Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Violations by non-web entities 2 No-contact, etc. 3 Planning 3.1 <some site> 4 Template 5 DMCA 6 Former content users 7 What if... 8 Strange? 9 Weird 10 Desperate? 11 Action Section 12 German anyone? 13 GFDL 14 JavaScript 15 Revision of Wikipedia:Copyrights 16 Database dumps 17 Me too. 18 New section 19 Zdnet.co.za 20 a to z clean up 21 Non-compliance process 22 Mirrors are irritating 23 Spam referral and spamlinking mirrors

[edit] Violations by non-web entities

As mentioned on Wikipedia_talk:Citing_Wikipedia#What_do_we_do_about_people_plagarizing_Wikipedia.3F What to do with them? There's a service called AskMeNow that only exists as a for-profit mobile service; customers SMS or call in their questions, and the service SMS/emails back an answer. The problem is that the answer is typically (not always) an excerpt from Wikipedia made without attribution. - quanta 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

They still have a web and email presence (contact page at [1]) so you can use modified standard violation letter. Superm401 | Talk 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No-contact, etc.

Few questions. If the e-mail address left in WHOIS is invalid, and you have no other ways of contacting the owner, do we move on straight to the ISP?

Also, the meta is rather inactive, and even here is rather inactive. Anything we can do about this? -- WB 08:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Going to the ISP seems reasonable. If the first tries don't work, you could even try a DMCA takedown notice. Superm401 | Talk 11:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the IP points to 85.214.18.28, a German address. abuse@strato.de seems like the way to go. Any knowledge of how DMCA would work internationally? -- WB 11:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

E-mails sent. Of course, I do not know yet, but what if even the ISP/host do not reply? -- WB 11:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but even if it's technically legally appliable, I think it would be difficult to enforce. Superm401 - Talk 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planning

I read that you have sent a violation letter to Answers.com. How did they react? -- WB 13:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've updated their entry at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Answers.com. Thanks for reminding me. Superm401 | Talk 18:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Are you interested in helping on the WP:MF actively though? It's been quite inactive recently, and I cannot possibly do it without others' help. We should probably advertise it somewhere in Wikipedia as well, but I just dunno where. -- WB 22:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As for WP:MF in general, I usually just update when I encounter a mirror myself. However, I have done some systemic review in the past and am willing to do more. I know the "undetermined"s need to be processed. What else do you specifically have in mind as priorities? Superm401 | Talk 22:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I responded on that talk page before I read the update. Here: I'm planning on going through A-Z periodically and move things to the archives if the site doesn't exist anymore and contact more efficiently, etc. Just yesterday, I sent at least 10 e-mails. Although this would probably never be true, but I'm looking at the style of IfDs even. The first priority is to get more people involved... -- WB 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvienence. :) The tasks you described generally what I expected, except I don't understand one of your statements:

"Although this would probably never be true, but I'm looking at the style of IfDs even."

Do you mean Images and media for Deletion or something else? Either way, could you explain? Superm401 | Talk 22:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I must have spent too much time on Commons (currently applying for admin there). I meant AfDs. -- WB 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my denseness. Do you mean you would try to delete records of inactive sites? If so, I think that's a bad idea. Wikipedia is not paper and those records are useful. Superm401 | Talk 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I meant archive as in separate pages. It's easier to work on the current ones if we don't have the ones already dealt with. -- WB 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions yourself? -- WB 22:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the archiving idea, but I don't think every site should have its own page. That makes it a little too complicated to add an entry, in my opinion. Superm401 | Talk 10:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Same. Something like Commons's deletion request, where we move each by hand when it's over, not separate pages (then it goes out of hands). Maybe a template where you can list the violation and contact so it's easier to deal with. Something like this?

Name	<some site>
URL	<URL> (wrapped in nowiki to prevent search engines from visiting)
Violations	a list
Contact info	<contact info>
Status

-- WB 10:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Superm401 | Talk 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What should the template be named? -- WB 10:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How's this table?

[edit] <some site>
URL	<URL> (wrapped in nowiki to prevent search engines from visiting)
Violations	a list
Contact info	<contact info>
Status

-- WB 11:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

It should probably be {{mirror}}. Superm401 | Talk 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Great. I'll make it as soon as the design concensus is reached. (It seems like it's only us two right now...) -- WB 11:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Ready to go at {{mirror}}. -- WB 01:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've posted some comments at Template talk:mirror. Superm401 | Talk 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Replied and done. All we need is some people. -- WB 01:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DMCA

A standard DMCA requires the following. Maybe we can write something common in there to make it easier to send these:

1. an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the trademark or other intellectual property interest;
2. a description of the trademarked work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed;
3. a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the site;
4. your address, telephone number, and email address;
5. a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright or intellectual property owner, its agent, or the law;
6. a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the trademark or intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the trademark or intellectual property owner's behalf.

-- WB 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll start a public domain letter at Wikipedia:DMCA takedown notice. I strongly recommend you don't link it yet from the main page. We need to carefully consider when to use these. Superm401 - Talk 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. -- WB 01:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize there's no specific laws on adults, but I don't think minors should be sending these "legal messages". -- WB 02:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's not a specific legal problem, why shouldn't we? Superm401 - Talk 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing about that here. -- WB 01:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a minor (for a while). It's kind of funny if you think about it. All the users most interested in the legal matters are below or at the age of majority. Anyway, I apologize for being harsh. Superm401 - Talk 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you tell them the terms under which they can duplicate content. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You see what I mean; anther minor. Ilyanep, we do tell them the terms. See Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. Superm401 - Talk 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't on Wikipedia:DMCA takedown notice. And heh about how minors are watching this. Maybe we should get an adult to do these though. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should. First, by this point the site has shown they're not willing to cooperate with the GFDL; we might as well get down to business. Also, we're not sending the DMCA takedowns to the sites themselves (though they might be forwarded them). We're sending them to hosts and maybe Google. Neither of those organizations can (or at least should) edit pages to make them comply with the GFDL. They only have the power to block access, and that's what we're asking for at that point. Superm401 - Talk 10:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So where do we look for adult Wikipedians willing to help us with these? Out of past four people I've been talking to, 3 are minors, and one is Jimbo... -- WB 06:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Another possible priority for a DMCA takedown would be Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Mno#otherground. Superm401 - Talk 10:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Already posted. No replies... -- WB 08:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former content users

Do we want to eliminate this section now that we have the archive? Superm401 - Talk 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I still can't reach http://informationblast.com directly. I just tried through a proxy and lo and behold it's there. I don't know why I can't access it, but I'm not that surprised. I'll have to remember to try from two IPs somehow or other before I archive more sites. Superm401 - Talk 10:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What if...

What if a site cited wikipedia (correctly I think) but they even used links throughout the site, in the fashion of wikipedia, linking to other wikipedia cited sites?(sorry for the tongue twister, that was unintentional)

What if the site owner's e-mail is non-responsive, and so is the ISP. It seems to be the case for many the e-mails I sent... Also, some of the Chinese websites like firebird.cn's ISP cannot be found, even through the use of WHOIS, ping, etc. -- WB 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Then, we would need to use a traceroute. I use DNSStuff. It has pretty much every lookup you could want for an IP or domain. For firebird.cn, I did a whois. I saw that the administrative emails and nameservers are both at hichina.com. Then, I tried another whois for hichina.com but that didn't lead anywhere because their nameservers are on that domain. Then, I did a NS lookup for hichina.com (upper right) and found the same nameservers with their IPs. Doing a whois on the first IP gave me bjnic@bjtelecom.net . We should try contacting them next. Superm401 - Talk 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be new to this, but what if a person translated an English version of a wikipedia article to another language and copied/pasted it to their site? Is that a violation of copyright? ~AQjosh~

They would have to comply with the GFDL --Henrygb 13:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange?

A day ago or so, I warned Superm about Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl#localcolorart.com and his millions of domain-parking. And only a soon later, 69.19.14.33, 66.82.9.64, 69.19.14.26, 69.19.14.19 have been diligently adding various domains served by that person? Anyway, I think take down of that domain and that ISP is in the priority (image resource wasting, search wasting, etc.) -- WB 09:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

None of those are my IPs, but they're close, which of course means nothing as I have a static IP. Superm401 - Talk 10:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently someone named "Kathy's Daddy" thinks contacting the ISP is a personal attack. There may have been a mistake but "vicious lies"? I've been only following what other developers were saying. -- WB 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Some comments posted here. -- WB 08:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with this guy's compliance? It seems fine to me at the moment. Superm401 - Talk 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine right now. But we still need to keep a watch on the sites, only because of the sheer size of it (almost 100). He's avoiding my comments about his domain parking though. He says he works to promote Wikipedia, but I think it's more like getting Google hits on over 100 copies of outdated Wikipedia... Whatever, there are more sites to care about. -- WB 01:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird

See http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Wikipedia

Biocrawler mirrors our content but replaces the word Wikipedia with Biocrawler everywhere. Including talk pages. — Omegatron 18:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This violates the statement in the GFDL 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." I've created an entry at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Biocrawler and listed it as low compliance. Superm401 - Talk 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing to note is that this one is edittable like Wikipedia. I like the edittable ones. -- WB 05:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I do like editable ones, but only when they are legitimate forks. This one is clearly a deceptive mirror with no actual growth plans; any edits will not serve the creation of a valuable biology wiki but merely drain Wikipedia, in my opinion. Because of the fraud I discussed in the entry, I suggest a DMCA takedown for this one if they don't reply in a month. Superm401 - Talk 05:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good plan. I wonder why Wikipedia even has mirrors though. Most of them are causing problem. Seriously... There are only handful of those who really follow the licensing rules. The thing is, no matter how it is, I don't think they'll ever stop the db dumps though. Too bad. -- WB 05:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

They did reply, but with an form letter. That itself wouldn't be a problem given how many forms I've sent to mirrors but it didn't address my comments. See the entry (link above). Superm401 - Talk 05:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's worse. That or straight forward DMCA request. What happens if even the ISPs are non-responsive? already answered. -- WB 06:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

They've now sent a reply addressing my actual complaints. They say someone else told them to change all mention Wikipedia to Biocrawler, which is disappointing. That's clearly a change that has to be noted in history. I also feel strongly that it's an "impl[ied] endorsement" in violation of the GFDL. I referred them here to demonstrate consensus for my assessment. No one has objected so far (~3 days); if you disagree now, please say so. Superm401 - Talk 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the funniest site I have seen all day... --T-rex 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears they aren't content with possibly violating the license on our content; the following IPs have been spamming Wikipedia with links to biocrawler . com:

82.135.79.155 (t·c), 82.135.70.112 (t·c), 82.135.1.180 (t·c), 82.135.66.157 (t·c), 82.135.7.250 (t·c), 82.135.5.189 (t·c), 82.135.73.56 (t·c), 82.135.79.202 (t·c), 82.135.87.225 (t·c), 82.135.2.79 (t·c), 82.135.7.14 (t·c), 82.135.14.18 (t·c), 82.135.67.53 (t·c), 82.135.73.222 (t·c), 82.135.13.221 (t·c), 82.135.7.250 (t·c), 82.135.66.226 (t·c), 82.135.5.28 (t·c), 62.245.208.236 (t·c), 62.245.160.55 (t·c)

-- Wmahan. 11:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desperate?

Unless we can get someone in Wikipedia to write DMCA for us, we cannot proceed in many cases. Many hosting companies are not accepting anything other than DMCA. -- WB 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Sj posted something over at juriwiki mailing list. We should be hearing something soon. -- WB 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him for an update. Superm401 - Talk 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No word back from anyone yet, unfortunately. I'll ping User:Michael Snow directly next I have the chance. I would guess a reasonable answer is 'use language that hints at the DMCA clauses, and ISPs will take notice'. The DMCA clause basically says "If someone complains about infringing content, you have to take it down; then if the person who posted the content challenges the complaint, you can put it back up [and wait for more formal complaint/action]." But I'd like to hear one of our resident lawyers weigh in on the matter. +sj + 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we might have to consider looking for people to send e-mails again. -- WB 07:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we are already stating clearly that the sites are copyright infringements. Unfortunately, the DMCA isn't as flexible as you say. Takedowns have to be in a precise format; the issue is that nobody here feels comfortable sending notices in that format (which should include address and phone number), and ISPs won't pay attention to anything else. Superm401 - Talk 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why we need someone comfortable releasing them. There are a few of people releasing their real names in their user namespace, maybe we should look on contacting them about helping us. -- WB 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Someone above the age of majority who has already publicly connected their real name to their Wikipedia user name would be ideal. I'm a minor and not too inclined to publicize my name given Brandt's hit list (the current name and address for me is wrong). Superm401 - Talk 01:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, it would suck to get on that list. As I said earlier, Jimbo is probably the most public name out here, but he's not helping, so someone else. -- WB 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not really that bad. Like I said, the info is wrong. But, I wonder if it constitutes a non-compliant mirror... Superm401 - Talk 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think User:BD2412 can be a great help. His information is publicly available, AND he's into law. I contacted him at User talk:BD2412. My writing might not be the best, so if you can improve on it, go ahead. -- WB 02:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the note a little. Superm401 - Talk 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done. -- WB 07:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It says "Working on a reply" according to his status display. I really hope it's our case. -- WB 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

According to his reply on my talk page, he's getting ready for a major trial, but is interested in helping us, which is a good news. A bit more wait I guess. -- WB 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to be less out there at the moment... BD2412 T 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Action Section

I'd like to suggest that we don't blank the action section when a website comes into compliance. They may soon start violating the license again, and even if they don't it's good to have a record of the communications and effort expended. Superm401 - Talk 03:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We can make note of the past violations, but the whole list of actions may be a bit too big. -- WB 06:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the major actions, then? Superm401 - Talk 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Like e-mails, DMCA (still no progress there), etc. -- WB 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German anyone?

I got this from a German ISP:

Sehr geehrte STRATO Kundin, sehr geehrter STRATO Kunde, vielen Dank für Ihre Email an das STRATO Experten Team vom 25.1.2006. Sie interessieren sich für das Produkt Webhosting und das Thema Sonstiges. Ihre Anfrage liegt den STRATO Experten bereits vor. Sie werden Ihnen so schnell wie möglich antworten, gewöhnlich innerhalb von wenigen Stunden. Hier finden Sie noch einmal eine Kopie Ihrer Anfrage:

I can't speak German. -- WB 06:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Machine translation:

Very honoured STRATO customer, very honoured STRATO customer, thank you for your email to the STRATO expert team of 25.1.2006. They are interested in the product Webhosting and the topic other. Their inquiry is present the STRATO expert already. They will answer as fast you as possible, usually within few hours. Here you find again a copy of your inquiry:

It seems to be an auto-reply. Superm401 - Talk 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hooray, someone sent me a follow up saying that some sort of screenshot, etc. will do the job. Problem is this guy scrambles the words and posts it on the site. I'll see what I can do by mid-next week. -- WB 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

E-mail sent. Looks like there are two separate people from the same ISP infringing copyrights. There are about 10 from Everyone Internet (sp?) though. -- WB 23:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody, sorry to be late, I believe you got everything sorted out by yourself! If there should be any need for assistance by a native german speaker used to "mirrors and forks"-stuff, please feel free to contact me at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Mdangers. I seem to be one of the more active people tending de:Wikipedia:Weiternutzung/Mängel, which is the german place for mirrors with licencing problems. Also, I happily invite you to dump any sites which are only using german language content to de:Wikipedia:Weiternutzung/Mängel, don't bother with special formatting and german, I'll take care of that. I fear I will also move a few english-only sites over here. I am actually happy to have found some people also doing this not very nice and rewarding job. Keep on doing a good job, greetings from Germany, --InterwikiLinksRule 16:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL

Insistence on a complete copy of the GFDL on every copy from Wikipedia seems a little extreme, even if it is what the GFDL says. This is (wrongly) presumed to mean a linked local copy rather than a link to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html or similar. But agian this is not what the GFDL says. I have copies of many pages provided by Wikipedia in my cache and not a single one of them has a copy of the GFDL attached - they have links which do not work when I am not connected - in breech of the GFDL. Coming back to real life, a site with clear and working links from all its GFDL covered pages to a copy of the GFDL is good as we can resonably expect. --Henrygb 22:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not exactly sure of what you are talking about, link to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html would be preferred. If one was connected to the Internet to get to your site, then we can safely assume that one can get to that site as well. If it was an offline copy however, local copy would be somewhat preferred. Nonetheless, the link is still preferred. What we need is non-JavaScript link back to the original article, attribution to Wikipedia, mention of GFDL license and a link back to it.

What do you mean by extreme? -- WB 00:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To quote the GFDL:

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium [...] provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies

Just how many ways can you interpet that it says you have to "reproduce" the license? Its explicit intention is for you to mirror it locally rather than merely link to it. For a webpage this means that it's accessible on your site in the same way that the work you're reproducing is accessible from your site. –Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you two disagree with each other, as well as with me. My personal view is that a strict reading of the GFDL is that a link to a copy of the GFDL is not enough, whether on your own site or GNU's, but that a practical reading is that a working link to a copy anywhere is good enough. --Henrygb 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection on a local copy. As long as it's present somewhere, I'm fine. I just prefer linking to the actual site. (GNU's). -- WB 04:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

First, cached copies are made by you (using the technology of your browser), not Wikipedia. They do not comply with the GFDL but are legal because of fair use (as well they should be). I don't agree either with WB saying a GNU link is preferred. To me, the GFDL does indeed require a local copy and making one shows a more than superficial commitment to the license. If Henrygb is saying the GFDL needs to actually be included on every page mirrored, that seems incorrect. The GFDL states that for modifications (which are most likely applicable) "H. Include an unaltered copy of this License." There's nothing about it being on the same physical page, just included with the Document. If it's a Verbatim Copy, they should include the license the way we did (because they should do everything the way we did), on a separate page. Superm401 - Talk 04:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Wikipedia did must be quite correct (having a local copy). The big problem is whether they have it or not however. If the even bothered to mention GFDL and link to a correct thing (local or not), they are better than most mirrors/forks. -- WB 07:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides me with copies of certain pages I request, all of which mention the GFDL and give a link, but do not contain the text of the GFDL. A website is not a document in the way a CD-ROM or DVD might be. My view remains that given the problems with many other sites, we should not worry about sites which mention GFDL and provide a working link to the text wherever that is (I think this mean I agree with the conclusion of WB). --Henrygb 09:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an on-site link is a low priority (especially because our example notice still doesn't use it). However, it's worth mentioning if you're already sending a compliance email. Superm401 - Talk 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JavaScript

Why should JS only sites be allowed? Some sites are going as far as to encrypting their links for some reason to avoid it. Even if GFDL does not specify it, say, someone hid it inside the HTML code... How's JS GFDL better than hiding it inside the code, some people can see it and some people can't? I think it should be apparent in text without things like JS. edit: looking back at this, GFDL should be in "all copies". Which means that, it would not be reproduced in people who have disallowed JS. -- WB 04:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A GFDL notice must be included in all copies of the document. Everytime a user views a page (JS or not) a copy is being made. That means every user viewing a page must see a license notice (Section 2 or 4#F). If they don't see it, the page isn't compliance. Thus, showing the page to people without JS but not the license notice is a violation. How it is shown to them is irrelevant, as Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason points out. However, it must must be shown to every user, which is currently not true. Superm401 - Talk 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- WB 07:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Shall we add it back in then? -- WB 01:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Go ahead. Superm401 - Talk 03:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- WB 10:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of Wikipedia:Copyrights

Quadell has begun a revision of Wikipedia:Copyrights at Wikipedia:Copyrights/draft. I urge everyone who is concerned about mirror compliance (probably those reading this) to pay attention there. Wikipedia:Copyrights and WP:MF are inextricably linked. Superm401 - Talk 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Database dumps

New Wikipedia database dumps now contain explanations of the dumps. Which means that we can avoid those userpage mirrors. Also, Wikipedia:Database download needs some links and mentioning of the copyrights. A person just looking at that page would have no idea about the terms, etc. -- WB 10:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I added an explicit mention of the copyright details to the beginning, along with a basic introduction to the page. Do you have other changes in mind? Superm401 - Talk 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not right now. Well done. -- WB 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me too.

I've been involved with this page before, and I'd be happy to help out again. I just came across TutorGig, and I'm not exactly sure what to do about them - comments appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming around. We seriously need as much help as possible. As fas as I can see, that mirror is OK. It does have all the requirements: a link to Wikipedia – and the source article –, WP as a source, and a link to GFDL. It could be better, so maybe contacting the admin of that site? Anyways. -- WB 07:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section

(I just created a new section since the one up there is getting somewhat long and harder to notice. Feel free to merge as you please however). I just contacted few people listed on legal department (User:Michael Snow and User:Alex756). This project although seemingly revived for the few weeks in January, but is, again, at a deadlock due for our inability to send out any DMCA requests. It seems like Wikipedia itself removed content due to DMCA from other people. Anyways, just an update. -- WB 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do accept DMCA takedown requests. Check out foundation:Designated_agent. Superm401 - Talk 03:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zdnet.co.za

What is the problem with Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#zdnet.co.za? It seems fully compliant to me. Superm401 - Talk 13:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I listed things in there, but to mention them again, they have no links leading back to Wikipedia's Main Page nor the original article. But for more detail, just look at its entry. -- WB 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, to start out with: Do you consider it a Verbatim Copy according to the GFDL? Superm401 - Talk 06:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, at least according to verbatim page:

As a linguistic term, "verbatim" means an exact reproduction of a sentence, phrase, quote or other sequence of text from one source into another. The same words appear in exactly the same order, with no paraphrasing, substitution, or abbreviation of any kind, not even any trivial changes that wouldn't have affected the meaning anyway.

• and those Google seach bar on top of every page would be one of those "trivial changes". I think this is similar if not worse than the case discussed in Wikipedia talk:Database download#Trademark violation because Image:Wikipedia-logo.png is copyrighted to Wikimedia Foundation. It also has that "Wikimedia Project" thing, which it obviously is not. I think there are some more issues, I just need to find them. A lot of South Africans popping up lately. -- WB 07:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think using the logo is fair use if it's genuinely a copy of Wikipedia, and we haven't considered top, bottom, and sidebars to be part of the document, but "mere aggregation" (this is the same rationale for us having non-GFDL images here); thus, I consider it a Verbatim Copy. This site is actually very close to a true mirror of Wikipedia, and I think that's a good thing (they even include our original copyright statement!). There is no requirement to link to the Wikipedia main page or to the original article for Verbatim Copies; this is only a way to include history information, which this site does at the bottom of every page. Also, what does "Uses static HTML, which should not be used for mirroring" mean? Dynamic/remote loading is the only thing that shouldn't be used. Superm401 - Talk 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the static mirror's front page:

This is a set of static HTML dumps of Wikipedia. Note that putting one of these dumps on the web unmodified will constitute a trademark violation. They are intended for private viewing in an intranet or desktop installation.

Which I think has something to do with the use of logo, etc. While it is a good mirror compared to other sites, it is no different in terms of using the same Wikipedia content for no other reasons beside Google AdSense hits. Not to mention "click yes to continue" pop-up when you are in IE. Note that the same owner owns one or two different Wikipedia mirrors that DO NOT satisfy even the GFDL requirements. Relevant or not, GFDL statement on this mirror appears merely because the mirrors are designed to be displayed this way. I still think it's not verbatim, mostly because of those ads, and it should be improved at least somewhat by inclusion of links to Wikipedia. But again, this site is relatively low priority compared to other, more blatant violators. (addition at 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC): the original static mirror has "current revision" link at the top, but the mirror seems to have removed it.)

Speaking of the static mirror, it hasn't been updated for months now! Most of our mirrors are more up to date that that... -- WB 23:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but I don't agree that this is a trademark violation. Using a Wikipedia trademark to refer to a close copy of Wikipedia seems fair use. However, on reflection (and with your added info), I can accept that reformatting the various changes (adding search box, popup for IE, relevant ad text between title and page [which I just now noticed by disabling my adblocking], removing current revision link, changing format of history) constitute a true Modified Version. That means a link is definitely required. Superm401 - Talk 08:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Blame me if I didn't understand you correctly, but are you agreeing me that those (adding search box, popup for IE, relevant ad text between title and page [which I just now noticed by disabling my adblocking], removing current revision link, changing format of history) would now require a link back? When you are looking at these sites, I keep my JS off, but ads on. The true evil appears when you are viewing in IE. -- WB 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the combination of those things changed my mind. I now agree with you that it's a Modified Version, and definitely needs a link to comply with "preserve the network location" (4 J) and such. Superm401 - Talk 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you see my point now. -- WB 01:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like lookitup.co.za is exactly the same now. -- WB 23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a to z clean up

Should we go from A to Z for every mirrors listed to check whether they are active or not? Perhaps we could have an organized process. Frustration for the lack of DMCA writings... -- WB 08:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been mostly going down the Low compliance list, templatifying sections. Along the way, I contact the site if it hasn't been contacted recently and make sure the compliance status is still accurate; I archive sites to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Archive as needed. This probably the best preparation for the DMCA takedown notices, because they will start in the Low column. Superm401 - Talk 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should tell you that when I add sites to MF, I rarely add one to the list sorted by compliance. I only add one to the alphabetical list. I contacted several ISPs (after admins were non-responsive), but the ISPs were non-responsive as well. What should we do when the ISPs do not respond. There were two DMCA notice sent by User:Tawker last week, but as far as I know, neither came back with a reply. -- WB 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't skip the compliance section. Like I said, it's much easier for people later if they can rely on the compliance sorting. If ISPs are unresponsive, we'll need to go upstream somehow. What sites did Tawker send notices to? Superm401 - Talk 08:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It was Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#dic.blogopt.com. I believe the second one was cancelled because e-mail notice wasn't sent before sending the DMCA. Note that we can send DMCAs for Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#zdnet.co.za because I sent e-mail to the admin about 2-3 times (over a month now), and they were without a reply. It wasn't for zdnet.co.za though. It was for lookitup.co.za, but I haven't made an entry for that one yet. -- WB 20:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sites should always be warned at least once before we send DMCA takedowns to their ISPs (that's one reason I'm going down the Low/None list). It appears blogopt didn't get a warning before-hand either. If the ISP ignores this notice (as you said they seem to be doing), we should wait a couple weeks then send one to legal@nlayer.net (it seems Tawker sent a DMCA to abuse@nlayer.net, which would be less effective). We should wait on the co.za's (which do have a common owner). There are still many in the Low/None list which have no mention of either Wikipedia or the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My last contact with Mr. Russell W Mckay <rmckay@hotmail.com> was in January 25, 2006 (which is a month and a day or two ago), I told him what we were and what we wanted him to do, but I haven't got a reply since. I sent an e-mail to the ISP <abuse@pwebtech.com> in February 6 inquiring the status, and one on February 22 (actually about copyrights infringement), but I never got a message back. That said, I don't think any further e-mails to Mr. Mckay, owner of the co.za mirrors, would work either. I think we should contact BAbramson (sp?) about DMCA again since it's been a while. -- WB 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a DMCA takedown is warranted here, but there are worse sites to deal with first. Superm401 - Talk 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true, but while we are on it, we might as finish it. It is also easy to deal with quick response ISPs like Yahoo! -- WB 05:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-compliance process

We need to work on the #Non-compliance_process section. It's drastically out of step with reality. Superm401 - Talk 01:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest rewriting instead of revising the current one. That way, we result in a much more fluid instructions etc. I think we should also cut the waiting period to a month or at most month and a half. If there's no reply by then, chances are that the owner is ignoring, bad e-mail, etc. Maybe we can create a draft? (added at 02:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC): What's up with sending DMCA to Google? I think that is fairly inconvinient. Only good thing I can imagine is removal of the mirror in Google's index. I was contacting Google the other day about how are they going to remove the archived mirror/fork that is stuck in their index and are not visited) – WB 02:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten it from scratch to make it faster while still giving the webmaster fair warning. What do you think? Feel free to make changes to proposed steps. Superm401 - Talk 20:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done, I don't what more to add, but I'll do that when I can think of one. -- WB 05:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Google agreed to throw away all the cached copies from a former content user: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Apseudodoxia.flawlesslogic.com&btnG=Google+Search. -- WB 02:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How did you get them to do that? Did someone send a DMCA takedown order? Superm401 - Talk 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

An e-mail to Google. Keep in mind that was easy because it was within a specific domain. They will refuse to do ones that are confusingly placed calling them "manual requests." The site was already down before Google did anything though, if that's what you are wondering about. -- WB 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirrors are irritating

You can do a Google search on a subject in order to find more information about it to add to the article on WP, and the majority of the search results will be mirror of the WP article itself. I'm not sure why Google fails to filter those out. The only way I can think of to counter it is to include a -"sentence from the WP article"...? Esquizombi 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish something could be done about all those mirrors. It makes the internet suck! Esquizombi 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's an inevitable result of WP being licensed in GFDL and the easy access to database dumps (the latter is more likely). The bigger problem is that majority of the mirrors are not GFDL compliant. Nonetheless, you can help us by finding those mirrors and forks and making them compliant. What I found so far is that, many owners would rather be shut down with DMCA than become compliant. Let me know on my talk page if you have more questions. – WB 02:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. Mirrors are awful and something needs to be done about them quickly.

16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've set up a Firefox keyword that performs a google search, omitting results that contain the word wikipedia. Create a bookmark with the address http://www.google.com/search?q=%20-wikipedia+%s, give it a keyword (I use gnw), and then use the address bar to search: gnw "search phrase here". An additional benefit of this is that any website that replicates WP content that shows up in this search is not compliant with the GFDL (usually). Mindmatrix 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Or see meta:Mirror filter for another approach. -- Jeronim 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam referral and spamlinking mirrors

I've recently come across a few sites that are essentially mirrors of Wikipedia, except they don't actually display any content. These sites seem to be propping up their own Google rank, and it seems generate AdSense revenue. Take a look at this example Toronto, Ontario page at skintoy.com. If you look at the source, you'll note that it contains a list of all wikilinks from the wikipedia Toronto page. What's more, it seems to update the list in real-time as a user accesses the page (I accessed it shortly after this edit, yet the skintoy page contained the new link I introduced in that edit not more than ten minutes earlier.

Others which are clearly part of the same network include [2] and [3]. Any thoughts about this? Mindmatrix 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one, using the same image, but in a different network, and using a different design. Mindmatrix 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

One more, different from the others: [4]. Mindmatrix 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)