|
<div id="talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 0em 1em 0em 1em; text-align: center; padding:5px; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
Old talk is at [[Wikipedia talk:Sites that use Wikipedia as a source]]
''Welcome to the official Mirrors and Forks talk page. You can leave comments, answers, questions, and concern about the page here. <br>Please sign and date your entries by inserting '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. <br>
----
[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit§ion=new}} Start a new talk topic.]''
</div>
{{talkheader|search=yes|WT:MIRROR|WT:MAF|WT:FORK}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 8
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Archive %(counter)d
}}
Old talk is at:
I think we should have two pages, one for sites that use Wikipedia for content, but DON'T comply with the Copyright, and another page for websites that DO comply. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 18:08 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Sites that use Wikipedia as a source]]
See also for more discussion:
: Determining whether a website complies is difficult, in general. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 12:10 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Abc]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Def]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Ghi]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Mno]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Pqr]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Stu]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/All]]
== Reworking this page ==
::Hmm? Please elaborate. The point of the article is to discern which ones DO comply and which DON'T. My suggestion was just that we create a page where we can stick the ones that comply, once they do comply. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 23:21, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The usage of this page has changed a lot over the past decade. Nowadays, Wikipedia is so popular that listing ''every'' source copying from us with the intent of taking some form of legal task is a fools' errand.
::: Creating two lists would cause a number of sites to be categorised as "not complying" when they are in fact complying. And, no doubt, vica versa. This is non-ideal. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 09:21, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Instead, I think this is more useful as both a resource for documenting mirrors, for editors - as well as for tools like Earwig's copyvio detector, to prevent false positives. This is currently implemented, but due to the inconsistent nature of entries here, performs poorly.
-----------------------
I've created an example of what I'd like to change the page to look like at [[User:Elli/Mirrorsandforkstest]]. Notably, the format would change to a sortable table, and each ___domain name would be an entry, instead of each website. This is to mirror the more spam-blocklist nature this has taken on. Thoughts? I'd be happy to implement this change, but I'd like to get feedback from people who contribute to or use this list before going ahead. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 02:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
These both appear to be one site running over multiple domains which uses a number of wikipedia articles without mentioning the gfdl,
:Hello Elli,
*http://artzia.com/Arts/Photography/www.wikipedia.org
:I do like your table suggestion and would support it. Even though, the readability of the Notes table is difficult...
*http://eluzions.com/Games/RPG/Mage/
:(as a relatively new "editor", I may not know yet the right words here) [[User:Villamondial|Villamondial]] ([[User talk:Villamondial|talk]]) 15:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
== wikivisually.com ==
-----
This site appears to have copied all wikipedia articles as it is and seems to mix other articles with it [[Special:Contributions/178.248.114.81|178.248.114.81]] ([[User talk:178.248.114.81|talk]]) 15:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Jesus, there are too many websites out there in non-compliance. The template for all pages needs to say explicitly what people are to do if they wish to copy the text. I mean, here we are advertising "Wikipedia: The Free Encylopedia" everywhere, and there is a link to GFDL at the bottom of every wikipedia article. What is the average person to think??? Of course they will assume they can just rip off the content. If they have any knowledge of GFDL or GPL, they might think that they can use it and modify it as long as they put it under the same license. But how are they supposed to know that they have to link back to the original article? We should stop the problem at the source and put explicit instruction on EVERY SINGLE wikipedia article at the bottom or top of the page so that when people are clicking and dragging their mouse across the page they will see it. Or if they save the HTML, they will also see it when they edit that hopefully. Who to talk to about this? Just my two cents. I'll continue to help out sending letters and such though, because I think it's a worthy cause. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 23:28, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
== k12academics.com ==
:I suggest that you send an e-mail to the Wikitech-L mailing list, and/or the Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L mailing lists. You can find info on all the mailing lists at [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists]]. I appriciate all your help and commitment. [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 01:30, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
This site appears to have copied a bunch of Wikipedia articles without attribution or the correct copyright license. The site says "© 2004-2023 K12academics.com". For example,
::Ok, thanks. I totally forgot about mailing lists since I have never participated in the "development, etc..." side of Wikipedia. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 02:23, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
https://www.k12academics.com/education-united-states/elementary-secondary-education appears to have copied from an old version of [[Education in the United States]] (before 30 July 2014), and https://www.k12academics.com/education-united-states/education-west-virginia from [[Education in West Virginia]]. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
== mdwiki.org ==
:::Np, the Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L are just community lists, but very useful all the same. [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 02:52, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
I don't see mdwiki.org listed here. Should it be listed here under mirrors and forks, or does the connection to wikimedia make it something other than a fork? Their main page states "This site is growing out of Meta-Wiki and Wikipedia. We have attribution to Wikipedia, where much of the content originates, in the footers. We are working on a full history import. This project is run by a Wikimedia thematic organization and not by the Wikimedia Foundation." The footers for many pages say "This page may contain content developed from Wikipedia or Meta" even when the relevant talk page includes a link showing that the entirety of the page is mirrored from wikipedia. [[User:Dialectric|Dialectric]] ([[User talk:Dialectric|talk]]) 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Dave suggested on the mailing lists:
: I would like the template for every article to be altered, to include
: something similar to the following: "This is licensed under GFDL...if
: you with to copy this article, go ahead...but you are required to
: provide a link to the GFDL... and you are required to link back to the
: original article..." That is essence of what needs to be added to the
: template for every Wikipedia article. This is in order to stop the
: ripping of Wikipedia articles without full copyright/license compliance.
== YouTubers reading off Wikipedia articles ==
I demurred, pointing out that the FDL doesn't require a link back.
What it requires is a list of all authors, or at least 5 of them,
and the link back does this by letting people find our history page.
I suggested instead that we merely "advise" a link back to us.
Then Dave said that we should say "must" link back to us OR list 5 authors.
I replied that this could be confusing, and anyway we prefer a link.
Are instances of YouTubers making videos that are just reading off Wikipedia articles count towards this list? [[User:FMecha|FMecha]] ([[User talk:FMecha|to talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/FMecha|to see log]]) 19:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
So ... here is the place to discuss the wording of such a notice!
== Dealing with a ''published'' paper copying Wikipedia ==
-- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 05:58, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Copying what I said on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup|Wikiproject copyright]]:
: There's no need to expand the wording and clutter up screen real estate. Most readers do not sub-license Wikipedia. Readers who do should follow the link. Simple. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 10:28, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well this is a new one. While on CopyPatrol, I encountered a paper, DOI and all, that lifted huge sections of text from [[Enzymes]]. I've created a new [[Wikipedia:Dealing with papers that copy Wikipedia|essay]] to step through the process. ⸺([[User talk:Randomstaplers|'''Random''']])[[User:Randomstaplers|staplers]] 09:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry I don't understand you. Some users don't follow the link. Make it easier for them. State exactly what is required on each Wikipedia article if they want to copy it. The goal is to make life easier for everyone. Why don't you start e-mailing letters to webmasters of non-compliant web pages (see meta-page), and then you can let us know how fun that is :-) [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 16:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
== pantheon.world ==
== Suggested notice == (edit in a wiki way)
I was checking [[Talk:Gustavo Santaolalla/GA1]] GAN with Earwig's Copyvio Detector and the tool reported a violation linked to this site here: [https://pantheon.world/profile/occupation/musician/country/argentina]. The article lede and corresponds to that off-wiki site verbatim. I noticed that off-wiki site has text on Lalo Schifrin (unrelated to the GAN) which corresponds to the lede of [[Lalo Schifrin]] article. The GAN nominator does not appear to be the editor of the Lalo Schifrin article which, to me, suggests the off-wiki site lifted ledes of multiple wiki articles. I do not know if this is the correct venue to report, but I thought it would be a good start. Can anyone confrim for this? Thanks! [[User:Tomobe03|Tomobe03]] ([[User talk:Tomobe03|talk]]) 18:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
"All content is available under the terms of the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]. See [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for suggested practices."
----
:The site appears to be in good-faith compliance with the CC BY-SA license (at least partially) – the text appears clearly copied from Wikipedia, but each page linked from it (like [https://pantheon.world/profile/person/Chris_de_Burgh this one]) links in turn to the Wikipedia article it quotes, and the site as a whole is licensed under BY-SA 4.0. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">[[User:Qzekrom|Qzekrom]] (she/her • [[User talk:Qzekrom|talk]])</span> 05:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
First comment about the above. I thought it was linking to the GFDL, so I didn't bother clicking on it (who wants to read a license anyhow :-) ). But then I saw the wiki, and it is actually linked to Wikipedia:Copyrights! I think it would be better to show exactly where the link is going to (wikipedia:copyrights) instead of pretending it's the GFDL... In my opinion if the link text says GFDL, few people will bother going to it, at least I personally wouldn't, I've already read the GFDL before (I don't think I absorbed much of it, I'm legally-challenged).
== Infringing derivative material of Wikipedia text ==
: Hmm, I can understand concerns of cluttering the screen. What do you guys think about re-writing [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], or making a new page, to clearly indicate how to use our content in a legal manner? An then we can link to that from the notice at the bottom of the page, and put it everywhere else we think people might look when copying our content? Sound good? [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 16:38, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)
{{tl|Backwards copy}} deals with the basic case when an external website copies material from Wikipedia, especially in violation of the CC BY-SA license - "{{tq|please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source}}." But if they modify or add their own material to the article content, are Wikipedia editors allowed to incorporate ''that'' content back into Wikipedia?
: Set up a temp page and show us some goods. :-) --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 18:40, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Under {{USC|17|103}}, "{{tq|...[copyright] protection for a work employing preexisting material... does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully}}", so it may be at least legally permissible, although editors should first check whether the external website's use of Wikipedia content qualifies as fair use. But this feels unethical, at least when done without crediting the website that published the infringing material. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">[[User:Qzekrom|Qzekrom]] (she/her • [[User talk:Qzekrom|talk]])</span> 00:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
: Definitely, having a re-written [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] page with the most important aspects at the top of the page would be a step in the right direction. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 20:54, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
== What type of page is this? ==
: If anyone decides they want to take a crack at this before me, feel free, just provide a link to it here. I will be busy tonight working on the [http://pywikiapi.sourceforge.net/ pyWikiAPI] project, so I may not get to it immediately. [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 21:15, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)
What I mean is that, is this page supposed to be a policy, guideline, information page, essay, etc.? [[User:1isall|<span style="color:cyan; background-color:navy;">1isall</span>]] ([[User talk:1isall|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/1isall|contribs]]) 20:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I also added the sentance: "You must state the original Wikipedia as a source." I've kept it simple, and avoiding mentioning the "5 authors" thing...which I think is kind of stupid. If you picked 5 authors at random, it may be that none of those authors really made any significant contribution. And finding the top-5 contributors could be an annoying task. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 16:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: But they ''don't'' must list Wikipedia as a source. We can suggest that as a good practice until we're blue in the face -- and I think that we should -- but the GNU FDL doesn't require that, since Wikipedia is not an author. Thus we link to both the GNU FDL -- stating the requirements -- and to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] -- stating our requests and suggestions. -- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 09:31, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
::Toby, on [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] it says "That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges Wikipedia as the source." This contradicts what you are saying. It says that it much acknowledge Wikipedia as the source, but you are saying that it doesn't have to. So, I guess Wikipedia:Copyrights should be changed. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 04:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:: The text that you quoted, dave, is correct. The content ''can'' be used under those conditions -- and it can be used under certain other conditions as well. (For an even more extreme example, it can be used under "fair use" provisions.) Still, perhaps [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] should be rewritten to make clearer the distinction between what the GNU FDL ''requires'' (such acknowledgement of 5 principal authors) and what we would ''like'' (such as a link to the Wikipedia page). Generally speaking, we shouldn't have to edit the notice whenever we change how to express this; instead, the notice should lead people to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], where the matter can be explained in as much detail as necessary. (And of course, the current suggested notice does just this!) -- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 22:27, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:I've made a few changes to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] in atticipation of updating our copyright notice on the bottom of the page. I purpose that the new notice read "<small>All text is available under the terms of the [[GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]]. See [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for details.</small>" Right now the link at the bottom links to a page which redirects to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], but being that the GFDL is intimidating to most to read, people are less likely to click on the current link and read the terms of copying. [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 21:18, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)
::Yes, great. Like I said above, having the GFDL link to Wikipedia:Copyrights was a bad idea. This will encourange more people to click on the link now. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 22:51, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
: On your short version (still embedded in the talk paragraph above), MB:
:* We should use the full name of the licence for people that are unfamiliar with it.
:* Your "for details" phrasing might suggest that [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] has details on the ''licence'', but it can do no better on that than the link to the licence itself. The real reason that we want a link to our own page is to give people our advice on ''how'' to comply -- such as linking back to our own page (which you'll never get from reading the licence itself).
: -- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 06:17, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
:: All these changes are fine with me. Anyone feel free to post this to the list any time they like. Until I get my internet fixed back home, I don't have access to the e-mail account I use to send messages to the list. Also, someone should mention in that e-mail the lack of the notice in the "[http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content&printable=yes Printable versions]" of pages. [[User:Mbecker|ミハエル (MB)]] 20:48, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
I've been doing some work on creating a copyright page for Wikibooks. It is short and sweet. Check it out: http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Copyrights --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 02:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
OK, I came up with one more minor change under the suggestions of Brion. The word "text" should be changed to "content", so the new notice will read:
"All content is available under the terms of the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]]. See [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for suggested practices." [[User:Mbecker|{ MB <nowiki>|</nowiki> マイカル }]] 14:21, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
== 4Reference? ==
''Moved from [[Wikipedia:Village pump]] on [[Saturday]], [[August 2]]nd, [[2003]].''
I stumbled on to [http://www.4reference.net/ 4Reference], which seems to feed exclusively on Wikipedia articles. Does anybody know more about this? -- [[User:Mic|Mic]] 20:43 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Yes, see [[Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content]]. [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 21:29 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
== What to do if asking for compliance doesn't work? ==
I've noticed that some websites listed on this page have not fixed their violation status after being notified of their breach weeks ago. IMO, we should send a more sternly-worded followup letter to those still not in compliance after, say, a month from them receiving the first letter. Then if after, say, another two weeks we give them a final warning to bring their website in conformance - otherwise we will create a press release explaining their breach and will distribute it widely (including to their ISP). And if ''that'' doesn't work then we ask their ISP to remove the infringing materials from their server (yeah, I know, evil [[DMCA]] letter). I've seen this done on several occasions for GPL violations. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 05:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
: 4reference is way past its one month limit. --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] 12:24, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
::Alright, let's move this discussion to [[Wikipedia talk:Standard GFDL violation letter]], so that we can come up with a standard "sternly-worded followup letter." Or alternatively, if anyone has already sent one out, put it on [[Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter]] for others to use. [[User:Mbecker|{ MB <nowiki>|</nowiki> マイカル }]] 14:21, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
----
I have a question.. If you place an article on your site within your normal site template, does the copyright of your logo and layout move into the GFDL?
: If you install Microsoft Word on your personal computer do you expect it to become property of Bill Gates? No, only the copyrighted content is copyrighted, i.e. the text of the article and maybe the images. --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] 11:18, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
::Bill Gates might not agree with you ;). [[User:Mbecker|{ MB <nowiki>|</nowiki> マイカル }]] 18:58, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)
----
The chessbase.com heading is screwed up. The 3 equals signs isn't working properly. Help! [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 07:10, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
:It was the = in the URL which screwed it up. I replaced it with a %3D as the URL-encoded version of the =, and now the heading as well as the URL work. [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 19:12, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
----
I have re-categorized the main page, to make my life easier. Hopefully this works well for everyone else as well.
----
On the meta page, it says "For sites using Wikipedia material in violation of GNU FDL see [[Wikipedia:Sites in violation]]".
Do we want to move things to that page (which is currently blank), or leave things the way they are? [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 19:18, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
| 