articles in the near future."
Sorry it's been so long since I reported. Articles have not been pulled, but Howell has removed his by-line from all, and added named links to Wikipedia to some. I'm assuming good faith and will probably leave this be. -Jmh12303:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ends with "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "albania"." with link to GFDL at GNU and wrong (but working) link to original article. --Henrygb23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It offers links on pages directly to edit forms on Wikipedia, which could be a problem as the page may be a different version from what is on open-encyclopedia.
The top page may be compliant, but the rest of the pages are questionable at best. Under each article title, the owner has replaced "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" with "From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia."
This is partly based on Wiktionary's content. Wholly based on.
Comment from developer (myself): I feel my Web site should be moved from this Web page and listed on 'high degree of compliance' section. I personally did not move it to prevent a bias view.
I have stated in-depth information on a Wiktionary discussion page regarding how Open Dictionary uses multiple sections to correctly label GNU FDL rights. Please view: Wiktionary: License discussionZeeshan M 04:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It offers links on pages directly to edit forms on Wikipedia, which could be a problem as the page may be a different version from what is on open-encyclopedia.
The top page may be compliant, but the rest of the pages are questionable at best. Under each article title, the owner has replaced "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" with "From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia."
Still largely non-compliant as of 2008, and still using outdated database text from the end of 2004. For instance, "'New York broadcaster WPBS-TV is one of two PBS flagship stations, the other being KPBS in California...' At least that's how this article would begin if PBS were exactly like other major US networks such as ABC, CBS and NBC. PBS, however, is different" is original to one initial version of the intro for our WPBS-TV article, created in 2004 and removed by subsequent editors years ago. --carlb (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the administrator of OrthodoxWiki. I just ran across this page, and would like to say that I've left a message for the contributor, asking him to explicitly cite Wikipedia as a source when he imports an article in the future. We'll have to make our guidelines more explicit about this. I added a link back to Wikipedia in the article in question.
We've recently moved our wiki to a dual license (GFDL and CC by-sa), with an explicit statement that Wikipedia content does not become CC - just our original content is dually licensed. Please let me know if this is an unacceptable arrangement!' I would ask Henrygb and others to contact us in the future if they suspect any non-compliance. We're earnestly trying to work through these issues and appreciate kind guidance. I wish someone had contacted me instead of or in addition to posting this message here.
It will take a little time, but we will also do an audit to ensure that our other imported articles are in compliance. Is there a clear statement of exactly what is required for compliance anywhere? Thanks, Jschroe / FrJohn
P.S. One other note is that the person who imported this article likely took both from a third source is the author or, at least, has authorization from the original source of the article. He is the webaster of http://www.zeitun-eg.org/, which contains a lot of information about the saint. (Updated)
Attribution was provided in the history -- admittedly this is insufficient, but it wasn't fully absent. I'm grateful that in this case User:Henrygb did login and fix the issue. Jschroe
Osmanlı Tarihi Kültürü Medeniyeti Edebiyatı Sanatı
There is no mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL and the sites claim copyright. The company responsible for all, otherground.com, appears to be making a tidy living by creating topical websites which systematically present Wikipedia articles as their own without complying with the GFDL. All include generous amounts of ads. Their website has a (complete?) list of the sites in their network (http://www.otherground.com/network/). I have reproduced it above. Though some of the pages on these sites do not appear to be copied from Wikipedia, they are probably using it as a source even for these. At any rate, I've found copyright violations on each site I checked (though admittedly that isn't all).
Contact info
http://www.otherground.com/contact/ (contact form), jc AT otherground.com (whois), abuse AT globalcompass.com (host)
Page ends with This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License with links to http://www.wikipedia.org and to local mirror of GNU Free Documentation License article
Articles "by Micha F. Lindemans" are mirrors of out of<A title="Online Dating" style="COLOR: #65b45c; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://216.130.188.208/cgi-bin/ezlclk.fcgi?id=6718" target=_blank> date </A>versions of all mythology related articles. Actually, the articles predate the original entries in Wikipedia and have been copied by users without proper notice.
With stub notices and images etc. removed
Especially noticeable with articles that were confused - e.g. Banebdjed and Ba (now corrected in Wikipedia) - Ba (capital B) on Pantheon is described as if a totally different entity to Banebdjed, even though Ba is said to be in Mendes. No Egyptologist would ever make this mistake - Banebdjed means "Ba of the lord ('neb') of djed", and "djed" is the old name for Mendes, but Wikipedia used to have the "Ba of Mendes" and "Banebdjed" as different gods, which is exactly how Pantheon.org has it.
It even has the early version of Chem, something totally obviously wrong to anyone with any competence in the field (e.g. Chem = Ham and wears a womans dress. No. Chem is a misreading of "Min", and never wore a womans dress, although female deities were sometimes depicted as Min (including phallus), though always identifiable as to who they were). This error is very unlikely to be made without copying Wikipedia.
N.b. w.r.t. Egyptian mythology, the articles have been updated substantially in Wikipedia since April, so may no longer correspond.
Claims exclusive copyright, not GDFL, all rights reserved
This appears to be a complete dump of Wikipedia based on the last modified date on the front page. There is a disclaimer at the top that "This is NOT the Wikipedia - The content is from the Wikipedia". However, only the last entry of the history is copied and there is no link to the original article, which means it is violating the GFDL. Also, the link to the GFDL is broken because only main namespace is copied. There are other violations. For example, the title of documents is not changed in contradiction of 4.A. of the GFDL.
Links to both Wikipedia and GFDL, makes it quite clear that content is from Wikipedia.
Contact info
Actions
Pediax
Pediax
URL
http://en.pediax.org/
Description
Sample
http://en.pediax.org/Detroit,_Michigan
Rating
Medium
Compliance
"Content released under GFD-Licence" with a link to the article about the GFDL, not directly to an actual license text and links the corresponding Wikipedia articles on each page.
No mention of copyright, authors or license. Small link at the bottom "more information on en.wikipedia.org" which doesn't acknowledge Wikipedia as source. Requires login for some content.
Contact info
support@peoplemaven.com
Actions
PeoplePill
PeoplePill
URL
https://peoplepill.com
Description
Sample
https://peoplepill.com/people/sara-braun/
Rating
Low
Compliance
Mentions Wikipedia as a source, includes a link to Wikipedia and CC BY-SA 4.0.
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.
Well, if we ever had spare lawyers and wanted publicity, "Wikipedia sues Chinese government for copyright infringement" would be hilarious. =] --Delirium 12:29, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
Site has scraped the pairs of name/RGB value for various colour articles from en.wiki; not primarily an IP problem, but much of the original en.wiki content was badly-sourced or made up, so perbang.dk should not be used as a source for future edits to colour articles; it should be treated like other mirrors.
I was using WP and suddenly found I was not using WP but this site, which asked me to log in, but appeared exactly like WP and correctly searched for WP articles for editing. This may be a phishing site that was invaded WP. Peterkingiron17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't list an email address to contact them, so I sent the standard GFDL vio letter to webmaster AT phillywire.com and admin AT 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)
Looks like a complete mirror. Notice that article is from Wikipedia and local link to GFDL (as part of larger document) on every page. They do not include a history section or link to original Wikipedia article. However, there are instructions in the copyright page for reaching the original Wikipedia article.
Contact info
twfhc4zcxxgw9q AT protectfly.com (protected whois), http://www.registerfly.com/info/contact.php (registrar contact form)
At the bottom of each page Wikipedia is mentioned and a link to the edit history of specific article is present to satisfy the attribution requirement. Content is relicensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and the license is mentioned and linked to.
Contact info
None
Actions
No contact information. No reply to e-mails to admin.pipiwiki etc… No reply from Whois.com abuse email contacts, No reply from ISP abuse contact email at Alibaba/Aliyun.
They have responded to the followup email I sent. The article in question now has a link to the Wikipedia article, has been reworded to remove most or all of the verbatim copying, and has been placed under the GFDL. If there is any Wikipedia copying in other articles, I am unaware of it.
No attribution, no mention or link to Wikipedia. Every poet's biography appears to be duplicated from Wikipedia - uses at least month old local copy. Does not claim copyright.
No mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL, no history pages. The site has every page on Wikipedia, including non-mainspace and special pages, and synchronizes them with Wikipedia every few seconds. All content exactly duplicated from Wikipedia without any attribution, credit, or mention.
Contact info
Only contact information available is info AT pontefract-yfc.co.uk
Includes link to Wikipedia and separate link to original article prominently at top of each article. Also includes "Date copied article: Month Day, Year"
WP articles do not appear on all pages - the site includes original articles as well.
Links to Wikipedia and local copy of GFDL at the bottom of each article used
No bogus copyright claims, clear footer "This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0" with appropriate links; each image links its file description on the original domain.
On non-copyright matters:
This website has a mirror of every page (article pages, article talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, etc.). Mirrored pages on their website are indexed by search engines even though these sites would not have been indexed on Wikipedia itself.
In the "Chronology" chapter of this book, on page 127, there is an entry for the year 2007 that appears to be almost an exact copy of the information that was in our History of hip-hop dance article here (scroll to 2007). This information is now in Hip-hop dance#Education but it was first added to Wikipedia on August 23, 2009 and then moved into a chronological table on August 24, 2009. The Popular Dance book was printed in June 2010 according to the information on page 4.
Contact info
Chealsea House/Infobase Publishing; 132 West 31st St.; New York, New York, 10001
Actions
None. Considering this is an actual book instead of a website I feel that a violation letter should come from someone above me on the Wikipedia corporate ladder.
Prominently mentions Wikipedia and links to original article (link says "edit Wikipedia article"). Does not mirror image description pages. Says, "All Wikipedia content is licensed under the GNU Free Document License or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license or is otherwise used here in compliance with the Copyright Act" which is too vague. All Wikipedia text is GFDL (except quotes), but not all images are under one of these licenses (and it doesn´t even say which version of CC-BY-SA). Links to offsite copy of GFDL (and CC-BY-SA 2.0).
Directory hosted by World Biographical Encyclopedia Inc., possibly related to Bajografik Enciklopedia in Minsk, an organisation whose network has been used to edit Wikipedia pages about Prabook. Valery Tsepkalo is the founder of Prabook.
Mentions GFDL and links to source. appears to be a full mirror of everything includeing userpages.
Example www.prescriptiondrug-info.com/drug_information_online.asp?title=Cliff_Richard
Ends with "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) | Source" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article
This is a general purpose site that allows users to specify subsets of articles to render for printing.
At the top, they now have the Wikipedia favicon logo and a readable URL that links directly to the original article. At the bottom, the full Wikipedia copyright notice is reproduced, including the full license name ("Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License"), with the license linked to Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, as well as links to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, and the trademark notice. It does not include the required disclaimer information, but to be fair our printable view does not either.
Gives a link to wikipedia as the 'citational source', but attribution given to bed-fellow mirror 'World Heritage Encyclopedia'. Page footers implies bed-fellow mirror "World Public Library" owns copyright to the content.
"Medium" to "High" compliance with GFDL (matches Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance).
Compliance
Takes Wikipedia school articles verbatim and copy/pastes them into their own site. Contacted them to cite the Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia) article, which they did. Have asked them to comply for all of their site.
Contact info
jcolayco AT publicschoolreview.com, information AT publicschoolreview.com
Actions
Two emails sent to comply for the Westfield High School article. A third email sent asking for the entire site to comply. Awaiting response
All there is is COPYRIGHT 2009 QDOBA RESTAURANT INC
Contact info
this contact page. Lists phone numbers, address, and contact us form. If I got it right, ISP is Qwest. Phone is +1-877-886-6515. Abuse email is abuse AT qwest.net
"Rankly is a social top list community. Create, share and discover top lists about the best stuff in life, like the best video games, movies, music, TV-series or makeup. On Rankly, anybody can create a top list, share it with their friends and see their list get ranked by friends and followers."
1,6. De informatie op de site Raspberry.news artikelen gratis verstrekt en gratis online bronnen (zoals Wikipedia en anderen) te gebruiken.
Or translated, something like
1,6. The information on the site Raspberry.news articles free offered and free online sources (like Wikepedia and others) to use.
It's not very clear what they mean with that line (the Dutch line is just as bad), but at least it sounds like they're using Wikipedia.
Their page about DMCA is in English, and mentions things that they're using it all as fair use, and they're not subject to DMCA as they're based in China.
An example of a copied article is the article about the Common pipistrelle or Gewone Dwergvleermuis. Which can be found on their site too. It's a literal copy of the Wikipedia article with no mention of the license or source. Many more such examples can be found.
Not yet contacted them as it doesn't sound they'll listen anyway (and I don't feel like getting involved in a Chinese lawsuit).
Page states "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." with link to local copy of GFDL
Without Javascript, there is no mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL. With Javascript, there is a bare link the original article. All text is copied wholesale with all the markup (and in-text mention of Wikipedia; see http://read-and-go.hopto.org/Wikipedia/Criticism-of-Wikipedia.html) stripped. There is no history section for these changes. Pages are surrounded by ads. Possibly search engine spam. Site map (http://read-and-go.hopto.org/sitemap.html) contains an index to articles, but omits all the 'W's.
Amusingly, loses many non-code-page-1252 characters. See Corneliu Baba example: "Iaşi" becomes "Iai"
Comprehensive mirror. CC BY-SA 3.0 License statement and link; Toolserver's list of contributors link. No clear attribution to Wikipedia, no links to original material. --Soujak (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contact info
Daniele Testa (owner, administrator and technical contact of the domain name); address: Stenbocksgatan 8, 50634, Borås, Sweden; Phone: +46.500400500; email: binero@daniele.se. --Soujak (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Links to the CC-BY-SA license and the general disclaimer and acknowledges Wikipedia but does not include a hyperlink back to the original article. PleaseStand (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Site owner replied on 2 October that he would bring his site into compliance within 3-4 days. As of now, the licensing information is on the "About Us" page. PleaseStand(talk)01:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discreet link "Wikipedia Page" on the top right, in the middle of whitespace, which is easy to spot but doesn't attribute the content.
Footer with link to source page and license, of the kind "This page is based on the Wikipedia article Horncastle boar's head; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA."
Images are hotlinked from Wikimedia Foundation servers and clicking them only provides a zoomed view, does not reach a file description. No attribution provided, therefore copyright violation.
the Wikipedia mirror is not compliant, having no mention of authors or linkbacks whatsoever, but has a visible text header "This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA";
other mirrors, such as Wikivoyage, reuse the Wikimedia wikis' HTML as is, including the links to file descriptions, permalink headers like "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yvwv (talk
Article includes substantial text identical to Burj Dubai, lacking any acknowledgment or citation, and bearing their own copyright: "(c) 2003 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."
"Low/None" compliance with CC BY-SA (matches Wikipedia:CC BY-SA Compliance) (compare against GFDL if they choose that license).
Compliance
The website contains a full or partial biography published on Wikipedia, and photos from Wiki Commons, but fails to provide links to the original articles on Wikipedia or credit authors and doesn’t meantion licence
Credits and links the original Wikipedia article or file description for the content, license mentioned and linked: "Content from Wikipedia Licensed under CC-BY-SA". No mention of Wikipedia authors.
Update: article now links to original article and to GFDL, and no longer claims copyright. Seems fully compliant now. --Kwekubo21:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This site contains a number of pages on mythological underworlds and deities, most if not all the text appearing is pieced together from a variety of wikipedia articles, alongside material apparently sourced from elsewhere. There is no visible link to or acknowledgement of wikipedia, or the GFDL, on any of the pages. The pages also contain a number of wikipedia imgs and photos, likewise uncredited. The site does acknowledge some sources of (non-wiki) material and imgs, although I suspect those tagged with "image courtesy of.." does not mean they've obtained explicit permission. Most likely an unwitting GFDL violation on the part of the website.
Modified content from Wikipedia (removed sections, altered slightly) without a license mentioned anywhere. It is possible though unlikely that Wikipedia is instead using their content without permission; to verify this other biographies need ot be looked at
Contact info
information@countryfeverfest.com (not working)
Actions
none; depending on a Wikipedia administrator to contact
I have no idea how much of the site is plagiarized from us, but the sample page I've given is clearly a series of plagiarisms from Wikipedia, perhaps all directly from the Romanian Wikipedia, perhaps some translated from others.
Contact info
By snail mail: Romanian-Portal.com; P.O. Box 957633; Hoffman Estates, IL 60195 By E-mail: info AT Romanian-Portal.com By phone/fax: 1-847-755-5584
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)
1) WHOIS 2) cc standard letter posted via webpage for "report abuse" [144] and sent as "infringing on a copyright" as the subject. They are listed as P.O. Box 6197, Denver, CO 80206, US Phone: +1.3037474010; however, this is just a holding company (www.protecteddomainservices.com) who provide "anonymous" domain name purchases to obfuscate any potential whois info for clients. 3) Form was completed, and a copy posted to rtbot.net via their "Contact us" page [145] on 30-07-2012. Unfortunately it seems the rtbot page is a scam, as it fails and directs to a dead mail page which states: "Sorry, but this form is no longer accepting submissions".
Dear Sir/Madam:
I have noticed that you are making use of English Wikipedia articles as part of your website, rtbot.net. One example is http://www.rtbot.net/belitung_shipwreck, which includes material from the Wikipedia article "Belitung Shipreck", which is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belitung Shipwreck. Wikipedia encourages the redistribution of its content. However, it is necessary to comply with the terms of our primary license, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). Failure to do so is a copyright violation. The text of the CC-BY-SA can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CC-BY-SA . That is the relevant legally binding document. However, Wikipedia does offer advice about how to comply with the CC-BY-SA. This can be found in detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights . One of the most important steps is to mention the CC-BY-SA.
At the bottom of every page that uses Wikipedia material, you should include text similar to, "This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article (put article name here); it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA." You should link the text "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" to a copy of the text of the CC-BY-SA. Also, you must link back to the original Wikipedia article.
I am the derivative copyright holder to the image used from the Belitung Shipwreck page, (the one with the red cross on it next to the island - copy of it http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Belitung_shipwreck_location.jpg) and creator of most of the content of the article, released to Wikipedia under the cc-by-sa licence.
There are thousands of other pages also used on your site which quote hundreds and thousands of editors whose work is also being used without accreditation. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and I hope you will endeavour to fix this soon.
Previously non-compliant. Now a notice in footer reads "The information on this page was used from wikipedia.org in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation Licence" with links to Wikipedia and the GFDL. No link to original article. No history section.
Contact info
WHOIS information Private registration through Domains by Proxy, Inc. Email: SAGEREPORT.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com Phone: (480) 624-2599 Fax: (480) 624-2599
Actions
Sent first GFDL notice via email on June 11, 2006. Sent follow-up GFDL notice via email on June 19, 2006. Sent final GFDL notice on July 3, 2006. Response received July 4, 2006, and website updated accordingly.
Wikipedias Rooster article is dumped on the page (complete with wikilinks, templates and cats even though the site is a Wiki !!!) with no attribution or links.
journal listed at https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/#S, a group of open access journals, another infringement by Alain L. Fymat, International Institute of Medicine and Science, journal editor
This is a wiki, but the Terms of Use are very restrictive and incompatible with GFDL. They don't actively copy our content, but well-meaning users are copying stuff there without understanding that it has to remain GFDL.
Contact info
John R. Douglas - editor.scifipedia AT scifi.com
Actions
de.scio.pw
URL
de.scio.pw
Description
unclear propose. only features one single advertisement above every page
Live mirror fetching detected via hidden span tags, no mention of the GFDL.
Contact info
Moorjani, Tanuj tanuj.moorjani AT gmail.com
Actions
None
Scribd
Scribd
URL
May be multiple e-books copied from Wikipedia.
Description
Sample
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19999557/Education-in-Emerging-Indian-Society-F-105 http://www.scribd.com/doc/20074682/Medical-Tourism-F http://www.scribd.com/doc/24333292/According-to-2003#stats; see Talk:DNA_dynamics and Talk:DNA computing
Rating
Compliance
This is a self-publishing forum where evidently some contributors find it easy to compile books by copying Wikipedia articles.
Contact info
copyright@scribd.com; per [149] DMCA take-down is required.
States: "Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article
Multiple articles copied. A review of 5 random articles found that 3 contained text substantially similar to earlier text in wikipedia articles: [150][151][152]. There are probably a lot more out there.
Copied article content: an IP address user added a Python section to our article and then copied the entire article to Seo Wiki in the same minute. No visible attribution except in a stub template that contains a broken link suggesting to "help Wikipedia by expanding it". No license given for content on their wiki.
update: This site has long since properly credited the GNU/GFDL sections and sources. Why is this notice still here? If you took the effort to make this public, then at least have the respect to acknowledge your personal victory (that was done immediately and willingly), OK Longhair? 210.5.75.10 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not mention Wikipedia in any way, although almost all content (including image thumbnails) is directly copied from (old) revisions of WP articles. Does not run on Wiki software - HTML, with no inter-article links. Uses WP images without credit. Mentions GFDL (All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License) but gives no links. Now credits Wikipedia, links to the original article and to their own copy of the GFDL. No history section listing authors and dates.
Contact info
Brad Sheppard
Sheppard Software, Suite 623 Pavilion, Jenkintown, PA 19046, US
(215) 885-1893 fax: (215) 885-4288. [154]
Thank you for advising me on how to comply with the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Pleased be assured that my staff will systematically follow your instructions, ensuring that each page that uses Wikipedia content includes the proper links and text. We are using your "bar" example as our model.
We appreciate your patience, and the wonderful service that Wikipedia provides to our site and so many others. It's truly amazing how your project has evolved in just a few years - and we're sure that the best is yet to come.
Best,
Brad Sheppard, Jr.
President - Sheppard Software
www.sheppardsoftware.com
I calls that a resounding success. I will reply to Mr Sheppard with some short further advice on GFDL compliance. Case closed, I believe. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ10:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example:http://www.singaporemoms.com/parenting/Homeopathy from Homeopathy
seems to be a fairly complete compy inlcludeing pics
mentions wikipedia and GFDL in it's copyright policy after a click through.
no link back to specific articles. No mention of authors but has link on "how to see transparent copy" with link to www.wikipedia.org and to local copy of GFDL plus link to local description of how to find original article. --Henrygb01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content: home page contains text snipped from Wikipedia articles about dynamic linking. Clicking through links eventually leads you to lists of DLLs; clicking on each DLL will take you to a page that invites you to download software.
no mention or link back to Wikipedia
no mention of GFDL
06:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
S/KeySource
S/KeySource
URL
http://www.skeysource.com/
Description
Sample
http://www.skeysource.com/
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
Most of the website appears to be taken from similarly-titled Wikipedia pages. It appears to be a copy from an older edit because not everything is a perfect copy, but it all appears as though it could have been taken from Wikipedia at some point.
Contact info
I don't know how to locate this info
Actions
No actions taken as of 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs)
The site is content-wise basically a pretty poor rip-off of the band-entries from en.wikipedia.org. Most band descriptions originate from here, sometimes 1:1, sometimes just the beginning sentence. Images are not copied or linked from wikipedia.
There is no link either to the GFDL or the original Wikipedia article present, no mentioning of Wikipedia at all, including the disclaimers.
I have send an email to info AT skwik.com and informed the site's webmaster of this violation of Wikipedia's license. --Johnnyw July 9, 2005 16:03 (UTC)
I received a positive answer: "Thank you very much for your comments and recommendations. We really appreciate them. We'll edit the site to comply with GFDL requirements and we'll do our best to give credits to Wikipedia. We also do our best to contribute content to Wikipedia." I'll try to keep an eye on this issue.--Johnnyw 13:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
No mention of or link to Wikipedia, no attribution to authors, asserts copyright; no onsite copy of GFDL (but each article links to Slider's unattributed copy of Wikipedia's GFDL article, which contains a link to GFDL on the gnu.org site).
every page ends with "This information is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License" and link to FDL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
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)
Their version of my user page modifies the template I use at the top of my page ({{userpage}}) that links to the original contained here so that it replaces "Wikipedia" to "Smartpedia" and breaks the link itself. - Lucky13pjn 20:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
In fact, they replace "wikipedia" by "smartpedia" almost everywhere. Their version of wiki is at http://www.smartpedia.com/wiki-sb.html, and they claim that "the English-language Smartpedia is, by far, the world's largest wiki; the German-language Smartpedia is the second-largest, while the other Smartpedias fill many of the remaining slots". -- Aleph4 17:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Update as of September 30, 2005: They still link to the source article and the GFDL as described above, but they also still havent changed the whole "Wikipedia" → "Smartpedia" thing. - Lucky13pjn15:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article named above seems to be the exception on this site. Looking at some random articles did not find any further copies from Wikipedia. Therefore, rather than someone with legal knowledge, one of the authors of the original article needs to take this up.
Use of the name "Wikipedia" is a matter for the foundation, not editors, but appears to be simple confusion between the term "wiki" and the registered trademark "Wikipedia". SpinningSpark13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ends article with "License : GFDL - Source: Wikipedia - Article" and links to GNU copy of GFDL, Wikipedia and original article. --Henrygb18:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The artist page is an exact copy of the lead section of the artist's Wikipedia page. Also, at the end of the article, the website provides a link to Wikipedia.
site: www.thesopranos.com and wiki.thesopranos.com/Main_Page with pages related to The Sopranos
example: wiki.thesopranos.com/Sicily
no obvious mention on article page of Wikipedia, original article or GFDL
wiki Main Page says "This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Main Page. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with The Sopranos Encyclopedia, the text of Wikipedia is available under the Text of the GNU Free Documentation License" with largely suitable links (except that it does not mirror Wikipedia Main Page).
Most wikilinks are dead. Also, Wikipedia is mentioned in some cleanup tags. Example: wiki.thesopranos.com/Jon_Bon_Jovi
Page now ends "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "slaves"." with links to GFDL at www.spellcorrect.info/fdl.txt and to original article 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Calls pages "SpivO Encyclopedia", the only references to Wikipedia are those in the articles extracted and on pages where the url is invalid (e.g., if title includes spaces instead of "_", they say "...consult the Wikipedia article"), and uses "WikiReflection" technology (see http://www.vacilando.org/index.php?x=7065). It is copying the userspace, and images are linked to the Wikimedia servers. No mention of GFDL. There is, however, an edit button at the top of every page, but it will only open an edit window for pages on the English Wikipedia, and will open whatever page the user typed in, regardless of redirects. Interestingly, using the interwiki links (i.e., [[wikt:is:brjálaður]]) pages from other projects can be copied, but any links will link back to the English Wikipedia. 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Contact info
Admin:Chris Kazor - info [atsign] spivo [.] com; 813-626-5261 and 206-202-2053 listed
Technical contact: Customer Support - support [atsign] hostingtrek [.] com; 877-571-1805
Actions
none
Spock.com
spock.com
URL
http://www.spock.com
Description
Sample
http://www.spock.com/Felix-Gouin
Rating
"Low/None"
Compliance
Copied most of the article almost verbatim with only a link to the original material here on wikipedia.
Contact info
Intelius
500 108th Avenue Northeast
Suite 2500
Bellevue, Washington 98004
United States
Not a gross violation. Only a short excerpt of the article, with source given. To be fully compliant, the page should probably also mention CC-BY-SA. A link to the original article is enough to fulfill the requirement to attribute the authors. decltype (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spokeo.com
spokeo.com
URL
http://www.spokeo.com
Description
Sample
http://www.spokeo.com/Max+Schreck+1
Rating
"Low/None"
Compliance
Copied most of the article verbatim with only a link prefixed "related links" to the original wikipedia article.
To be fully compliant, the page should also mention CC-BY-SA. A link to the original article is enough to fulfill the requirement to attribute the authors. -84user (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
States: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Dollar sign" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article
States: Copyright 2006 Sprinko.com Lassitter Ent, Inc. Company - All Rights Reserved
Copied most of the article almost verbatim to both the home page and the biography page with no attribution or links to the original material here on wikipedia.
Contact info
email: upender1953 AT gmail.com phone: +91.910404015045 (India) ISP: hostgator.com full whois info here Contact Us page on website
Some. They've reproduced the full Wikipedia body text with no menus, skins, images, however, it is at least licencesd under the GFDL and attributed to Wikipedia.
Contact info
Actions
List of backronyms is an article to which I'd contributed years ago; the original has long-since been deleted. If someone wants to preserve this stuff, great, but some attribution would be in order please? --carlb (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions Wikipedia & GFDL, links to original article: "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL. Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright. All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved."
Sent informal message complaining about one article. Srleffler (talk) April 21, 2009
I see "stateuniversity.com" is globally blacklisted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist . I am adding this entry here as they look to me like an extensive collection of copyright violating wikipedia-derived content. No attributions, no GFDL, and they claim, obscurely, that content is copyright "Net Industries" and obtained from a printed, unnamed, source. Examples are everywhere. http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/21768/Ted-Turner.html and wikipedia's article on Ted Turner are obviously connected.
Until this entry, neither stateuniversity.com nor "Net Industries", nor "Cambridge Encyclopedia" were listed in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.See also http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/collection/1/Cambridge-Encyclopedia.html. "Cambridge Encyclopedia" has a lot of obvious copyvio'ed biographies. 84user (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
stateuniversity.com's copyright page claims they will responds to takedown notices:
"Intellectual Property
It is the policy of StateUniversity.com to respond expeditiously to claims of intellectual property infringement. StateUniversity.com will promptly process and investigate notices of alleged infringement and will take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If there is any link or material in any page on this site that would infringe on any copyright, the link or material, provided it is being served from StateUniversity.com's server rather than that of a third party, will be removed immediately upon proof or appropriate demonstration of controlling interest or ownership. Any names that appear in this site may be trademarks/service marks/registered trademarks or copyrighted materials and are therefore the property of their respective owners."
Link near top to original article (under "See live article")
States "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" with links to Wikipedia and to local article about GFDL which in turn has link to GFDL text at gnu.org
This website and others in its network (www.rangercentral.com, www.kamen-rider.com, www.tokucentral.com) copy content from Wikipedia pages and use it to form their own database pages. The content on thesefivepages (45) are directly lifted from our article Kamen Rider OOO (character); it even uses spelling forms that are actually disfavored amongst the English speaking fans of the show.
Contact info
michaelpbastiangmail.com
Actions
I (—Ryulong (琉竜)) have sent an e-mail demanding that he source the information to Wikipedia.
Suprari
Suprari
URL
http://www.suprari.com
Description
Sample
http://www.suprari.com/wiki.php?page=Nancy_Ajram
Rating
"None" compliance with GFDL (matches Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance).
Only indication that this is a Wikipediacopy is at first glance the "edit" button, which connects to Wikipedia. No other mention of Wikipedia, no GFDL.
Main Page states that all text entries on the wiki section are licensed under the GFDL, and provides an on-site link to the full licence text. Articles copied from Wikipedia contain a notice providing credit and a link back.
Their "edit this page" button links back to Wikipedia's edit page form.
Listed here - August 10, 2004. →Raul654 21:06, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Teamsugar.com
Teamsugar
URL
http://teamsugar.com/
Description
Sample
http://teamsugar.com/173310
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Links to original WP article and remote copy of GFDL - however, still using upload.wikimedia.org for images
Contact info
Contact page: [163]. brian AT sugarpublishing.com, me AT briansugar.com, 415-4094001
Actions
Tagate.com
Tagate.com Webportal
URL
Tagate.com
Description
Sample
http://www.tagate.com/wars/index.shtml
Rating
None
Compliance
Copies directly from Wikipedia pages (for example, Wars of the Three Kingdoms --> http://www.tagate.com/wars/page/three_kingdoms.shtml) while claiming All Rights Reserved.
Contact info
tagate AT gmail.com
Actions
Have sent an email explaining WP licensing, will provide copy if needed. Will post if reply is received. I AM NOT a contributor to this article, thus I have no claim of copyright, so further action must be taken by someone else.-RunningOnBrains(talk)17:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
techno-science
Site: www.techno-science.net in French
Example: www.techno-science.net/?onglet=glossaire&definition=4865 from fr:Factorielle, largely a translation of English Factorial
States: "Cette définition provient de l'encyclopédie libre Wikipédia publiée sous licence GNU FDL, elle est reprise sur techno-science.net à but informatif. Vous pouvez soumettre une modification ou un complément à cette définition sur la page correspondante de Wikipédia. La liste complète des auteurs de cet article est disponible sur cette page. Il est possible que certains problèmes de mise en forme demeurent suite à l'importation de cette page, dans de tels cas veuillez vous reporter à la version originale sur Wikipédia."
Sources linked to, history linked to, mentions WP, does not mention GFDL, and problably should not be extracting non-article pages such as the AFC page noted above, as well as the user page used before.
Description of the site: uses modified MediaWiki software to serve up an unmodified current-version English Wikipedia article database. The visual appearance is slightly different and a bar near the top lists some of the first few links in the article. They have added some special pages for popular pages, new pages, and a "quick index", and have added them to the sidebar. They have also added the ability to add links and discussion to the bottom of articles (blog-style).
This mirror I would say is noncompliant. The GFDL is linked, but there is no indication whatsoever that it's Wikipedia material, much less a link to Wikipedia or the article. The authors therefore receive no credit. The creating company's contact is info AT innovateit.com, but I have not contacted them. Deco 19:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
They mirror everything! Down to the User space! Hell, they have a mirror of this discussion. [164][165] -- AllyUnion(talk) 07:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
They are certainly spammer fighting for some pageranks more. They put advertisement in the front of the text. But they do state (in tiny letter) that it is a Gnu document and then back link to wikimedia (not wikipedia)--Alexandre Van de Sande 13:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mirrors a selection of articles on Chemistry and Educational topics. Site claims copyright, mentions neither Wikipedia nor GFDL except that they reproduce our main page as one of their articles
The link, attribution and GFDL license are not clearly visible
i.e. in a very light grey small font, and uses graphics (the GDFL text is rendered as an image, making it invisible to text-only browsers and search engines.) and nofollow links
Mirror with different styling; each page has tag cloud linking to other articles. Image repository. Links to major categories from each article. Appears to be primarily concerned with New Zealand articles.
No attribution on content pages. Claims copyright of all work on content pages, but has a separate page (here) stating "Sections of The Grid are published is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" with attribution to Wikipedia.
If not explicitly written, all images are sourced from Wikipedia, Wikimedia and Fotolia web sites. Please note that a specific End-user license agreement (EULA) is applied to each of them.
The data displayed on this website is obtained from open U.S., U.K., Canadian, French, Belgium and other governmental statistics, Wikipedia website or is considered as common knowledge, hence does not need to be cited.
Contact info
Only webform is available: http://themeaningofthename.com/contact-us/
Redistributing under CC BY, a violation of the GFDL and CC BY-SA. Does not link to transparent copy or authorship. The first example is a fork of Thirty-Nine Articles, the second a direct copy then fork of Five solas
Distributed under GFDL? in past, but no notices exist as of 5 April 2011, making them now None. Left discussion post at the Theopedia Five Solas article. Wikipedia copies are against Theopedia policy.
Mirrors all content into it's own site, with the addition of computer-generated "summaries" at the tops of articles.
Seems relatively new - search box isn't even a search box, just a place-holder image.
NOT compliant: No mention of GFDL, no mention of Wikipedia (except on the text of the mirrored main page) and says "Copyright (c) 2005 ThePedia.com, All rights Reserved
Tech AT TicketCity.com - Web Site Technical Assistance IP: 66.193.119.156
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
TicketCity.com domains AT ticketcity.com
5912 Balcones Dr Suite 201
Austin, TX 78731
US
512-472-5797 fax: 512-469-7682
States at end: "Wikipedia information about Cliff_Richard This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. More from Wikipedia" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to en:Wikipedia main page
No obvious link to original article under top mention of Wikipedia
All pages appear to be verbatim copies from Wikipedia articles having to do with tobacco, in particular Tobacco and Smoking pipe (tobacco). Large chunks of text that I wrote myself were appropriated. The only links are to other appropriated articles or an online tobacconist. No statement is made anywhere as to from whence they got the material.
Contact info
No contact details given on site. WHOIS gives this:
Andry B Kulikov (kulikov AT pravda.ru)
+7 921 9442222
PO Box 33
St Petersburg
193318
Russia
DOES NOT link to Wikipedia article. (It does, but it does it with Javascript, which hides it from search engines. Not acceptable. JesseW21:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article history shows content back at least as far as 2007, whereas the domain was registered in 2009 with the same content – so no question of who was first. The website has a "get involved" page, which asks readers if they have any relevant "content that [they] would like to contribute to the site" – this maybe the source of the duplicate content. This issue must, however, be dealt with correctly. At the time of writing, there are reports that the subject of this biography has died and we must treat this with respect. matt (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Example 2: www.top40-charts.info/?title=Cliff_Richard
Page ends "This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article Cliff Richard; it is used under the GNU Free Documentation License. You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the GFDL." with links to original article and to local copy of WP:GFDL
The footer of each article states "This article contains text from the Wikipedia article 'article_name' (History) and is released under the GFDL", with a link to 1) The article 2) The article's history and 3) a local copy of 1.2 of the GFDL.
Contact info
Nixon, Robin robin AT robinnixon.com, ISP is POWERMEDIUM.COM
Non-compliant. Material is copied from Wikipedia. No mention of Wikipedia on the page or attribution to WP editors. Assertion of copyright with no license to reuse material.
Travel Goa is an e-book published by MobileReference for use on mobile devices. The URL links to Google books' incomplete copy. A complete copy has to be purchased from a commercial supplier.
Description
Sample
p.748 contains a substantial amount of text identical to that in a section of an earlier version of Wikipedia's article Architecture of India. The supposed earlier date of publication (2007) of Travel Goa does not indicate that the Wikipedia text was copied from it. The text and images common to Travel Goa and the Wikipedia article comprise apparently independent contributions by several different Wikipedia editors at different dates starting from March 12, 2007.
Rating
Medium, judging from the Google books copy. Precise degree of compliance is difficult to evaluate without buying a commercial copy
Compliance
The licensing information provided on p.1188 acknowledges that material from Wikipedia has been used, and that this material is licensed under the GFDL, although it also wrongly implies that this material is also "public domain". However, it also asserts "all rights reserved" over the work as a whole, whereas the GFDL requires that the whole of any modification of a work licensed under it—which is what this is—must also be licensed under the same licence or a substantially similar version.
A copy of the GFDL licence doesn't appear to be included anywhere in the publication, as required by the terms of that licence, although a link to an on-line copy of the licence appears to be provided with the licensing information. The licensing information includes an apology for not listing all the authors of the Wikipedia material, and asserts that these can be seen "by following the hyperlink at the bottom of each article". As far as is possible to tell from the Google books copy, such links do appear regularly throughout the the publication, but it doesn't appear to be possible to use the Google books copy to check that these links work and do in fact point to the proper articles.
Contact info
support@soundtells.com
Actions
None as yet.
Trip Atlas
Trip Atlas
URL
http://tripatlas.com/
Description
Sample
http://tripatlas.com/Latin_mnemonics
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
§4 ¶d, ¶f, ¶h, ¶i, and ¶j are not complied with. The sample page is a prior deleted version of Latin mnemonics.
Contact info
Diamond Group; 477 Richmond St west; Toronto, Ontario; M5V 3E7
Article ends "This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source" with links to Wikipedia and to original article. 02:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that this has been copied and pasted in both directions. The T. S. Monk Wikipedia article was, itself, a copyvio of the subject's (old) website (link) until 2007, when the article began to take its current shape. There was an intervening copy-paste from that site ([168]), but it had since been mostly edited down to something more original. Now I suspect that the above URL's content has been copied from this Wikipedia article; it is dated 2019 but mirrors text that has been in this article for a while.
One paragraph added to this article in 2017 was promotional in tone ([169]), I thought it had been copied from the newer website, although it seems to predate it. Someone had already removed the most egregious portion and I just removed the rest; the paragraph in its entirety currently appears on the newer website.
(Archive.org doesn't have any captures from the old website since 2017, and, when I checked today, did not have any versions of the new website.)
Live (?) mirror, probably created to circumvent the block of Wikipedia in Turkey.
Sample
http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/House
Rating
Low
Compliance
No mention of copyright, authors or license. No links to the original article or history. Clicking on the images loads their attribution by means of MediaViewer JavaScript being loaded as is. The footer contains an ambiguous statement "This website is a mirror of Wikipedia, and is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation"; in the Turkish version the same footer seems to imply that the content is in the public domain.
Contact info
None
Actions
TutorGig
TutorGig
URL
http://www.tutorgig.com/
Description
Sample
http://www.tutorgig.com/es/Kunst+og+kultur and http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/William_Og_de_Burgh
Rating
Medium
Compliance
The actual texts of articles are not indexed by google, but search pages, which contain vast numbers of article titles, are, and do not contain any mention of Wikipedia, clogging up searches for non-Wikipedia-mirror information on topics in Wikipedia titles. All links are through a redirect script. They seem to show up with javascript off.
Link to current version of article, labelled "Edit this article".
Link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
Indicates source is Wikipedia and links to Wikipedia home page.
Removed "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
No history section listing authors and dates
Contact info
info AT tutorgig.com, DGM Technologies Inc. 917-742-7626; ISP: THEPLANET.COM; abuse AT theplanet.com (800) 377-6103
Have sent an email explaining WP licensing, will provide copy if needed. Will post if reply is received. I AM NOT a major contributor to these articles, thus I have no claim of copyright, so further action must be taken by someone else.-RunningOnBrains(talk)08:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Crime_Traveller and http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Wikipedia
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Site has GFDL notice at the bottom of the pages - the image links to the GFDL license at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html - but the link in the text points to http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License and http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights (both pages do not exist). The only mention to wikipedia is on the main page. The "General Disclaimer" link at the bottom of every page links to a non-existant page. Articles do have history, however doesn't attribute the edits to the contributors on Wikipedia.
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 AT 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)
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)
Acknowledges Wikipedia with links to the original article, notes that the content is licensed under the GFDL (although links to GNU rather than local copy of GFDL).
None. Under the "section" "credit card debt reduction arbitration" appears the phrase "preemptive arbitrations by alleged credit card debtors", which I wrote for the consumer arbitration article; most of the same paragraph includes other phrases I wrote for that article.
Top right has Creative Commons "Some rights reserved" linking to GFDL at gnu.org
Bottom has disclaimer including "US Bazaar.com Encyclopedia content is provided by Wikipedia. US Bazaar.com is not responsible for the content and shall not be liable for any errors in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All content is under a GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be copied and distributed under that same license in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that the License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying the License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of the License."
Compliant. A notice in footer reads "Reference Directory is based on information from Wikipedia and is provided for general information only. Text is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. No link to original article.
Description: Started by a Arabic Wikipedia user as a full dump of Arabic Wikipedia, and claims to aim to incorporate articles from different sources. Some Wikipedia contributers edit articles for it.
Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it.
Pages are verbatim copies of Wikipedia articles. No mention that the content is under the GFDL, no mention of or links to Wikipedia. No list of contributors.
Contact info
Private domain registration through Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Mentions wikipedia, links to wikipedia articles with mention of CC-BY-SA 3.0. Claims to 'use material' but in fact is a straight mirror. Does not seem to release material under same license.
Contact info
hakkikonu@gmail.com, phone +90.5547347332 (Turkey); for ISP use abuse@godaddy.com, phone +1.4806242505 (US)
I'm also going after this one, again articles of mine have been copied, leading to particular annoyance. Standard letter sent. David Newton 17:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Second standard letter sent. David Newton 00:34, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Example produces "Page not found" 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
States "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" and contains direct copy of the start of the article as a blurb, which is then published online (the creation of the book itself is a separate issue). No links to original article or authors. Claims to be published by Bookvika publishing and/or authors Ronald Cohn and Jesse Russell, but the article content is still copyrighted. See also VDM Publishing.
In French but apears to be translation of old version of Ancient Greek in English rather than copy of fr:Grec ancien in French. Pages have English names.
Titled "Wikipedia" withe faint "fork"
Ends with "Cette page est basee sur l'article garanti les droits d'auteur 'Ancient Greek' de Wikipedia qu'il est employe sous le permis de documentation de GNU librement. Vous pouvez le redistribuer, in extenso ou modifie, fournissant que vous vous conformez aux limites du GFDL" with link to English GFDL at gnu.org
No obvious link to Wikipedia, original article or history
http://wiki.w2n.net/pages/Wikipedia.w2n explains how Jimmy Wales founded The W2N.net Wikipedia
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
"The W2N.net Wikipedia powered By The Rozaleenda Group, Inc." lacks GFDL information. Edit links produce script errors. This looks like an edited webscrape, as it reflects recent changes made this minute.
Contact info
The Rozaleenda Group, Inc., K304, Binayak Enclave, 59 K C G Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, IN 700050. Admin: Swagato Gangopadhyay contact AT w2n.net 1-206-984-2222. ISP: Defender Technologies Group Llc of Ashburn, VA, USA
Actions
None yet taken.
Wa-pedia
Wa-pedia
URL
http://www.wa-pedia.com
Description
Sample
http://www.wa-pedia.com/history/edo_period_era.shtml is a copy of the wikipedia article on Edo Period from approximately October 2004.
The text at the bottom of each article I examined is: "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." (See, for example, James Branch Cabell, a copy of our article ([180]) as it stood at the end of 2003.)
Thus, it mentions the GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it.
Each article that I examined does not credit authors, does not link to the Wikipedia article, does not link to the Wikipedia main page, and does not even give the Wikipedia URL in text.
An odd feature is that each article has this line near the bottom: "See a correction needed or have another comment? Post it in the Encyclopedia Forum". That forum invites visitors to report article corrections, add more detail, or post new articles, with the promise "We can also list you as a contributor if you wish." The forum was set up last week and has no activity thus far
Aside from GFDL compliance, does the Foundation want to make an issue of possible confusing similarity between "Wacklepedia" and the Foundation's trademark "Wikipedia"? There would be a case for requiring this site to use a different name.
The site owner previously created the "Bobby Fischer Chess Page" (now moved to [181]). He was editing Wikipedia articles to add external links to his site -- some appropriate, some not -- but then took to removing other Fischer links and substituting his own. I corresponded with him. He explained that he had misinterpreted the reversions of his initial edits, and promised not to cause any more trouble. Until now he has kept that promise. I'll direct his attention to the compliance requirements he's not meeting. He's edited the external links in a few of our articles to use a "Wacklepedia" URL instead of the "Bobby Fischer Chess Page" one, but I'll leave those links alone for a reasonable time to see whether he brings his site into compliance. JamesMLane 17:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The site owner responded very promptly. He said he could easily make each page link to Wikipedia, presumably meaning the Main Page: "That should be easy as it's common code. But linking to every article is going to be quite a bit of re-work. Is there something easier?" I don't know of anything. Can someone more knowledgeable about compliance and coding advise me on what to tell him? JamesMLane 19:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Each page now has a javascript end which says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This article is from Wikipedia" with links to local GFDL text and to original wikipedia article. Annoyingly, will still turn up on "-wikipedia" searches. --Henrygb 00:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No credit is given to Wikipedia and no mention is made of the Creative Commons license on the Natasha Bedingfield page cited here. No copyright notice appears at all. However, other pages (such as their Avril Lavigne page) do say "Source: en.wikipedia.org" near the end of the material taken from Wikipedia.
Clearly states "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia": looks to be a live mirror, not a copy, and hides the history and other tabs,and things like the Wikipedia footer (woith all licensing info)
contact point: Editor <webstersedits2 AT hotmail.com>
Indicates source is Wikipedia
link to local GFDL page, as specified in GFDL, in separate window.
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" present
Links to Wikipedia article
Does not include a history section listing authors and dates.
uses various articles within larger collection
the site's general "terms of use" notes the following in several places "Exception: the only terms that apply to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, articles are the ones specified in the GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE." Thus exempting Wikipedia content from the site's restrictions.
each article links to the following, with copies of GFDL,etc.,: ""Note: The text referenced in the "source," is exempt from any compilation copyright held by this site or the editor, so users can use the text freely under the copyleft GFDL license established by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which is described in detail below. Any other material having copyright on this page resides with their respective owners."
A republisher of various internet dictionaries and encyclopedias. It does not mention Wikipedia on the front page but it does include "This article is a copy... GFDL" text at the bottom of articles. Probably fine. JesseW 05:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
NB: This is not the same as websters-online-dictionary.org
Links to Wikipedia & GFDL
Links back to original article
I think we can move to high --Davelane 09:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
GFDL and wikipedia links at bottom of pages depend on Javascript being turned on. They are not in the article source code and so will turn up on Google searches with -wikipedia. --Henrygb 01:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does not attribute Wikipedia as source; does not specify copyright or GDFL. They claim that they "provide biographical facts with surrounding information and external resources depending on biographical entity"
States comes from Wikipedia, with link though not to original article
The website states it is available under terms of GFDL and attempts to link to the GFDL, but the link is off-site and (now) broken (a good reason to link on-site). Also, there is no included history section or link to the original article, but only the main page.
Modified formatting, with quick color selection. A subject-relevant video is added to many articles, chosen by a bot called "Tubie". Multiple languages are supported, including English and Spanish.)
Says it complies with CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and makes all text available under that license. Says all articles are based in Wikipedia. Currently a live mirror, see here.
Says it complies with CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and makes all text available under that license. Says all articles are based in Wikipedia. No refrence to contributors, history, donations. Currently a live mirror.
Contact info
admin@wiki2.wiki
Actions
none yet
WikiAlpha
WikiAlpha
URL
http://en.wikialpha.org/
Description
Sample
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Site officially releases all content into the public domain. However, content copied from Wikipedia is tagged with a license indicating it is used under the Creative Commons license Wikipedia uses.
Contact info
Actions
Licensing issues were discussed at AN/I with administrators from WikiAlpha.
Text from Wikipedia is clearly indicated as such under a tab named "Wikipedia article" with a link to the source article at the bottom, rather easy to spot and click. However, the CC-BY-SA license is not mentioned until you click "More", after which the footer expands to " This is a part of the Wikipedia article used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). The full text of the article is here → ".
Contact info
Probably info@socialtalents.com , Ukraine
Actions
Wikibin
Wikibin
URL
http://wikibin.org
Description
Sample
http://wikibin.org/articles/paul-bristow.html
Rating
Compliance
Says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" with link to GFDL at gnu.org. Seems to contain some deleted Wikipedia articles (in this case see for example [182]), but apart from logos at top no indication of history.
Actively copying many, if not most, chiropractic articles and then "chirofying" them, IOW whitewashing them by removing criticism and making them chiropractic propaganda.
None. I'll let Wikimedia's legal department take care of this.
Having never done this before, I'm unsure what to do next. This seems like blatant misuse of the hard work of many editors here who have contributed to those articles and kept them NPOV. This is an attempt to create a huge mirror that will be "the premiere site for information about Chiropractic". Since it will be a whitewashed version, it can't be "fair use" by any definition of the term. This obviously deceptive use of material here shouldn't be allowed to occur. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[COMMENT] At Wikichiro. we are not "removing all criticism", only that coming from a specific cabal of people who have invaded and taken over the rules of Wikipedia to slander a profession. This group has been the subject of numerous discussions, and their leader is, according to my sources involved in dozens of self-promoting lawsuits around the country designed to abuse the legal system to squelch free speech and the practice of any alternative to drugs and surgery their fearless leader deems quackery. This band is notorious in all Alt med circles. They have in this way perverted wikipedia's purpose and found very creative means of twisting wiki's rules to accomplish their goals. This may well constitute a violation of a permanent federal injunction in place since the late 70's. They also band together to so completely harass anyone who opposes their prejudices that they force them from editing on Wikipedia. Thus, the necessity of Wikichiro and other sites which sincerely try to provide an objective and less overtly prejudiced view of these fields.
For example: In the article on back pain, I tried to provide a reference to the fact that some major studies were done and Published in the British Medical Journal, in 1990 and 1995 which used Chiropractic adjustments, NOT generic manipulation. I was reverted on the grounds that some study later without Chiropractic involvement (perhaps they used some PT or MD who had a weekend class in manipulation) showed that manipulations had no better result that any other form of therapy. The lame excuse was that I can't use even a landmark published study from 1990 and follow-up from 1995 to modify somthing that uses a newer study. But we are comparing apples and oranges. It's an absurd position. These people have a highly coordinated agenda.
BTW: All articles used from Wikipedia on Wikichiro are fully attributed to Wikipedia. There are other parties who, I also understand, have taken this cabal to your legal department, and are negotiating to avoid federal lawsuits. Those voices, which most vociferously oppose this conspiracy have already been totally banned from Wikipedia. If the management of Wikipedia would undertake to purge itself of this kind of organized and coordinated bullying of serious editors (WHICH really constitutes the worst meatpuppetry!!!, then expert in these fields, could contribute without the endless harassment that these bullies are creating, to drain their time and energy away from improvement of wikipedia knowledge base, then perhaps the whole encyclopedia could benefit, and the world would be the beneficiary. I know it's a long read to get to the crux of this, but please see the talk page at [[191]] if you are truly interested in improving the climate here, and read this garbage, as well as the harassment over the bio at Stephen J. Press
BTW: we were advised from a very high level, that we could copy Wikpedia's articles so long as they were properly attributed. Sincerely, 68.239.180.104 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the IP editor above is none other than Stephen J. Press himself, User:Drsjpdc. His conspiracy theory rantings are not only incorrect, they are incorrect because he is siding with and repeating the rantings of an editor who has been indef banned by the Arbitration Committee itself. The rant above constitutes a serious and libelous violation of WP:Battle and WP:BLP. Press is currently the (again, again, again!!) subject of a new SPI (he's already a proven sockmaster) and an ANI thread:
I note that Press did a big no no when he edited my original entry by adding the following link. I'm moving it here with an explanation. He added this link http://www.wikichiro.org/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_attribution_to_Wikipedia, and it wasn't on any articles I looked at, and I looked at quite a few. That is a category that must have been very new when I wrote the entry above, if it even existed at the time. I doubt that such a notice qualifies as proper attribution, as it doesn't link directly to the original article where the contribution history is located. That's what counts when it comes to attribution. A generic link back to Wikipedia doesn't qualify. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category over there was created on 28Dec. The attribution requirements from Wikipedia are very loose, but IANAL and I have no idea whether this qualifies. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A new development: Misuse of the copyrighted term Wikipedia to imply a relationship, and inclusion of WikiChiro links in a copied Wikipedia/Wikimedia template that reinforces that implication:
I'm a but confused about what the complaint here is about. If they are complying with the GFDL or the CC, (attribution in particular), for example as outlined at [192] then there's nothing we can do. They have the right to re-use our content, modifying it as they see fit, in accordance with the license that content was released under. And any contributor to wikipedia should hopefully know that, since the licensing terms are made clear whenever you edit a page. (And just to make that clear, if you are contributing to wikipedia, you should be aware that provided they comply with the license, anyone can copy content you have create, modify it and re-use it as they see fit whether you like or agree with their changes and be those changes removing criticism or 'whitewashing'.)
If they are not complying with the terms, then someone who made substanial edits to one of their pages they copied may want to pursue them. I doubt you'll get much help from the 'wikimedia legal department', there are unfortunately plenty of violators and the foundation has not yet taken an active interest in pursuing them which given the likely difficulties thereof isn't surprising so expecting them to take care of this is pretty pointless.
At the moment, it sounds like they may be willing to cooperate, so I suggest you discuss with them what you expect if you are not happy with how they are currently attributing, no matter how much you may disagree with their views. If you aren't willing to do that, then I don't see much chance for anything happening.
If they are improperly implying a relationship with wikipedia, then the foundation may be interested in that however if they copied a template it may be simply they haven't yet properly updated the template and so it's unintentional. While that's still wrong and something they need to fix, that sort of stuff tends to happen when others copy our content so in such a case I also doubt the foundation will be interested in it.
Finally if you believe a wikipedian is violating policy here on wikipedia, then that should be handled elsewhere not here.
Each article ends similarly to example "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Wikipedia article "Mathematics and God". This entry is a fragment of a larger work. Link may die if entry is finally removed or merged." with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original Wikipedia article (so no history if that was deleted).
Appears to be a Betascript imprint. The "books" reprint Wikipedia articles related to a central topic. Includes this disclaimer "WikiFocus Books are collaborative books designed for education on specific subject matter. Our motto is “Collaborative Books for Creative Minds” and it is our mission to provide focused content for both educational and entertainment purposes. We present targeted information on specific subjects which are compiled from online collaborative resources from across the globe. Some text and images contained in this book have been reused and/or repurposed for commercial distribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)."
Contact info
George Andersen
Actions
Compliance with GFDL and Wikipedia's terms should be assessed.
Mentions Wikipedia at [193] on every page of the site. The GFDL is mentioned on the site and links to the text of the GFDL License. Each article has a link back to the originating article on the English Wikipedia and full author and edit history. The site also has a link on each page of the wiki linking to the Wikimedia Foundations Donations page asking for contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia.
Contact info
jmerkey AT wolfmountaingroup.com,
Actions
None
Currently (17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)) appears to have no local GFDL (or broken link), and no links to en.wikipedia including nothing to original article.
http://www.wikinfo.org/10 Things You Didn't Know About Wikipedia
Rating
High
Compliance
Compliance is very good, attribution, licence mentioning and linking, page mentioning and linking, the whole shebang. Common message is: Adapted from the Wikipedia article, "(Page name)" (Page URL), used under the GNU Free Documentation License. The website also used the MediaWiki engine and links to mediawiki.com and mentions the GPL. The site is very similar to wikipedia, modifing most project pages and all the disclaimers to the site, all in compliance with the GDFL. The site itself also uses the GDFL.
Copyright: the website just reproduces the copyright footers and page history verbatim. Trademarks: the Wikipedia logo is reproduced as is and there is no indication anywhere that the domain is not Wikipedia, except by following some roundabout chain of links to reach https://wikiless.org/about ; there is evidence of users being confused: it's probably a trademark violation.
No ref=canonical back to Wikipedia.org, no terms of service or privacy policy provided.
As of January 2023 the sidebar looks broken, the logo doesn't load and the favicon is a struck W. It's not clear whether some of this was a consequence of the skin changes (as Vector 2010 is still used).
Unreleased, prototype. Object-oriented, version controlled, inheritable theorizing (and wikiing) for sciencing. Appears to be very slow or almost down as of 2020.
Sample
http://en.wikimergic.org/wiki/Our:Copyrights
Rating
High
Compliance
full. Every possible page links back to original article save for a few in WP:MediaWiki namespace in which case this is done through their talk page. Identical licensing.
Mentions Wikipedia and the GFDL but there is no included history or link to the original article. There is no link to the GFDL. Checked, March 2010, site no longer hosts Wikipedia content
Contact info
information AT wikimirror.com, abuse AT domainsbyproxy.com
The website only serves mainland China, Wikipedia service is blocked in mainland China. In addition, in order to avoid attacks by DDOS, the website refused to connect to non-mainland China. You can use this mirror for editing.
No compliance. Evil porn site! Checked March 2010, site no longer hosts Wikipedia content, now displays: "NOTICE: This domain name expired on 03/09/2010 and is pending renewal or deletion"
Contact info
wikimiki.org AT contactprivacy.com, admin AT adpilot.info
Actions
Sent standard non-compliance GDFL letter. UPDATE: sent reminder + warning=
Wikimili
Wikimili
URL
https://wikimili.com
Description
Trimmed-down version of Wikipedia with live updates to the frontpage etc. According to third party statistics, the website appears to be growing its visibility in the first half of 2019 (+100 % monthly growth for a few months) but may have stabilised at the end of 2019. Monetised with several advertisements.
Sample
https://wikimili.com/en/Virgin_Killer
Rating
Low/Medium
Compliance
Includes a discreet but clear footer "This page is based on this Wikipedia article [linked] Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license [linked]; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses." The header "WikiMili The Free Encyclopedia" can be misleading if one doesn't scroll to the end and is brought to think it's the actual free encyclopedia i.e. Wikipedia.
Images are hotlinked, but clicking the thumbnails only shows the same image in a lightbox, so there is no mention of license or authors in any way. The non-text content is therefore a total copyright violation. Fair use content is also included.
Page ends "(C) 2006-2007 wikimobs.com - v0.9 beta Disclaimer : WikiMobs is not affiliated with Wikipedia Foundation. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."
No obvious links to Wikipedia, original article, or text of GFDL
Contains data from meta:Help:Unified login. I haven't found any problems with Wikipedia content (although the example page from Metawiki seems to be a copyright infringement). I'm not sure if this site should be listed somewhere on Metawiki instead, and if so, where.
The site appears not to have been updated since 2008, so Creative Commons licences are irrelevant. GFDL is mentioned, but the Wikimedia source is not mentioned. One revision by User:Bináris was imported and is correctly sourced on the history page. However, this was not the first revision of the Wikipedia page, and earlier revisions are not mentioned at all (as far as I can see). Thus, the history is incomplete (without any link to a complete history), which is why I think that there is a copyright infringement. The second edit on WikiNASIOC (by User:2k2blackwrx) appears to be a local edit; I can't find it on MetaWiki (and the user account is not registered on any Wikimedia project according to Sulutil, although there's a possibility that it might have been renamed in the past few years).
Mentions "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." but the link goes to an external copy of GFDL 1.3 (!), i.e. wrong version number. Has "Category:Meta-Wiki" (with a red link) but does not mention Wikimedia in any way. Not sure if the category is enough for crediting Wikimedia.
Appears to be a complete snapshot of Wikipedia from 6 April 2021, to the point of calling itself Wikipedia. However, it is not possible to edit the articles, create an account, or view the history. It appears they just copied the current state of the articles on 6 April 2021. The most prominent difference is that unlike Wikipedia, each page includes advertisements.
There are two issues that stand out: (1) While the site calls itself a wiki, it is not possible to edit the articles. (2) The site claims to be Wikipedia instead of having copying it.
Contact info
Found an e-mail address at the very last row on the main page: admin@wikinew.wiki. No idea whether the address works as no attempt has been made to contact it.
Example: www.wikipedia.net.pl/en/wiki/Dollar_sign.html (in English)
States: Autorem skryptu AdWiki v0.7 (2007) jest husky83 Licencję na skrypt dla strony WIKIPEDIA.NET.PL posiada blf jest zarejestrowanym znakiem towarowym Wikimedia Foundation Wszystkie materia�y pochodz� z Wikipedii, obi�te s� licencj� GNU Free Documentation License with link to local copy of GFDL in English and to pl.wikipedia.org
No obvious link to original article
Update, March 2010, site no longer hosts Wikipedia content
Seems to be an exact mirror of Wikipedia, with no attribution whatsoever.
Contact info
Actions
None
Wikipediam.org
Wikipediam
URL
https://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Main_Page
Description
Sample
https://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Hayabusa2
Rating
"Low/None" compliance with GFDL or CC-BY-SA
Compliance
Appears to be a Wikipedia mirror with Wikipedia name and logo throughout but no attribution. The main page looks current. No one can edit. There is an anchor HTML tag that appears to be an editing link but only serves as a link to the "Home" page. There is a footer saying, "This website is a mirror of Wikipedia, and is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation" but no mention of the CC-BY-SA or GFDL.
Contact info
None provided Edit: used WHOIS here and found wikipediam.org[at]domainsbyproxy.com
Actions
wikipedian.net
wikipedian.net
URL
https://www.wikipedian.net/
Description
Unattributed Wikipedia mirror with bogus contact info
Machine translation of English Wikipedia articles into all languages other than English (default target language is Hebrew)
Sample
https://fr.wikipeluangusaha.com/wiki/Mirror
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Licensing of content seems OK. The website infringes Wikimedia trademarks by branding itself as "Wikipedia" and cross-linking to actual Wikipedia/WMF pages without warning.
Contact info
None
Actions
Wiki.phantis.com
Main Page - Phantis
URL
http://wiki.phantis.com/index.php/Main_Page
Description
Sample
http://wiki.phantis.com/index.php/Euboea
Rating
"Low/None" compliance with GFDL
Compliance
A Wikipedia fork using articles related to Greece. A cursory sample of articles indicates that most were copied from Wikipedia from mid-2005 through 2006 and intended to be edited locally thereafter. No GFDL notices or mention of Wikipedia on the pages I saw.
Contact info
E-mail (feedback form): http://www.phantis.com/forms/contact_form.html – Phone number of admin: 610-631-5361 (?) and ISP.(?) – Mailing address: Decision Group, Inc., c/o Phantis, P.O. Box 176, Eagleville, PA 19408, USA
Most articles attribute the English Wikipedia; but many images don't or have false attributions. (Compare English Wikipedia and Wikipilipinas) Attribution is often incomplete - the articles that do attribute the English Wikipedia merely link to the main page. Almost no copied article links to the original article they were forked from.
Admin email: ryan at wikirun.com and ISP: registrar.schlund.info.
Actions
Sent standard non-compliance of GDFL letter on April 27, 2010. Awaiting response.
WikiTextbook
WikiTextbook
URL
http://wikitextbook.co.uk
Description
Sample
http://wikitextbook.co.uk/index.php?title=Cell_structure%2C_tissues_and_organs_%28A_level_Bio%29 from Cell (biology)
Rating
Low
Compliance
Link to Wikipedia main page, but no link to original article or GFDL. This is a fork of Wikipedia meant to serve as a series of textbooks to UK schools; the Wikipedia articles have been taken to seed this effort. The owner is aware of Wikibooks and thus far chooses to fork anyway; he believes the interests of UK students can best be served through a separate site.
Permalink in the sidebar, mention of Wikipedia, no deception. No mention of the license nor attribution for images?
Contact info
Actions
Wikitruth
Wikitruth
URL
Description
Sample
Rating
Medium
Compliance
This is a site for criticizing/parodying Wikipedia. They have a namespace "Uncensored" where they put articles that have been deleted from Wikipedia. They make it clear that the article is from Wikipedia, and now have a proper GFDL notice. They do not host the GFDL on their site. It is also apparently a modified version and they don't link back to Wikipedia or provide page history.
full compliance. (Only thing they got wrong is they renamed the entire Wikipedia: namespace "The UCSC Wikipedia Trust Project:" which was a little confusing at first).
Beta test; contains a static copy of Wikipedia from 2007, marked up in order to indicate the level of "trust" or credibility of the content: in a nutshell, material added by edit warriors is highlighted in yellow or orange, and material added by veteran editors who don't engage in revert-wars is displayed in ordinary black-on-white type. Hosted by the University of California at Santa Cruz. Site says that it is affiliated with http://quality.wikimedia.org. Additional documentation can be found at http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/. Site seems to work only intermittently.
Contact info
University of California School of Engineering 1156 High Street Santa Clara, California 95064
Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society 281 Hearst Memorial Mining Building University of California Berkeley, California 94720-1764
Actions
none needed. (however, I think the site is notable, so I have submitted an article.)
wikitude
Wikitude
URL
http://wikitude.com/
Description
Sample
Rating
low
Compliance
No visible mention of the GFDL. No credit to contributors (no history link). Only mention of Wikipedia is the fact that the name begins with "wiki."
Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it. Also references the Copyrights section, which is a verbatim copy of Wikipedia:Copyrights (does not mention that wikiverse.org != wikipedia).
Articles do not link to Wikipedia, nor acknowledge the article authors.
The first page clarifies the site's relationship to Wikipedia: "Wikiverse, an up-to-date high speed static mirror of Wikipedia, a worldwide community of volunteers building an open-content encyclopedia."
A person who claims to be responsible for the site has allegedly tried to disrupt the VfD process on a page about Wikiverse, and has responded to some, but not all, concerns about the copyright situation. See [196] and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wikiverse.
It is clear that the articles are originally from Wikipedia, and the original articles are linked. I could see no further compliance.
Contact info
Actions
Wikivisually
Wikivisually
URL
https://wikivisually.com
Description
A mirror that focuses more on images and videos, and making things visually appealing for users.
Sample
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/American_Civil_War
Rating
Low
Compliance
Copyright violation: fails to mention Creative Commons license. Doesn't explicitly state provenance or authors, instead provides oblique references to Wikipedia such as "the entire wiki" (in the header). A link "show wikipedia page here" loads a popup with the original HTML of the Wikipedia page, which states "This page is loaded from Wikipedia" but again fails to state that the initial page is also copied from Wikipedia. Only from Wikipedia's own HTML, one can finally reach license and author information.
Contact info
Actions
Reported to Google AdSense for various violations of their policies.
WikiVividly
WikiVividly
URL
https://wikivividly.com/wiki/
Description
Mirror seemingly from an HTML dump, with some stylistic changes, probably trying to ride on the popularity of Wikivisually. "Wiki as never seen before with photo galleries, discover something new today". Alexa rank around 100k as of 2019. Appears to be down as of March 2020; domain is for sale as of January 2023.
Sample
https://wikivividly.com/wiki/Louis_XI_of_France
Rating
None
Compliance
No mention whatsoever of copyright, licenses, Wikipedia or Wikipedia contributors, no links.
Contact info
No imprint or contacts
Actions
Reported to Google AdSense.
wiki-wiki.org
wiki-wiki.org
URL
wiki-wiki.org
Description
Mirror with some kind of voting widget on top or something.
Links to Wikipedia page, license (on creativecommons.org), and contributor list; notes that "additional terms may apply" and that images may be licensed differently.
Contact info
Only via online chat
Actions
n/a
wikix.ipupdater.com
Wikix
URL
http://wikix.ipupdater.com/
Description
Sample
http://albert-einstein.wikix.ipupdater.com/
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Includes "Released under GNU FDL. Uses material from Wikipedia." Wikipedia is linked directly to the article copied; however GNU FDL is an offsite, broken link.
Contact info
webmaster AT wikix.ipupdater.com, http://www.ipupdater.com/contactus.php?/dns&PHPSESSID=591bc9fda50dc5ca356f063330e6e0dc (domain contact), User_talk:213.216.196.114? (anon who first updated this entry to say links added)
Received reply that "We will correct this issue, but it can take a couple of days, please have patience." He also noted correctly that the copyrights page still recommends an off-site GFDL, which I'm trying to change. Superm401 - Talk01:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1:1 live mirror, displaying advertisements above proxied content, confirmed via "Special:MyTalk". Server IP is blocked from editing on the English Wikipedia.
Unsure; ToBeFree is hoping for trademark action by WMF in the next weeks. They will probably comply "highly" after that.
Compliance
Now complying with CC-by-sa (implicitly using the compatibility clause of version 3, they are attributing version 4 of the license). Apparently no imprint. As of time of writing, still potentially misusing Wikimedia trademarks, by displaying the Wikipedia logo in the top left and displaying the project logos including the WMF information text on the front page.
Contact info
E-mails, phone numbers, contact form URLs, etc. of admin and ISP.
Actions
No imprint found, IP hidden behind CloudFlare. DMCA request sent for Alte Brücke (Frankfurt) by ToBeFree, reached ISP and admin via CloudFlare. After first telling me that they are allegedly actively in touch with Wikipedia, allegedly having fullfiled all their requirements, and basically denying my request, they fortunately came to their senses on their own accord a few hours later. They have now added a red attribution box below all pages and are now apparently complying with the license. Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel has been informed and is now aware of potential trademark violations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mirror (live) of all languages of Wikipedia. Copies the main HTML of Wikipedia, moves the TOC to a sidebar and injects ads from https://admatic.com.tr/ . Main page is in Turkish (but suggests 7 languages), suggesting it's mostly a way to evade the block of Wikipedia in Turkey. 40 % of traffic from Turkey and top 1000 website in Turkey, according to Alexa.
Switched to wholesale copyright violation in 2020. The footer now doesn't contain any mention of the source, only a permanent link to Wikipedia without explanation. The Creative Commons license is not mentioned anywhere.
Formerly had a link to Wikipedia at the top as "Wikipedia open wikipedia design." Footer stated "This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit). Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses." However, this is not non-exisitent.
Bogus further footer states "Copyright 2020 WikiZero".
Email bounced back, with the following message: "DNS Error: 8685848 DNS type 'mx' lookup of wikizero.com responded with code NOERROR 8685848 DNS type 'aaaa' lookup of wikizero-com.mail.protection.outlook.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN 8685848 DNS type 'a' lookup of wikizero-com.mail.protection.outlook.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN". This indicates an incorrect email address. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the site "Wokiwiki" (http://www.zaped.info/) is a "distorted mirror" of Wikipedia. It serves WP articles after arbitrarily replacing a percentage of the words by other vaguely related words, so that the articles look superficially right but are actually nonsense. Since they offer advertising space, my guess is that they are trying to bypass Google filters that eliminate similar pages. See e.g their Iron article. It doesn't seem that WP is being properly attributed on that page. I have been told that this looks like a case of Wikipedia's copyright/license violation (besides potentially damaging WP's reputation). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site is still up, serving their intentionally and extensively corrupted version of Wikipedia under the name "Wikipedia" — including a corruped copy of Wikipedia's main page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The URL above now redirects to a site that asks the user to answer a "survey". It looks like a phishing site, and uses javascript in an attempt to prevent the reader from leaving or closing the window, or even exiting the browser. (I had to disable javascript in order to get out of it.) Since I did not answer the "survey" I cannot tell whether the adulterated Wikipedia contents is still being served.
My guess is that they used the adulterated copy of Wikipedia in order to get their site indexed by Google. As a consequence, a Google search under almost any subject will now turn up that site as an alternative hit *distinct from wikipedia*. Now that they have seeded Google's database, they have moved on to their real purpose. (But this is just a layman's guess.) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample of what Google turns up with the search "germanium Wokiwiki"
Germanium tetrachloride Wokiwiki
Germanium tetrachloride is a colourless aqueous acclimated as an average in the assembly of antiseptic germanium metal. In contempo years, GeCl4 acceptance ...
Footer states <This article uses material from the Wikipedia article "History of the Japanese in Seattle", and is written by "contributors". Text is available under a "CC BY-SA 4.0 International License"; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.>
States the GNU FDL license the articles are under.
Links to the GNU FDL (on FSF site, not local)
Acknowledges wikipedia authorship
Links to source wikipedia article
Links to the wikipedia history as author listing As of 05:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC), every article's history link is to the history of Wikipedia's Main Page.
Medium compliance
WordSense
WordSense
URL
https://www.wordsense.eu/
Description
Mirror of Wiktionary mostly.
Sample
https://www.wordsense.eu/taigh/
Rating
High
Compliance
Ok:
Links the history of the source page and their own copyright page which mentions CC-BY-SA.
The attribution text is rather discreet, at the end of a footer-like text in the right sidebar: «This article is distributed under the terms of this license. WordSense is a Wiktionary fork. The list of authors can be seen on Wiktionary in the page history. The article was edited and supplemented».
Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
No link to original article
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
http://translate.dc.gov/ma/enwiki/en/Anwar_Choudhury ... it's an old copy of the current Wikipedia article, taken from sometime between May-August 2008.
Rating
"Low/None"
Compliance
Articles now say "The original article is from Wikipedia."
They are routinely using photos (from Commons, as far as I can tell) and crediting them as "GNU/<author>". They seem to be making an honest effort to credit the photo, but don't seem to understand that if they are not GFDL-compliant, then they can't freely reuse these.
They appear to be some sort of syndication thing (supplying a lot of news sites) so these get heavily reused.
They copy Wikipedia articles without attributing Wikipedia in any way - or if they do attribute it, they hid the notice so well that I can't find it. As Jmabel noted, "[t]hey appear to be some sort of syndication thing (supplying a lot of news sites) so these get heavily reused."
Contact info
They've got a "contact" pop-up link at the bottom of each page.
Gives a link to Wikipedia as the 'citational source', but attribution given to affiliated[202]other mirror 'World Heritage Encyclopedia'. Page footers implies they own copyright to the content.
The copy is crude, with reference link numbers that don't actually link to references and a mess of unresolved metadata at the bottom. But some of the links in the article also point to other "self-published" pages.
Was not in compliance for a long time, but now links to Wikipedia and the GNU FDL.--Eloquence* 11:02, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
No mention of GFDL. Claims exclusive copyright. No link to original Wikipedia article. No history section. Compliance: None Uncle G12:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledges copying explicitly or obliquely (the latter has said "from Wikipedia" since its earliest archive; the former "cf. Wikipedia"), but claims full copyright. Unknown if it acknowledges all articles copied. Non-compliant. No action taken. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Says, "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."
Also says "Copyright 2004. World Wide Web Find. All rights reserved." immediately under that (probably part of their default skin, but possibly confusing)
WMF Notified via OTRS Ticket#: 2006050410003399. added
wikimotorcycles.org
WikiMotorcycles
URL
http://www.wikimotorcycles.org
Description
Sample
http://www.wikimotorcycles.org/index.php/Cagiva
Rating
None
Compliance
has directly copied Wikipedia articles related to motorcycles with no reference to the source or GFDL. Vigilante attempts (not me) to remove content have resulted in the stolen content restored.
says "extracted from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" at the top of each article. Specifically mentions the GFDL. No mention of the general disclaimers, however.
Contact info
Walrecht
T. Walrecht (domainadminATuniserverD0Tnl)
Pastoor Verhoeffpark 70
Breezand
,1764 GS
NL
Actions
none
Wow
Wow (run by AOL.com?)
URL
http://us.wow.com
Description
Sample
http://us.wow.com/wiki/Cancer
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
Content forking, mentions and links to Wikipedia, states "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply". Uses clickfarm-style google advertising. Provides direct links to WP image files but wikilinks are migrated to their website in order to generate more click revenue
Contact info
webform
Actions
should be re-educated
I am currently in the process of negotiating with AOL. Unfortunately, due to the nature of negotiation, this may take a while and I will not be able to provide status updates. Also, please note that the above notes on compliance were not written by me. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a true Verbatim Copy, but Wikipedia itself did not include a GFDL notice at the time of copying (see Internet Archive). Nevertheless, it is still required.
Contact info
chen_huailin AT yahoo.com, huailin AT xtrj.org (whois), abuse AT register.com (host), copyright-complaints AT register.com (host)
Checked the site, there is a very prominent GFDL notice at the top. Links back to article, history, and even to edit page. I don't change the rating because I am just an anonymous coward visiting, and I don't know if there is any protocol to follow. 190.134.22.98 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.youqa.com/diseases-conditions/3154-1-youqa-4.html and http://www.youqa.com/mental-health/2441-youqa-4.html and site should be checked for others
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
Claims copyright, no mention that text was taken from Tourette syndrome
I don't know if this web site has already been recorded somewhere in Wikipedia, but I came across an exact copy of a Wikipedia article (although it was an old version, from somewhere down the edit history) as a #1 Google hit. The nasty thing about this site is that our links do work. However, red links are not shown, and if you click on one you are all of a sudden right on a Wikipedia edit page. This is an invitation to vandalize Wikipedia, but I was unable to find an e-mail address. <KF> 00:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is a mirror of Wikipedia. It mentions the GFDL and Wikipedia once on its main page, but none of the articles have a list of authors or links to the Wikipedia pages. Guanaco 23:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Huh? I just looked at a few articles and they all had this at the bottom of the page, with links: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia - see source." ←Hob 00:00, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
User:Zanimum moved this to medium from low. I'm not exactly sure why, but I assume because it mentions the GFDL and links to Wikipedia. JesseW 22:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-- clearly dynamically fetched, as it reflected edits made only a few seconds ago -- The Anome 13:15, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
yamourdotcom
Low compliance if any. (www.yamour.com/evolution/wikipedia.html) Claiming its own right without any reference to GFDL: "This document was realized for educational purposes. You do not have the right to use or copy any of the images ; but You are free to link to this document. In case you want to link to this document for Educational purposes ,please read the term of service at the end of this page." Now feeding back as viral advertisement through its own "term of service" [sic]: "Term of service : In case you want to link to this document for educational reasons : you should also link to the main page [http:// www.yamour.com/]". Reported by Kaihsu21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC). No action taken yet.[reply]
Well, at the time that I write the SEO link-spam is back again in the article (removeing it now). As I am not a frequent editor on the English Wikipedia I believe you should report this behaviour to an administrator. Greetings, --5ko17:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a dictatorship you can not ban someone if he does not agree with you ,
the link you are talking about does mention the GFDL , and the user 5ko that pretends it's a SEO link apparently is an expert in SEO check this link and you'll see that he is a user in every possible version of wikipedia and have hundreds of links toward his personal site , if this isn't SEO than what is see the link : 5ko many faces
i assure you if you ban one more time the user because he simply does not agree with you , both of you will be reported to administration Newww18:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you start by learning more about Wikipedia. (1) User accounts in different languages are needed to post interwiki links. (2) The page that you try to link is not relevant for wikipedia readers, comparing to http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org or http://web.archive.org, probably where you took the screenshots. (3) Two days ago the note about GFDL was not there, you added it lately, however you still infringe the GFDL by not publishing the list of all co-authors, not even a link to the page itself and to its history. (4) If these screenshots are so important, we can legally add them here, on Wikipedia, which would be easier for everyone. (5) As it is "your" page, you have some difficulty estimating the relevence of your "work" for the encyclopedia readers : please, leave to the Wikipedia editors do that relevence estimation. --5ko06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just recieved an amusing letter, seo confession, threats that my user page will be vandalized again, and a job offer from this person, and will post it at User:5ko/Yamour (in French language). I work primarily at Bulgarian Wikipedia where I have done more than 17500 edits mostly on articles and help pages, and 6000 pictures (not counting the +64K edits with my bot). Wikipedia editor since February 2003, I am not surprised that Google knows about me... --5ko06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noted on each page where it has been retrieved from, but no sign of GFDL licence.
Contact info
None on site
Actions
None
Zinc.org
Zinc.org
URL
http://www.zinc.org/
Description
Sample
http://www.zinc.org/properties.html
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
Only one violation - an entire infobox (including image) copied from the article Zinc (Infobox zinc). No credit given at all, not a single mention of Wikipedia or any of our licenses.
outlook.com
Resolved
