Wikipedia talk:GFDL Compliance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] What does High compliance mean?
What do we consider as high compliance? Is it sufficient if, on each page, they credit Wikipedia, link to the original Wikipedia article, and link to a copy of the GFDL? Is anything more required? Is less than this acceptable? -Rholton 03:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Some issues to consider:
- are the links to GFDL and/or the source article only available through Java/Javascript? If so, is this a significant difference?
- or putting it another way, must GFDL/Wikipedia be in the source code for the page so that those (such as search engines) have some dynamic functions turned off still pick the text up? --Henrygb 17:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The GFDL's requirement to include a list of original authors is a condition met by essentially none of the sites currently categorized as 'high' compliance. While a link to the original article could be seen to alleviate this problem, it is dubious for the same reasons that the GFDL requires local hosting. I'm not sure that anything can be done about this, but perhaps this detail should be clarified on the project page. Feezo (Talk) 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Compliance
Id like to move this subpage to Wikipedia:Compliance. I understand how all the listings are organized under Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - Im just talking about the GFDL compliance subpage. Objections? -SV|t|th 21:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Needs coordination with mirror list
We have a mess when it comes to reporting GFDL violations. The mirror list lists biography.ms, as does meta:Non-compliant site coordination, but this page does not. All of these are hard to find with google. I've put a link from Copyright to Wikipedia:Copyrights, and I'll put a link from there to the pages that deal with /other/ people violating /us/, but it really needs to be organized. Lunkwill 03:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Print Violations
Something that came top my attention recently; how are we to deal with offline violations of Wikipedia content? A local business directory was recently delivered though my letterbox that contained a fair chunk of the article text about my local area, verbatim and without attributation. I noticed this as I actually wrote a chunk of the printed text!
Admittedly this is only an extremely minor violation ( and it's nice to be a published writer :) ), but the point remains as I was unable to find any articles detailing Wikipedia's policy on this type of violation. May be something to consider in the future. MrJRT 01:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, there's no separate place for offline violation. They're rarer, but should go in the same place (here). Superm401 - Talk 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikitruth?
Wikitruth.info is publishing the former content of Justin Berry, but is licensed under cc-by-sa. This would appear to be a violation of the GFDL. Is this being discussed somewhere else? --Philosophus 08:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- They seem to be using the GFDL now, but there's no on-site copy. I've added them at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Wikitruth. Superm401 - Talk 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Archiving
Should we remove articles that are archived from this page (Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance)? Superm401 - Talk 05:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another fork
Hey guys, I'm totally lost looking at this page, but I wanted to point out another fork, which I don't think has been mentioned: www.the-planets.com/. In question is the article www.the-planets.com/star-biography/Penelope-Cruz-Biography.htm, which clearly has copy and paste sections of Wikipedia's text of Penelope Cruz (article history shows it's clearly them copying us - for example, it has the text They are also distant cousins of Alexandra Cruz., some nonsense added by an anon on Feburary 14, 2006: [1] (it was later modified)). The site appears to use texts from other sources as well. Thanks ahead of time. Patstuarttalk|edits 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Added to Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Stu#The_Planets. Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 07:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Medium vs. High
I have a question about the "medium" vs. "high" descriptions on this page. Specifically, what the hell does "May link to offsite GFDL" mean? I saw no description of "offsite GFDL" on this page or on WP:MF. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Offsite GFDL simply means that the page links to a copy of the license stored on a different server. For example, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt. The GFDL requires that the license be reproduced in its entirety. — Feezo (Talk) 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Violation
I am not sure if this site was report before, but [2] has copied our content, verbatum, of the Flag of Belgium and Coat of arms of Belgium. No mention of Wikipedia is made and the web owner is copyrighting all content from 1995 until 2007. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another violation
I found a possible copyright infringment: the page at http://www.essential-architecture.com/ROME/RO-HIST.htm is probably copied by the article History of Rome (less probably the other way around).
Is this the right place to signal the violation? Is there anything it is possible to do?--151.50.30.98 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sites that use individual articles
(CC to Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks)
Hi, this (and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks) appear to be places to report sites that fork Wikipedia content, but what about a web site that only uses a couple of articles without attribution? Should they be mentioned here as well? (if you want to look at the specifics that I'm looking at, please see this and this. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- You could put them here, but they'll be a low priority, just because there are still so many full, non-compliant mirrors. It's better to track down the authors of those pages and get them to do something directly. Superm401 - Talk 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A book?
See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Plagiarism/GFDL violation? (permanent link) Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
