Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Numbers

[edit] 1bx.com and related

DOMAINS BY PROXY®
Attn: Legal Complaints
15111 N. Hayden Road, Suite 160
PMB 353
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

[edit] 1-player.net

[edit] 1-bike.com

[edit] 10baset.info

[edit] 2BuyGood.com/InfoPedia

They've set up a "technical issues" message and a rediect to their store. JesseW 05:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2violent.com

[edit] 7val

[edit] 999 Network

[edit] A

[edit] aaez.biz

[edit] aardogs.com

[edit] Aaronlanguage.com

[edit] Abbaci books

[edit] ABC World

[edit] About.com

• Site: About.com
• acknowledgement without a link
• no mention of GFDL. Standard letter sent by: MB 08:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
• Point of contact, Mary Bellis inventors.guide@about.com.
• Response received Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:26:14 -0700.
• Portions of affected articles at inventors.about.com (as of July 14 2003) link back to wikipedia and are released under the GFDL.
• Any examples of the affected articles? Can't find any trivially.
• Don't email the person above; she is only responsible for "inventors" section, and seems rather grumpy.Proyster 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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.Proyster 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Looking at this mirror, I don't see any acknowledgement that the articles originally come from Wikipedia, or any history of contributions. FreplySpang 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• No mention of Wikipedia or GFDL I saw before their obnoxious spyware?/adware? finally crashed my browser. John Reid ° 14:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Check this out though, it almost sounds like the "guide" claims she wrote the article: http://classiclit.about.com/mbiopage.htm

[edit] Absolute Astronomy

[edit] aboutsociology.com

• Site: aboutsociology.com
• Example: Madrid Metro
• GFDL and Wikipedia are mentioned [1]

[edit] AbsoluteArts.com

[edit] Academie.de Net-Lexikon

• Site: Academie.de Net-Lexikon
• 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"

[edit] adago.com

• Site www.adago.com
• Example: http://www.adago.com/Sony_HiFD.html

More research requested

[edit] Advantacell.com

[edit] Agenda.z1.ro

[edit] aircraft-list.com

[edit] Algebra.com

[edit] All2know.com

[edit] Allabout.cc

• Site: Allabout.cc
• Link to GNU FDL
• Link to www.wikipedia.org
• Says that "it [the article] uses material from Wikipedia"
• Nolink to original article

[edit] All About-kittens.com

[edit] All About-puppies.com

[edit] All Science Fair Projects Encyclopedia

• Site: All Science Fair Projects Encyclopedia
• Copies of many science and science-related articles (example: [2])
• Copies of every single Wikipedia article (Examples: Barry Bonds, House Rules for Monopoly)
• Link to www.wikipedia.org exists but is not clickable
• No GFDL link

* "Copyright (C) 2003 All Science Fair Projects.com All Rights Reserved" listed on every page * Copyright notice and disclaimer, albeit very informative, are not linked to from either the main page or the article pages

• Standard letter sent. Telso 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

** Article pages show update as of 10-05-04 but still not compliant. JamesMLane 12:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)Update statement removed

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

• • No, this site has every WP article. I linked examples above (Barry Bonds, House Rules for Monopoly) -- Daniel Pritchard 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• MIT example says "The contents of this article is licensed from www.wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. Click here to see the transparent copy and copyright details"
  • Mentions GFDL and has local copy [3]
  • Acknowledges wikipedia source
  • No Link back to wikipedia original article

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

[edit] Alternative To Reality

[edit] Amazines.com

[edit] Annlongfineart.com

[edit] Anoca.org

[edit] Answers.com

[edit] Archaeologics

[edit] area51.ipupdater.com

[edit] aRiKaH

[edit] Arizona Gardens

[edit] Arkansas Encyclopedia

• Site: Arkansas 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)

• Each article links to the GFDL on www.gnu.org, and to the corresponding article on Wikipedia.

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Source: Original text from the article in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: <article name>.

In my book, that puts them at least into medium compliance, which is where I will move them. -Rholton 05:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Armageddon Online

[edit] Armeniapedia

[edit] ArsenalHQ

[edit] Art History Club

• Site: Art History Club
• Example: Albania
• States "The content of this article is licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License" at end of each page
• No hyperlink to Wikipedia or to orginial article
• "Copyright" at bottom of each page links to disclaimers and local copy of GFDL.

  --Henrygb 22:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Like CARluvers, 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. --Henrygb 02:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • States that it is an "art history encyclopedia," but contains articles on subjects unrelated to art.^[6] Seahen 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] articles.co.nr

[edit] ArticleHead.com

• Site: ArticleHead.com
• Very recent, apparently almost complete mirror, utilising categories. No mention of Wikipedia, no mention of GFDL, claiming their own copyright. I've sent a first warning notice. --195.11.216.59 13:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I see GFDL and backlinks at the bottom of every article page; either you didn't see them (because they don't appear on the category pages?) or your warning was instantly effective. ←Hob 17:36, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

The latter - I received the following email:

"Thanks for keeping me informed of my obligations. The following changes have been made:

a) on article pages, the note information at the bottom of the page is automatically expanded.

b) on article pages, the footer information at the bottom of the page has been changed from

"Articles and category structure on this site have been graciously provided by Wikipedia. Please consider donating to their cause."

TO

"This article is licensed under the [linked] GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia: [linked] Wiki entry."

If only all of our mirrors were so ready to meet their legal obligations. --195.11.216.59 21:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Moved to High although i would like them to have a link on the front page to wikipedia and GFDL --Davelane 22:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It appears, as of March 2005, to have reverted to non-compliance. Burgundavia 20:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • On further inspection, they hide the notice. You can view through clicking Notice+. I am moving to medium.
  • How can this be even considered medium compliance? I clicked on the Notice+, and get this:

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia: Wiki entry.

When I click on Wiki entry I get http://www.articleshead.com/#, and not a link back to the original article. When I click on the GNU FDL link I get the page from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html . But there is no mention of the GFDL or the correct copyright notice unless I click on Notice+, surely this is non-compliance? -Wikibob | Talk 17:48, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

[edit] Artilifes.com

[edit] Artistopia

[edit] ArtLine.ro

[edit] ArtPolitic

• Site: ArtPolitic
• Says that it is GFDL, but links to an explanation page of the GFDL ([7]), instead of the license itself.
  • That page (wikipedia-copyright-gnu-fdl.html) would be fine, except for the fact that they did not slurp up the correct pages from Wikipedia to make http://www.artpolitic.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License and http://www.artpolitic.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License load. Those pages are currently 404'd.
• Names Wikipedia and links to source article.
• Does not have "title page".
• Example: [8]

[edit] Arts and Design Info

• Site: Arts and Design Info
• Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
• Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
• No link to original article
• Example: [9] from Digital Art

[edit] assault-weapons.com

• Site: www.assault-weapons.com
• Example: http://www.assault-weapons.com/wiki/Sony_HiFD

[edit] Asia Information 01

• Site: Asia Information 01
• Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
• Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
• No link to original article
• Offline since Nov. 2005 [10]

[edit] Asinah.net

• Site: Asinah.net
• Acknowledges wikipedia authorship, links to wikipedia
  • Not for their Dutch version.
• States that the article is licensed under the GNU FDL.
  • Though it links to what looks to be a partial copy or commentary about the license rather than the actual text of the license.
• Does not link to the relevant wikipedia page, but does link to the edit function of the individual page (under the heading "edit this page")
  • It no longer does this, at least not for an not logged in user.
  • It now only links to their copy of our article on Wikipedia. [11] Guanaco 16:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Example: [12] from Kyoto Protocol.
  • Now seems to be a Thailand tourist page, but previous version can be seen on Google search and cache [13] Henrygb 17:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• forum page include some comments on articles and replies from site admins. Reading a few replies, it seems that the admins encourage people to edit articles on Wikipedia.
• The placement of their own copyright notice makes it unclear exactly what they are claiming copyright for.
• I could not find any link to the history of the article nor any attribution of authorship aside from the link to the Wikipedia main page.
• No mention of Wikipedia on the Hindi version.

[edit] ask.dyndyns.dk

• Sample article: http://article.ask.dyndns.dk/
• Acknowledges Wikipedia as source, says content is GFDL.
• Links back to corresponding WP page and to FDL on GNU site.
• Main page seems to be http://ask.dyndns.dk/ which offers search of local content.
• Contains a list at the bottom of every article of (computer-generated) misspellings of the title, each one of which links to a subpage identical to the parent (which contains the copy of the article, of course), probably in order to rank high on Google searches.
• Does not handle the interwiki or category links properly, which causes a load of rubbish to appear at the end of every article (apart from the aforementioned list of misspellings) - see, for example, http://richard-stallman.ask.dyndns.dk/.

--Fibonacci 05:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AskFactMaster

[edit] Avapedia

[edit] azplayers.com

[edit] B

[edit] Backgammon.co.uk

—ptk✰fgs 04:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backgammoned.net

—ptk✰fgs 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baghdad Museum

• Site: [14]
• contains this explanation:
• 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 | Talk 01:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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 | Talk 20:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BambooWeb Dictionary

• Site: http://www.bambooweb.com/
• At the bottom of every article page is a link to the Wikipedia article and a notice that says it is from wikipedia and under the GFDL.

[edit] Barry's Tickets

[edit] Base Science 24

• Site: http://www.base.science24.org/
• Example:[15] from Albania
• Article ends with "Albania provided by Science 24 Base; Our source is Wikipedia. Albania - licensed under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2"
• No link to Wikipedia or original article
• No link to GFDL
• As of 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) --Henrygb
  • Seems to have changed to en.science24.org:
  • Albania example now [16]
  • Page ends with "This page is a mirror of Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia All the content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. Trec Nurkowanie implanty kredyt got�wkowy casinos online" with links to Wikipedia and to GFDL at gnu.org
  • Internal and external links are invisible (apart from Google ads)
  • As of 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC) --Henrygb

[edit] Basic Famous People

[edit] behindthefridge.com

• Site: behindthefridge.com
• Have large excerpts of Wikipedia content.
• Mentions Wikipedia and GFDL.
• No links at all, no links to the original article.
• Has "© THIS PAGE ON American Expatriates, COPYRIGHT 2004 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" on it.
• As of 12:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibleocean

• Site: http://bibleocean.com/
• Example: [17] of Albania
• Article ends with "Original Article from WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania"
• No mention of GFDL
• 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).

[edit] BigMac.biz

[edit] BIGpedia

[edit] Biocrawler

[edit] Biodatabase.de

[edit] Biography Base

[edit] Biography Finder

• Site: Biography Finder
• Contains older versions of Wikipedia articles on various people.
• Has no mention of Wikipedia.
• No link to GFDL.
• Claims copyright.
• Is apparently linked with Phobia Finder.
• 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)

[edit] Biography.ms

[edit] Biology Daily

[edit] bird-center.net

• Site: www.bird-center.net
• Example: http://www.bird-center.net/articles/Main_Page
• Link to local copy of the GFDL (As of JesseW 20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC))
• Link to original Wikipedia article (As of JesseW 20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC))
• State that content is under the GFDL (As of JesseW 20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC))
• State that content is from Wikipedia. (As of JesseW 20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC))

Seems to be HIGH compliance, as far as I can see. Will someone move them to that list, please? JesseW 20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BirminghamUK.com

• Site: http://www.birminghamuk.com
• Various Birmingham articles. Example: [19] from HP Sauce
• Link to local copy of the GFDL
• States content from Wikipedia
• No obvious link to original article
• Half broken link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/open+content --Henrygb 12:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bizgos.com

[edit] Blinkybits

[edit] bookonlinesale.com

[edit] bookrags.com

[edit] bopedia.com

• Site: bopedia.com
• Example: http://bopedia.com/en/wikipedia/p/pu/public_affairs_1.html

*Link to local copy of the GFDL: yes (As of 2 Nov 2006 DES ^(talk)). No longer true. Superm401 | Talk 06:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Link to original Wikipedia article: yes (As of 2 Nov 2006 DES ^(talk))
• State that content is under the GFDL: Yes (As of 2 Nov 2006 DES ^(talk))
• State that content is from Wikipedia: Yes. (As of 2 Nov 2006 DES ^(talk))

Seems to be HIGH compliance, as far as I can see. DES ^(talk) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] borgfind

[edit] www.bostoncoop.net

• Site: http://www.bostoncoop.net/~tpryor/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
• 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.
• As of 09:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bowise.com

• Site: www.bowise.com
• 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)

Research requested. JesseW 22:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BT Research

[edit] brian-oshaughnessy.com

• Site: www.brian-oshaughnessy.com
• 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.
• As of 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Braindex

[edit] BrainyEncyclopedia

[edit] Brandt.kurowski.net

• Site: 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
• Each page has a link back to the appropriate page on Wikipedia. He also has a link to our GFDL page. His compliance may not be perfect, but he's certainly making a good effort. I've passed on a few suggestions for improvement. Meanwhile, I'm moving the status of this page to Medium Compliance. -Rholton 03:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Brendaadderly.com

• Site: Brendadderly.com
• A number of articles, such as: http://brendaadderly.com/alternative-medicine.html
  • Not in compliance, no GFDL notice, no links to Wikipedia, no mention of Wikipedia anywhere that I can find. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Britain tv

[edit] Brough's Books

• Site: Brough's Books
• link to current version of article
• link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
• Example: [20]

[edit] C

[edit] Campus Empire

[edit] 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.
• 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 | Talk 20:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canbet.com

[edit] Canineconcepts.co.uk

[edit] Caninecrib

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

[edit] captaincopyright.ca

• Site: Captain Copyright
• Page: Colouring Book
  • 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: [21].

[edit] caribbean-forum.com

• Site: [22]
  • site appears to be taking live Wiki data
• Examples:
  • http://anguilla.caribbean-forum.com/encyclopedia.php?title=Special:Recentchanges
  • http://dominica.caribbean-forum.com/encyclopedia.php?title=Special:Recentchanges
    • has been blocked by admin LarsSanders 17:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• http://anguilla.caribbean-forum.com/encyclopedia.php?title=Wikipedia
• Images are hot-linked to Wikipedia servers
• Copyright might be OK, says: Copyleft © 2005 caribbean-forum.com and Wikipedia - Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". Wikipedia content can be freely edited. Sometimes the edit option does not function from this site. In that case, please go to Wikipedia and edit over there in the corresponding section
  • 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

LarsSanders 17:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Zambrano

[edit] CARluvers

• Site: http://www.carluvers.com
• Example: [23] for Albania
• 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.
• As of 01:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC) --Henrygb

[edit] Casinozone.info

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

[edit] Catholic University of Brussels

• Site: Catholic University of Brussels
• Most of main site is in Dutch
• Copies the Semantic Web article completely
• 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)

===Champions (UK) Plc After Dinner Speakers

• Site: http://www.championsukplc.com/after-dinner-speaking/speaker_details.cfm?speakerID=530 (and others)
• No mention of Wikipedia/GFDL
• Seems to copy text directly from biographical articles.

[edit] Choam info

• Site: http://www.choam.info/
• No mention of wikipedia
• No mention of GFDL

[edit] Chemistry Daily

• Site: Chemistry Daily - the chemistry encyclopedia
• Seems to have a pretty much complete copy of the WP database - including non-chemistry articles.

[24]

• No reference to GFDL on individual pages. Instead, line at the bottom:

The contents of this article is licensed from Wikipedia.org

• Potentially confusing copyright line beneath that. No link to wikipedia on individual article's pages.
• Terms of use [25] are pretty good though, including copy of GFDL license, plus reference to wikipedia.

[edit] Chesnutz.info

• Site: http://chesnutz.info

Example url: http://mp3player.chesnutz.info/dir11/mp3-player-compact-flash.html

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.

[edit] Chessbase.com

• Site: Chessbase.com

(article about Howard Staunton)

• 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)

[edit] chess.go.ro

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

[edit] Chinese Psychology Online

[edit] Christianclassifieds.com

• Site: [26]

• 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"--Rayc 23:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] citiesamerica.com

• Site: http://www.citiesamerica.com
• No longer utilizes Wikipedia information

• As of 16:46, 06 Feb 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

• 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.

Geni 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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. --Gmaxwell 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• it is somewhere in http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,607.0/topicseen.html Geni 11:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

Pjacobi 13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citymayors.com

[edit] Civil-War.ws

See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#Otherground

[edit] Classic TV & Movie Hits

[edit] Cleartest.com

• Site: Cleartest.com

This Pot Smoker of the Month is in significant parts a copyvio of Wikipedia's article on Melissa Etheridge

[edit] clubblogs.com

[edit] Clusty

[edit] codeboy.net

• Site encyclopedia.codeboy.net

Research requested. JesseW 22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Currently in non-workable state, full with "\n" and "font=", etc. I would assume noone with any sense would use it --Msoos 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] collectionagencysupport.com

[edit] colombialink.com

[edit] Comedy Zone

[edit] 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.
• nonworking as of 13 April 2006. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conk

• Site: CONK! Encyclopedia
• |rating=|compliance=s Wikipedia
• Contains notice: "Data for the CONK! Encyclopedia provided by Wikipedia" with a non-working link to Wikipedia:About and no mention of GFDL.
• Example: Zone plate from Zone plate.
• Have sent email. --Laura Scudder | Talk 23:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Dead and gone. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Still dead (and gone) ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connect Online

[edit] Conservapedia

[edit] Cookery-Online

• Site: cookery-online.co.uk
• 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)

[edit] Cooldictionary.com

[edit] copernicus.subdomain.de

• Site: copernicus.subdomain.de
• 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)

• All namespaces.
• Sample: http://copernicus.subdomain.de/Jimmy_Wales
• No mention of Wikipedia.
• No mention of GFDL.
• As of 13:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creekin.net

[edit] Crystalinks.com

[edit] CultureCentric

[edit] CuteWalls.com

[edit] cyberpedia.net

[edit] Cyese.info

• Google suggests copy of some articles (e.g. [[27]] should have a copy of Polyol) but protected behind registration requirement --Henrygb 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Site ont found, as of 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC). Chris Chan.talk.contribs

[edit] cytaty.servis.pl

• Site: http://www.cytaty.servis.pl/haslo/Main_Page
• Sample: http://www.wiedza.servis.pl/haslo/Albinizm
• Uses Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia, and Wikiquote contents.
• Mention of GFDL 1.2, no links to it though. No mention of Wikipedia. -- WB 08:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • E-mail sent. -- WB 08:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)