Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

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

Websites have historically used (and abused) Wikipedia content in many different ways. At first it may be unclear whether a website is compliant or not. Such sites should be listed on this page until more users have had time to an express an opinion. At that time the listing is likely will be placed inanother page in this series.

Pages may also be placed on this page if their level of compliance is in dispute.

Please help preserve alphabetical order on this page.

Clusty.com

Seems to be just a reparser of Wikipedia content, using clustering. Not clear how GFDL complient they are. Please update with more information.

  • Originally reported by JesseW 21:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arkansa Encyclopedia

  • I didn't see this listed anywhere. It strikes me as very odd. I initially came accross this through a Google hit that led me to this http://lakewoodrepublicans.8m.com/michigan.html. They do state that the text content is GFDL ("All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."), but there is no link to the license and no link back to Wikipedia and no history. What is really odd though, is that it looks as though the content is actually spread across various domains. For example this entry on Germany: http://beerot.itgo.com/germany.html (which does not even mention GFDL anywhere). Or the "main" page: http://www.geocities.com/arkencyclo/. Seems like every click is a different domain. Bkonrad | Talk 14:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The pictures of the article Michigan are not hosted by them but directly form Wikipedia. That is not a nice thing to do. Walter 09:11, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I just examined this site and they're no longer stealing bandwidth, and are now linking the article. I'd move them to high degree. Derrick Coetzee 13:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They mention Wikipedia nowhere. High is not appropriate. Medium? JesseW 15:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mentioning Wikipedia is not required. However, information on authors is, and I couldn't find any. — Kate Turner | Talk 15:34, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Brandt.kurowski.net

  • A number of articles, such as: http://brandt.kurowski.net/projects/lsa/wiki/view.cgi?doc=338
    • I'm not sure who put this here or why, nor do I understand why they didn't email me with their complaint. To the best of my knowledge, I am in full compliance with all requirements for re-use of Wikipedia content. If there is a specific dispute with my compliance, please let me know so that I may either fix the problem or remove the content from my site. --BrandtKurowski

csf.colorado.edu

  • seems to be dead Davelane 23:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Moved from main page

ebroadcast.com

  • Moved from main page -- please add details --Davelane 12:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

eurofreehost.com

  • plus they do some dirtyness to boost their google rating. Kim Bruning 14:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Mentions GFDL (with no link). Does not mention Wikipedia. - Evil saltine 09:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Below moved from main page... Davelane 21:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The site http://www.eurofreehost.com/ appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia; each page claims to be under the GFDL but I found no link to Wikipedia on either a random article (http://www.eurofreehost.com/co/Compulsator.html) or the main page. Also, no Wiki source seems to be available, specifically violating the intent of the GFDL as I see it. Finally, the pages have no link to the text of the GFDL. I've sent a more-or-less standard complaint letter (although I didn't claim to be delighted to see another out-of-date broken mirror of Wikipedia) but it was taken before I made any major contributions, so if someone with more seniority would like to take over, that'd be great. Andrew 04:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Update: mail to webmaster@www.eurofreehost.com bounced; I'll leave this for now, awaiting comment from others. Andrew 04:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

That site now has the standard disclaimer (as @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Example_notice)

exsudo.com - Konwledge Base

  • almost complete mirror of English Wikipedia
  • links to original article
  • links to local copy of the GNU/FDL
  • does not link to wikipedia main page


exsudo.dk - Konwledge Base

  • almost complete mirror of Danish Wikipedia
  • links to original article
  • links to local copy of the GNU/FDL
  • does not link to wikipedia main page
  • license text in English, not Danish... not sure if this is in agreement on GNU/FDL?

exsudo.se - Konwledge Base

  • almost complete mirror of Swedish Wikipedia
  • links to original article
  • links to local copy of the GNU/FDL
  • does not link to wikipedia main page
  • license text in English, not Swedish... not sure if this is in agreement on GNU/FDL?

Fastload.org

copying Wikipedia without mentioning us. I can't find them on any of the pages about various degrees of compliance, so I don't know if anyone is giving them heat yet. --Fritzlein 06:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

fastload.org does link back to Wikipedia - at least it does now. At the bottom of each page it says "to view or edit this article on Wikipedia, click this link." ←Hob 23:48, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Moved from main page --Davelane 14:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Mandelbrot fractal" at fractalmovies.com

  • To be investigated
  • Moved from main page Davelane 21:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


informationblast.com

  • Even has a copy of my user page, does that mean I'm famous now? ;-) Kim Bruning 11:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • All articles have a link back to Wikipedia's main page. I'm pretty sure this isn't good enough, as it doesn't directly provide credit to the authors. [[User:Siroxo|Here is a schmancy new signature and a line of text that is long enough to show how it might look when there is some stuff coming before it. Please take a look at it to bask it in all of its radiant glory

—siroχo

—siroχo 



#627562



#7b967b

#4d6c94]] 02:10, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)


lotsofinformation.com

This may (or may not) be a very nasty clone. It does include the GFDL, it does name Wikipedia, but all such links are local and don't link back to wikipedia.org. It appears to be an almost exact mirror of the pages with no pictures. The only thing is, the login CGI works for some reason but doesn't appear to permit logins. In this case, they may be attempting to capture logins and passwords from wikipedia which can then be later used for making bad edits. I haven't found a clear way to check this, but I can't think of any reason to make an active CGI for the login when all other links are broken and the edit links aren't working. I have tried logging in through the form using an invalid user / invalid password set, and valid user / invalid password. In both cases it rejects this.

The domain is registered by Godaddy.com, with Paul Hardwick as the admin/tech/ etc. contact. Interestingly, someone with that name asked questions on the media-wiki list about making local copies of this site. Other info; he seems to be doing online shopping etc. http://www.paulhardwick.com/.

My possible explanations (most likely to least likely)

  • someone is playing with the site, they didn't expect Google to find it
  • someone is phishiing wikipedia to capture usernames.
  • someone plans an editable version of wikipedia but hasn't turned on new user sign up yet.
  • someone copied wikipedia and just set up the cgi with no intention for it to

be used.

I tried calling the phone number in the Whois entry to see what was there, but I couldn't even hear the company name clearly on their voicemail.

Needs further investigation. 129.215.13.84 16:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


NUC.edu

Phatnav.com

  • Just found this one today when I searched google for "Klingon Wikipedia."
  • They link to the GFDL on our site, is that the right way to do it? — マイケル ₪ 21:14, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Interesting: If one chooses "Printable version of this page", there is no more any reference to neither Wikipedia nor GFDL. Is that OK?
\M
  • Moved from main page Davelane 21:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Useful Reference

Wiki.defau.lt

metaweb

Seems to be an official wiki of (and I think maybe run by) author Neal Stephenson



http://www.peacelink.de

  • http://www.peacelink.de/keyword/Main_Page.php
  • This appears to be another complete dump of Wikipedia taken around May 13 based on the last modified date on the front page (but perhaps run through Perl to change everything to internal links... which screws up a lot of the formatting...)
  • There is a disclaimer at the top that "This is NOT the Wikipedia - The content is from the Wikipedia", and the top left image has been changed.
  • Doesn't appear to link back to wikipedia entry - see sample article Derbyshire for example

www.why-war.com

Campusprogram.com

Example: http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/n/ne/new_forest.html
  • A link to GFDL from every page.
  • A link back to individual wikipedia articles from the top of the page. The text of the link is quite prominent.

free-definition.com

  • A link back to Wikipedia's main page from individual articles.
  • GFDL mentioned and linked from individual articles.


Open-dictionary.com

  • This is partly based on Wiktionary's content.
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 discussion Zeeshan M 04:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

fablis

  • I don't know if this web site has already been recorded somewhere. It seems to be an exact copy of the English Wikipedia, including our Main page! <KF> 21:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

www.sicherheitsmeister.com

  • seems to be a complete copy from end of May 2004 (contained 5 out of the 5 random articles I tried)
  • every page mentions based in parts on the wikipedia project, the free encyclopedia, which will stay free always
  • every article page contains mentioning of the GNU FDL (but the link is broken)
  • no authors mentioned, page history is last edit only
  • no images

regards, High on a tree

Elexi.de

  • Example mathematics
  • States that the article is from Wikipedia.
  • Links to GFDL.
  • The problem is that even the articles from English Wikipedia are explained as taken from de.wikipedia, and link back goes to de.wikipedia's URL, and its accompanying history page.

Encyclopedia of Sexuality

  • Only four entries. It was listed elsewhere as Creative Commons content, but there seems to be no license notice (either that of GFDL or CCPL).
  • Some content (only 4 articles as of now - July 8, 2004) seems to be similar to Wikipedia's corresponding articles.

webster-dictionary.org

  • 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 notn 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)

Wikiverse.org

  • The site at http://www.wikiverse.org/ appears to be a full/exact duplicate of Wikipedia, and except for its exact duplicates of the Wikipedia copyright pages, does not seem to give credit to Wikipedia anywhere. I (Balanone) discovered them because they sent me a link exchange request, and when I visited the page they referenced, found a copy of the Wikipedia page I authored! Someone with more experience should check into this and possibly take action.
  • Hi, I'm one of the programmers that helped create Wikiverse. The above statement was obviously

false from the start. Wikiverse credits Wikipedia on the top of it's front page. Wikiverse is also in full complaince with the GFDL license, which is linked on the bottom of every article just like in Wikipedia. --Tomco 15:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second the request that it be looked into; I'm not clear on the compliance issue, though, as they do credit Wikipedia on their home page - just not on any of the article pages. Has this been clarified somewhere? In any case, I am disturbed by the way the anonymous user 81.218.221.77, who has been very active in promoting the site (see history of Wikiverse), rather than responding to the above comments, deleted them and replaced them with this:
  • My mistake, culture-clash here. I didn't understand correcting an article to fit the facts

was considered bad form. If you find anything wrong with what Wikiverse is doing, please send mail to webmaster <at> wikiverse.org. We answer all of our email. Wikiverse is not as sinister as you make it out to be --Tomco 15:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The site at http://www.wikiverse.org/ appears to be a full/exact mirror of Wikipedia, and states as such on the top of it's main page. As such it seems to be in full complaince with the GFDL license. No warning needed. --Tomco 15:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)--Tomco 15:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That seems like a blatant attempt to forestall any investigation of the site by giving others the impression that it's already been "cleared". The same user has also tried to short-circuit the VFD process for the Wikiverse article by simply deleting the {{vfd}} tag. 81.218.221.77 shows little understanding of WP practice, so if he/she is actually affiliated with Wikiverse (as seems likely), I'd be very surprised if the site is license-compliant. —Hob←Talk 08:05, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  • No, it was just a misunderstanding. You can check up on wikiverse as carefully as you want.

We are in full compliance. --Tomco 15:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone should also check if the logo is a derivative from one of the logo competitions. ---Dittaeva 08:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • That's absurd. What's with the lynch mob?

--Tomco 15:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lynch mob? Oh, please. It's hardly unusual for several people to look into a topic once it's been raised - especially when your initial self-promotion was so aggressive and was combined with really sleazy things like deleting comments and a {{vfd}}. (I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt about "misunderstanding"/"culture clash", despite your off-putting sarcasm about the latter, but really - deleting others' comments on a discussion page is equally bad form anywhere on the Net.) Again, there is nothing wrong with operating a mirror; but I still haven't seen anyone specifically answering (with citations) the central compliance question here: is it adequate to credit Wikipedia just once on the main page of the site, rather than on the individual articles that contain WP content? I quote from our copyright page: "a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement" [emphasis added]. —Hob←Talk 15:37, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
Oh yeah, one more thing. The "Copyrights" link at the bottom of every Wikiverse page goes to an exact copy of Wikipedia:Copyrights which does not mention that the current site is in fact not Wikipedia but a mirror. That is just odd. Currently there are exactly two words on one page ("static mirror") that actually explain the real relationship between Wikiverse and Wikipedia, and since non-tech-savvy users do not know what a "mirror" is, it really seems like you're hoping people will think this is original content and doing as little as possible to dispel that impression. —Hob←Talk 15:37, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
I just happened upon a Wikiverse page in a very annoying way. I was reading our article on 2001: A Space Odyssey and clicked on an external link about Alex North's soundtrack. The site we link to has excellent information on that subject -- but then it says, "You can find out more about the film 2001 from the Wikiverse encyclopedia." The link is to a mirror of our article, except minus some of the links, minus the spoiler warning, and minus the helpful infobox for the other books in the series. The Wikiverse page about 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't link to Wikipeda. In fact, it doesn't even mention Wikipedia. I would say they're not in compliance with the conditions for using our material. JamesMLane 02:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Its my understanding that each page of copied content needs to link back directly to Wikipedia to provide credit to the authors of each article. Thus Wikiverse is not in compliance. —siroχo 18:12, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, there is further discussion about Wikiverse at the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikiverse page. JesseW 10:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[1]

This listing originally consisted of pages from the first 14 pages of the following google search. Some have been removed due to their being investigated.

  • Moved from main page --Davelane 21:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sites showing Wikipedia content on demand

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Copies_of_Wikipedia_content_%28undetermined_or_disputed_compliance%29&oldid=6752256

Leave a Reply