Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/DEF
- See also Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks for the main discussion page
I have changed the text on http://fixedreference.org to make it clear the link back is only from pages like http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/external/http:__www.wikipedia.org__Wikipedia_.html not directly from every article. --BozMo|talk 11:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Not sure how and where to mention this; a lot of the links to mirror websites are either broken or contents long switched to a different thing. Are they being monitored? Another thing; there is an interesting mirror to the total wikipedia content at dwikipedia.eth.limo or if you run your swarm node (https://docs.ethswarm.org/docs/access-the-swarm/host-your-website/#enable-ens-on-your-node), at feed hash of 61a4a1073a19c273ac0cdf663a1d4d83c01ef01bdbb60db596975f2518b28593. The latter is highly recommended. I added this to the list. --mohseng|talk 22:43 pm, 15 January 2023 (EST)
License language
editSome commented on exsudo, "license text in English, not Danish... not sure if this is in agreement on GNU/FDL?". Just to be clear, license text must be in English. Users can translate it themselves if necessary, e.g. with babelfish. However, only the English is legally binding so that must be shown with all copies. Superm401 - Talk 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Damn Interesting
editFull Disclosure: I am the owner/proprietor of DamnInteresting.com
This page inaccurately states of DamnInteresting.com: "Several articles are close to verbatim copies of Wikipedia articles." In fact, the reverse is the case... some of our text has been taken to be used on Wikipedia-- both by our own writers, and by others without permission-- but we're ok with that because we love Wikipedia. And a large number of our articles link to Wikipedia. I can say with confidence that we have never taken any text straight from here. We have cited facts based on Wikipedia articles (but reworded to be non-encyclopedic), and we occasionally use images from here, but nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot pastrami (talk • contribs)
- I disagree. Looking at the Wikipedia article history for basal cell carcinoma, it is clear that the text developed there first, gradually. If it was a copyright infringement from Damn Interesting, it would have suddenly appeared. The article's basic structure has been around since 10/04. Also, Damn Interesting is clearly not a true wiki (it isn't editable). Thus, why would pages say "http://localhost.localdomain/wiki/index.php/Basal_cell_carcinoma" (for example) unless they was generated from a MediaWiki dump? Also, there are still remnants of MediaWiki syntax, like "OMIM }}", that make clear the content is from a wiki. Superm401 - Talk 08:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't remove the listing again, but feel free to add comments or replies there or here. Superm401 - Talk 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems I have made a mistake. The DamnInteresting entry links to http://www.dataformato.com/basal_cell_carcinoma.php, which clearly violates the GFDL. However, I don't see how this connected to DamnInteresting. I'm taking that link off for now and noting better that this entry is disputed. Superm401 - Talk 09:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you find your content copied to Wikipedia, please either release it under the GFDL (by posting a GFDL notice next to the content on your website), remove it, or report it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. We can't have material with ambiguous copyright here. If you want (and have permission from all copyright holders), you can put your whole website under the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk 09:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly familiar with all of the available licenses... is there one which allows us to grant Wikipedia use of our content, without granting access to the whole world? From what I've seen, the stuff that's been copied to Wikipedia from DamnInteresting is just a phrase or two here and there, nothing too substantial, so I don't think it creates copyright problems either way.
- No, it's specifically not possible to do this. Text content must be under the GFDL, which allows redistribution, modified or unmodified, commercially or non-commercially by anyone. Again, if you think Wikipedia contains copyrightable Damn Interesting material, please remove it yourself, make an entry at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or email info-en-c@wikimedia.org .
- I'm curious... if there was only one instance of alleged plagiarism on our site, and it has now been proven inaccurate, why do we remain on the list at all? What must we do to clear our names? As a writer, an accusation of plagiarism is an extremely troubling thing, and I want to resolve it completely. Hot Pastrami 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because someone made an entry to begin with, and I've been trying to assume good faith. Even though the sample was incorrect, your site could still be infringing. However, I've been looking through your site (though not extensively) and it doesn't seem like anything has come from Wikipedia. I'll take you off. Superm401 - Talk 04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for correcting the error. I'll keep my eyes open for material on Wikipedia that's lifted from our site, and if it occurs in significant amounts which might raise copyright concerns, my writers and I will have to decide how to respond.Hot Pastrami 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because someone made an entry to begin with, and I've been trying to assume good faith. Even though the sample was incorrect, your site could still be infringing. However, I've been looking through your site (though not extensively) and it doesn't seem like anything has come from Wikipedia. I'll take you off. Superm401 - Talk 04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly familiar with all of the available licenses... is there one which allows us to grant Wikipedia use of our content, without granting access to the whole world? From what I've seen, the stuff that's been copied to Wikipedia from DamnInteresting is just a phrase or two here and there, nothing too substantial, so I don't think it creates copyright problems either way.
- If you find your content copied to Wikipedia, please either release it under the GFDL (by posting a GFDL notice next to the content on your website), remove it, or report it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. We can't have material with ambiguous copyright here. If you want (and have permission from all copyright holders), you can put your whole website under the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk 09:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia4U
editEncyclopedia4U (http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/) has a correct link to Wikipedia and a correct link to the GFDL, but it also says "Copyright � 2005 Par Web Solutions All Rights reserved.". Is that legit? Corvus cornixtalk 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Daily Mail?
editDaily Mail
edit| URL | http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ |
|---|---|
| Description | |
| Sample | http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014823/Blistering-barnacles-Tintin-fans-arms-Captain-Haddock-gets-Hollywood-makeover-SCOTTISH-accent.htm |
| Rating | none. |
| Compliance | http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/07/something-fishy-about-daily-mail.html |
| Contact info | Own ISP? - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-1227210/Contact-Us.html |
| Actions | None yet... |
Does Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Def#Facebook still hold true? The example link is unclear, and I'm not very familiar with Facebook. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)