Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Un-named section

(header inserted to force Table of Contents to appear above this point)

I think we should have two pages, one for sites that use Wikipedia for content, but DON'T comply with the Copyright, and another page for websites that DO comply. dave 18:08 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Determining whether a website complies is difficult, in general. Martin 12:10 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hmm? Please elaborate. The point of the article is to discern which ones DO comply and which DON'T. My suggestion was just that we create a page where we can stick the ones that comply, once they do comply. dave 23:21, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Creating two lists would cause a number of sites to be categorised as "not complying" when they are in fact complying. And, no doubt, vica versa. This is non-ideal. Martin 09:21, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

These both appear to be one site running over multiple domains which uses a number of wikipedia articles without mentioning the gfdl,


Jesus, there are too many websites out there in non-compliance. The template for all pages needs to say explicitly what people are to do if they wish to copy the text. I mean, here we are advertising "Wikipedia: The Free Encylopedia" everywhere, and there is a link to GFDL at the bottom of every wikipedia article. What is the average person to think??? Of course they will assume they can just rip off the content. If they have any knowledge of GFDL or GPL, they might think that they can use it and modify it as long as they put it under the same license. But how are they supposed to know that they have to link back to the original article? We should stop the problem at the source and put explicit instruction on EVERY SINGLE wikipedia article at the bottom or top of the page so that when people are clicking and dragging their mouse across the page they will see it. Or if they save the HTML, they will also see it when they edit that hopefully. Who to talk to about this? Just my two cents. I'll continue to help out sending letters and such though, because I think it's a worthy cause. dave 23:28, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I suggest that you send an e-mail to the Wikitech-L mailing list, and/or the Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L mailing lists. You can find info on all the mailing lists at Wikipedia:Mailing lists. I appriciate all your help and commitment. MB 01:30, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I totally forgot about mailing lists since I have never participated in the "development, etc..." side of Wikipedia. dave 02:23, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Np, the Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L are just community lists, but very useful all the same. MB 02:52, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Dave suggested on the mailing lists:

I would like the template for every article to be altered, to include
something similar to the following: "This is licensed under GFDL...if
you with to copy this article, go ahead...but you are required to
provide a link to the GFDL... and you are required to link back to the
original article..." That is essence of what needs to be added to the
template for every Wikipedia article. This is in order to stop the
ripping of Wikipedia articles without full copyright/license compliance.

I demurred, pointing out that the FDL doesn't require a link back. What it requires is a list of all authors, or at least 5 of them, and the link back does this by letting people find our history page. I suggested instead that we merely "advise" a link back to us. Then Dave said that we should say "must" link back to us OR list 5 authors. I replied that this could be confusing, and anyway we prefer a link.

So ... here is the place to discuss the wording of such a notice!

-- Toby Bartels 05:58, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's no need to expand the wording and clutter up screen real estate. Most readers do not sub-license Wikipedia. Readers who do should follow the link. Simple. Martin 10:28, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Sorry I don't understand you. Some users don't follow the link. Make it easier for them. State exactly what is required on each Wikipedia article if they want to copy it. The goal is to make life easier for everyone. Why don't you start e-mailing letters to webmasters of non-compliant web pages (see meta-page), and then you can let us know how fun that is :-) dave 16:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

== Suggested notice == (edit in a wiki way)

"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for suggested practices."

First comment about the above. I thought it was linking to the GFDL, so I didn't bother clicking on it (who wants to read a license anyhow :-) ). But then I saw the wiki, and it is actually linked to Wikipedia:Copyrights! I think it would be better to show exactly where the link is going to (wikipedia:copyrights) instead of pretending it's the GFDL... In my opinion if the link text says GFDL, few people will bother going to it, at least I personally wouldn't, I've already read the GFDL before (I don't think I absorbed much of it, I'm legally-challenged).

Hmm, I can understand concerns of cluttering the screen. What do you guys think about re-writing Wikipedia:Copyrights, or making a new page, to clearly indicate how to use our content in a legal manner? An then we can link to that from the notice at the bottom of the page, and put it everywhere else we think people might look when copying our content? Sound good? MB 16:38, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)
Set up a temp page and show us some goods. :-) --mav 18:40, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Definitely, having a re-written Wikipedia:Copyrights page with the most important aspects at the top of the page would be a step in the right direction. dave 20:54, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
If anyone decides they want to take a crack at this before me, feel free, just provide a link to it here. I will be busy tonight working on the pyWikiAPI project, so I may not get to it immediately. MB 21:15, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

I also added the sentance: "You must state the original Wikipedia as a source." I've kept it simple, and avoiding mentioning the "5 authors" thing...which I think is kind of stupid. If you picked 5 authors at random, it may be that none of those authors really made any significant contribution. And finding the top-5 contributors could be an annoying task. dave 16:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

But they don't must list Wikipedia as a source. We can suggest that as a good practice until we're blue in the face -- and I think that we should -- but the GNU FDL doesn't require that, since Wikipedia is not an author. Thus we link to both the GNU FDL -- stating the requirements -- and to Wikipedia:Copyrights -- stating our requests and suggestions. -- Toby Bartels 09:31, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Toby, on Wikipedia:Copyrights it says "That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges Wikipedia as the source." This contradicts what you are saying. It says that it much acknowledge Wikipedia as the source, but you are saying that it doesn't have to. So, I guess Wikipedia:Copyrights should be changed. dave 04:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The text that you quoted, dave, is correct. The content can be used under those conditions -- and it can be used under certain other conditions as well. (For an even more extreme example, it can be used under "fair use" provisions.) Still, perhaps Wikipedia:Copyrights should be rewritten to make clearer the distinction between what the GNU FDL requires (such acknowledgement of 5 principal authors) and what we would like (such as a link to the Wikipedia page). Generally speaking, we shouldn't have to edit the notice whenever we change how to express this; instead, the notice should lead people to Wikipedia:Copyrights, where the matter can be explained in as much detail as necessary. (And of course, the current suggested notice does just this!) -- Toby Bartels 22:27, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to Wikipedia:Copyrights in atticipation of updating our copyright notice on the bottom of the page. I purpose that the new notice read "All text is available under the terms of the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for details." Right now the link at the bottom links to a page which redirects to Wikipedia:Copyrights, but being that the GFDL is intimidating to most to read, people are less likely to click on the current link and read the terms of copying. MB 21:18, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, great. Like I said above, having the GFDL link to Wikipedia:Copyrights was a bad idea. This will encourange more people to click on the link now. dave 22:51, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
On your short version (still embedded in the talk paragraph above), MB:
  • We should use the full name of the licence for people that are unfamiliar with it.
  • Your "for details" phrasing might suggest that Wikipedia:Copyrights has details on the licence, but it can do no better on that than the link to the licence itself. The real reason that we want a link to our own page is to give people our advice on how to comply -- such as linking back to our own page (which you'll never get from reading the licence itself).
-- Toby Bartels 06:17, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
All these changes are fine with me. Anyone feel free to post this to the list any time they like. Until I get my internet fixed back home, I don't have access to the e-mail account I use to send messages to the list. Also, someone should mention in that e-mail the lack of the notice in the "Printable versions" of pages. ミハエル (MB) 20:48, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

I've been doing some work on creating a copyright page for Wikibooks. It is short and sweet. Check it out: http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Copyrights --mav 02:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, I came up with one more minor change under the suggestions of Brion. The word "text" should be changed to "content", so the new notice will read: "All content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for suggested practices." { MB | マイカル } 14:21, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's just not accurate. Many of the images are not released under the FDL and are not free. -- Toby Bartels 20:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

4Reference?

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, August 2nd, 2003.

I stumbled on to 4Reference, which seems to feed exclusively on Wikipedia articles. Does anybody know more about this? -- Mic 20:43 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content. MB 21:29 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What to do if asking for compliance doesn't work?

I've noticed that some websites listed on this page have not fixed their violation status after being notified of their breach weeks ago. IMO, we should send a more sternly-worded followup letter to those still not in compliance after, say, a month from them receiving the first letter. Then if after, say, another two weeks we give them a final warning to bring their website in conformance - otherwise we will create a press release explaining their breach and will distribute it widely (including to their ISP). And if that doesn't work then we ask their ISP to remove the infringing materials from their server (yeah, I know, evil DMCA letter). I've seen this done on several occasions for GPL violations. --mav 05:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

4reference is way past its one month limit. --Gutza 12:24, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Alright, let's move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Standard GFDL violation letter, so that we can come up with a standard "sternly-worded followup letter." Or alternatively, if anyone has already sent one out, put it on Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter for others to use. { MB | マイカル } 14:21, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

I have a question.. If you place an article on your site within your normal site template, does the copyright of your logo and layout move into the GFDL?

If you install Microsoft Word on your personal computer do you expect it to become property of Bill Gates? No, only the copyrighted content is copyrighted, i.e. the text of the article and maybe the images. --Gutza 11:18, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Bill Gates might not agree with you ;). { MB | マイカル } 18:58, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)


The chessbase.com heading is screwed up. The 3 equals signs isn't working properly. Help! dave 07:10, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It was the = in the URL which screwed it up. I replaced it with a %3D as the URL-encoded version of the =, and now the heading as well as the URL work. andy 19:12, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Actually, that breaks the link - you get to Chessbase, but it takes you to the latest news story (which as at this moment is about a tournament that probably won't happen in Mumbai) rather than the Staunton one. I've just taken the link out of the heading, which isn't ideal of course, but everything really does work now. There's probably a better way though. --Camembert
Can you check that %3D is the correct escape code for =? It's behaving like an invalid character and ignoring the newsid 1049.... dave 19:33, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Forget it, I finally found a website with a table that answers this. It is %3D. very strange... dave 19:38, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
...and now I've put it back in the heading, which breaks it of course, but dave apparently doesn't want it out of the heading. Even though it breaks the heading. --Camembert
Well, maybe we should just put the url in plain text or something, right below. Or as a comment. Just so we don't forget the URL. dave 19:38, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It's OK, I've tried = instead of %3D, and that seems to work, so I think we're OK now (by the way, I didn't actually remove the URL before, I just moved it down a line). --Camembert
OK, great. sorry, I think I reverted without actually looking at the article. dave 19:46, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
No problem - all's well that ends well :) (I just hope it works for everybody) --Camembert

I have re-categorized the main page, to make my life easier. Hopefully this works well for everyone else as well.

On the meta page, it says "For sites using Wikipedia material in violation of GNU FDL see Wikipedia:Sites in violation".

Do we want to move things to that page (which is currently blank), or leave things the way they are? dave 19:18, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Should the entries under "invalid" be removed? Is there any point of keeping it around? dave 19:25, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Parser error

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, September 13th, 02003.

Hi, there seems to be a parsing error on Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content

the ===='s are not being parsed as wiki code on the last heading. It's not rendering the wiki-code. Anyone have a work around for this? { MB | マイカル } 19:31, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that the text inside the heading has an additional = - however it seems like exchanging the = with %3d as its URL encoded version doesn't help, then the URL does not work anymore. andy 19:37, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I tried = instead of %3D and that seems to work. Least it works in my browser, it might not be a universal fix, I don't really know. --Camembert

Could someone please check out http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php ? I stumbled across Wikipedia's Amongst Barbarians article there but don't quite know where and how to add Nationmaster here. (Or has it already been added and I just failed to notice?) --KF 23:01, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

From:WP:VP

I've just found the entire text of a small Wikipedia article I wrote replicated on another site plagiarists. While I'm not concerned about my own copyright, I wonder what the attitude to this sort of blatant plagiarism is? I emailled them and told them they should at least acknowledge that they got the text from Wikipedia. Mahaabaala 10:07, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Site says "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL." Was that there when you looked? CGS 10:22, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC).
D'oh! I didn't scroll down far enough. Still it's an interesting question generally. Any comments? Mahaabaala 10:30, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This is great! That's why Wikipedia is licensed under an open license. It's not plagerism, it's the whole point. CGS 10:39, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC).
I hope you didn't scare them into deleteing the page unnesessarily, Mahaabaala. CGS 12:19, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC).
nationmaster.com is already listed on Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content. andy 12:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Image license on site using wikipedia content

www.4reference.net is using wikipedia contents. They also use wikipedia images, but they don't provide any link to the Image: page. IMO a serious issue as they don't provide any license information for picture.

Some pics are GFDL like on : http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Nice_Observatory.html

but other aren't like on : http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Tank_history.html

what's your advice ? Ericd 20:58, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The second example is bad since it actually lists a source and the photo is probably public domain since it was taken before 1923. Their site is also some kind of encyclopedia and therefore would have as much Fair use on the images as we do.BL 21:04, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Fair use isn't GFDL there's no warning about image, this is misleading the reader. Ericd 21:10, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Also, by not linking to the image page they are failing to provide author details - isn't that a requirement of the GFDL? Actually, as far as I can see they are not doing this for the text either - the link only goes to the main page. As I understand it they should give a link back to the original article. -- sannse 21:48, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Dgrant, I have not found any articles on EncycloZine.com from Wikipedia that do not link to the GNUFDL or to Wikipedia and to the current article. If you could cite some I would appeciate it. Fred Bauder 14:17, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Here are some: http://kosmoi.com/Health/Medicine/Anatomy/Digestive/, http://kosmoi.com/Health/Medicine/Anatomy/Heart/. In fact all of the anatomy section seems to be in violation. dave 18:17, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The last edit introduced several additional requirements so that no compliant sites were left. I changed most of these back, since I don't think it is fair to list here more requirements than on our official Wikipedia's copyright page. In short: Wikipedia deems you in compliance if you link back to Wikipedia's article and to the GFDL. This applies to verbatim copies and to derivative works. We need to be flexible since the GFDL was designed for traditional written works and not for images and wiki texts.

One minor point: it is perfectly fine if an aggregate work claims a copyright on the collection. Linux CD manufacturers do that all the time. They just can't use that copyright to restrict copying of the individual GFDL parts. There's no requirement on their part to explicitly say so. AxelBoldt 11:16, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'll revert back to my version, which had more information. Wikipedia doesn't own the GFDL, nor does it own the content, so Wikipedia's copyright page isn't he be all and end all. Martin 18:25, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Cunnan/wiki www.sca.org.au/cunnan/wiki/Landsknecht ?

Has anyone seen this wiki-type pedia? They call themselves "a Wiki collecting information for re-enactors of the Middle Ages and Renaissance with a heavy slant towards members of the SCA." They also state that "some of the initial information in Cunnan was taken from the Wikipedia but has been, or will be rewritten to make it relevant to people interested in medieval re-enactment". Dieter Simon 23:47, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have now ;-) Well, they must link to the originating (wikipedia) pages from every derivative page. --snoyes 23:57, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Does JakeVortex know something we don't know? In the Wikipedia article on Landsknecht he claims that the link to the Cunnan site "is a better link"? Dieter Simon
He might have meant the change he made to the www.pipcom.com link. But the SCA link was useless, so I removed it. --snoyes 00:26, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Wikipedia used by other sites

I have noticed that other domains use Wikipedia's database. They always give wikipedia credit at the bottom. And that's cool....but, a page like http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Dorothea_Dix.html has advertisements all over it. I don't like the idea of someone making money off of wikipedia text.

  1. Who authorizes what sites can use wikipedia data?
  2. What are the rules about how wikipedia data can be used?
  3. Shouldn't we be upset when a site that uses wikipedia data makes a profit off said data? Kingturtle 09:21, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think if they acknowledge the source (namely, Wikipedia), then it's all legal.
To answer # 2, I think they can butch up our data if they cite "properly".
#3: Yes, I wish the $ goes back into Wiki-fund.
#1: I don't believe you need an authority to take Wiki-stuff.


I wish they have at least an "Edit" link that when people click on, brings them to our editable fun site.
--Menchi 09:25, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


www.4reference.net doesn't give a link back to the actual Wikipedia page. Should they? -- Tarquin 10:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Don't they have a hyperlink to our main page at the bottom of their page? --Menchi 10:24, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You're looking for Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content.
On the subject of $, they are in effect contributing. They are delivering Wiki content on their bandwidth and taking the load off ours. Anjouli 13:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Under the terms of the GNU FDL that we have all written our articles under, anyone who wants to can take all our text and sell it. With numerous caveats of course. See the link for answers to all these questions. Tempshill 18:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My main concern is the money issue. I don't like the idea of someone taking wikipedia content, putting it on a page, and then making an easy financial profit. Kingturtle 20:14, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There's nothing preventing someone from making a profit on Wikipedia articles. In fact, the GNU FDL is pretty consciously not a "for non-commercial use only" license. It's perfectly okay, by design, for someone to package up Wikipedia content and sell it in a book or on a CD-ROM, for example. --Delirium 21:20, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
How is this eazy money? Anyone can find the original Wikipedia and view it without ads. For them to make money, they have to add some value. pstudier 23:09, 2003 Dec 6 (UTC)


If we don't get around to it, eventually someone will provide a filtered version. If I had the money I might do it myself. The version I'd promote would be unedited, I'd just have a bunch of people choosing articles (which would then be fixed at that version) that were G-rated, seemed accurate, NPOV and well-written, and then automatically remove all broken links, talk etc from the result. I think the result would already be very saleable, both in online and DVD versions. I'd probably provide a year's ad-free online subscription bundled with the DVD, and a mechanism for getting the latest versions of articles when online if they differed from the DVD, automatically saving these updated articles on the hard drive or a CD-R or CD-RW for offline use (many new systems sold in Australia currently have separate CD-RW and DVD drives). Andrewa 09:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If you plan to do this, do remember that such a version should fall under the GNU/FDL. In particular this means that others have the right to make copies of what you are selling, and sell them or give them away themselves. Andre Engels 11:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
True. I actually have no plans to fork Wikipedia at this stage, for profit or otherwise. I'm hoping we'll come up with our own sifter project soon. Andrewa 15:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)



Butchering block

http://www.nebulasearch.com/ is just disgusting. It sometime takes the info from talk pages, calls it the article, sometimes doesn't have anything at all. And, it has butchered DMOZ links at the bottom, to top it all off. Can they destroy the content credit us? Can they modify our content on their site, without breaking the GNU License? -- user:zanimum

Maybe you should read the GFDL to find out? ;) The GNU FDL does allow derivative works but it also requires them to give credit. . --mav 22:42, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I had a look just now, and to quote what I saw:
"We are sorry but this site is experiencing difficulties at this time.
Please return shortly!
Thank you for your patience. "
Go figure...
Arno 22:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There's a credit and link at the bottom of the article I looked at. The data seems to be out of date (e.g. [1] MrJones 22:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Take-down letter time for basicclassics.com - please help

I sent a final notice letter to Basicclassics.com on January 4. This is after I sent a standard letter on November 6 and a standard follow-up on November 23 - no response to either. What I need to know is how to find out who their ISP is and also what needs to be in a take-down letter. I also need to know who has to send it since I don't have any legal relationship to Wikipedia/Wikimedia and as far as I can tell none of the copied articles are ones that I was the major contributor to. Please help. --mav 23:03, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does this letter consitute a take-down letter if applied to copyright and not libel? If so we could make a template based on it. --mav 04:49, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think this should apply to wordIQ.com too. I am sure you, mav, are already aware of the take-down procedure, others may like to look at a step-by-step guide here. In particular item 2) there shows an idea of what information needs to be included in a takedown notice. Some WHOIS information for basicclassics.com:

Registrant: Steven Hayes (FULL ADDRESS OMITTED BY ME, PCB21) Illinois 61362, United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com Domain Name: BASICCLASSICS.COM Created on: 04-Feb-03 Expires on: 04-Feb-04 Last Updated on: 21-Aug-03

Administrative Contact: (SAME AS REGISTRANT) Technical Contact: (SAME AS REGISTRANT)

Domain servers in listed order: NS.DKAHOST.COM NS2.DKAHOST.COM

Thus it looks like his ISP - or at least the company hosting his website as opposed to the ISP he gets internet access with - in this case is dkahost.com. They list email and telephone contact numbers on http://www.dkahost.com/contactus.php. Note that dkahost specifically prohibts the use of their service for distributing copyrighted material - see http://www.dkahost.com/ourpolicies.php. According to the US Copyright Office (see http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/index.html) no Designated Agent has been listed for DKAhost.com At this point I need lawyerly advice.... certainly one option is tell DKAhost that their customer, basicclassics.com, is breaking their terms of services oh and by the way, if they want to avoid getting into a quangmire they need to register an Agent. Think that's enough research for now, what do others think? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:18, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you! However due to the fact that as far as I can tell none of my copyrights are violated by basicclassics.com I am unable to send a letter unless and until I get permission from those on Wikipedians whose copyrights are violated. In the meantime I'll go after wordIQ.com (esp since we know they are brushing us off - the contact email on basicclassics may simply not be working). --mav 11:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Metaweb

Compare Piracy in the Caribbean to http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Pirates. The metaweb article says at the bottom, "This page was last modified 09:32, 19 Jan 2004. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." but there is no mention of Wikipedia, nor a link. RickK 04:56, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Splitting the page

I realize that the page was getting long, but now it's going to be much tougher (have to search three or four pages instead of just one) to see if a site one has found has already been reported. Dori | Talk 00:19, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. We should move the site with issues to another page. We can also use subpages on the issues page for talk. Then just the status will be on the Wikipedia page.--mav
The page was long and even worse there were too many sites under the wrong headings so I think I was right to do something. Looks like some sort of indexing is called for. I don't like individual subpages for particular sites myself, as it means you continually have to put more and more pages on the watchlist to keep upto date with what's been done. With a largely fixed number of pages, all on the watchlist, it is more manageably. This doesn't deal with the problem you noted, Dori, which may or may not be significant. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If the status of a website changes (sending letters, change of compliance level), then that will be noted on the parent page. Only talk about the website will be on the subpage. --mav

Defining degree of compliance

Now that the page has been split into 'low', 'medium' and 'high' compliance, I think it would be good to define these amounts of compliance. Here are my attempts, I would like people to comment and make additions/corrections. Andre Engels 16:02, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Total compliance:

  • Mentions Wikipedia as well as at least five of the Wikipedia users who created the page. Links to the history section of the original Wikipedia page. Mentions the GNU/FDL and has a clickable link to a local version of the GNU/FDL. Claims copyright if changes, in such a way that it's clear that its copyright falls under the GNU/FDL. Contains the "From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" text.

High compliance:

  • Mentions Wikipedia. Links to the original page. Mentions the GNU/FDL and has a clickable link to it, not necessarily as a local version. The page or window as a whole is under the GNU/FDL.

Medium compliance:

  • Mentions Wikipedia. Links to Wikipedia. Mentions the GNU/FDL, and has a link to it. If it claims any non-GNU/FDL copyright then only on easily separable parts.

Low compliance:

  • Mentions Wikipedia or at least one of the authors. Does not claim copyright on the material taken from Wikipedia.

Complete non-compliance:

  • Does not mention Wikipedia at all and/or claims non-GNU/FDL copyright on the material.

Get rid of "Total compliance"; We don't ask for that and nobody does it. Our interpretation of the GNU FDL is a very liberal one and community consensus wants to keep it that way. A direct link-back is all we should require for the author requirement. The other categories look good to me. --mav 19:05, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with mav's assessment. We have two reasons for this set of pages. One - show off how (and how many) other people have leveraged our content. One highly/totally compliant page will do for this. Two - keep track of/chivvy along sites that aren't coming close to meeting the licence. Currently we have two pages (medium and low/none}, this layout suggests three medium, low and none, we could also maybe get away with just one? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:31, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Actually I take back my endorsement. IMO we should instead score each website based on how compliant they are. The reason why this would be better is due to the fact that websites have all sorts of different levels of compliance. Some don't mention Wikipedia at all but do have direct link backs, GFDL notice, and GFDL link. Perhaps something like this:
One point is given for each of these items:
  1. Any active link to Wikipedia.org (this is automatically satisfied by 2).
  2. Active and direct link back to the Wikipedia article.
  3. Mention of the GFDL
  4. Mention that the text is licensed under the GFDL
  5. Link to a copy of the GFDL
One + will be added to any website that also does this (max of two +'s):
  • Mention that the content is from Wikipedia (optional but strongly encouraged)
  • Links to a local copy of the GFDL (optional but strongly encouraged).
One - will be added to any website that does this:
  • Has any confusing copyright notice in addition to GFDL notice (such as saying "All content (C) 2003, all rights reserved" in the page footer or on a terms of use page).
We can also have all sub-5 scoring websites on a single page if we have all discussion relating to particular websites on subpages. The score and mention of what still needs to be done to get a 5 score will be the only content on the Wikipedia page. The websites would be ordered based on their score; the lower the score, the higher that entry will be on the problem website page. That way we can concentrate our efforts on the worse offenders and work our way down.
--mav 00:01, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm.. I still prefer my original proposal with your change of not making a difference between 'total' and 'high' compliance. Maybe make it shorter for the page itself, though:
  • High: Links to the Wikipedia page and the GNU/FDL
  • Medium: Mentions Wikipedia and the GNU/FDL
  • Low: Does not mention both, or claims own copyright (not under GNU/FDL).
With the possibility of making exceptions in either way in particular cases. Andre Engels 16:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how you can have levels of compliance. Either a website is compliant or it isn't. They have to comply with all of section 4 of the GFDL. Which in short means they have to have a notice saying that the content is avaliable under the GFDL, publish a copy of the GFDL and list at least five of the principal authors of the document.

One easy way of meeting the listing the authors requirement is by linking to Wikipedia copy of the article. But if a site wants to provide a list of the principle authors then they should be able to do so without having to link to Wikipedia, yet still be compliant with the GFDL. -- Popsracer 11:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Yep, in fact, McFly, currently listed as medium compliance for not having a link, is doing exactly that. Anthony DiPierro 11:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think we should have two pages, one for sites that use Wikipedia for content, but DON'T comply with the Copyright, and another page for websites that DO comply. dave 18:08 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Determining whether a website complies is difficult, in general. Martin 12:10 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hmm? Please elaborate. The point of the article is to discern which ones DO comply and which DON'T. My suggestion was just that we create a page where we can stick the ones that comply, once they do comply. dave 23:21, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Creating two lists would cause a number of sites to be categorised as "not complying" when they are in fact complying. And, no doubt, vica versa. This is non-ideal. Martin 09:21, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself is grossly out of compliance with the GFDL, so it's very difficult for third party pages to be in compliance. Anthony DiPierro 21:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://www.world-of-nintendo.com/ is using an altered version of Wikipedia's article on Nintendo without any mention of Wikipedia (see here). -- LGagnon

Look at the bottom of that page, please: This content from Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License →Raul654 20:14, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I didn't notice that. It wasn't that visible amongst the group of links down there. -- LGagnon

McFly

Why is this listed under medium compliance? Which part of the GFDL is not being complied with?

When making a collection of GNU/FDL documents, one need to have only one copy of the license, but the license notice that the document falls under the GNU/FDL should remain with each document. Andre Engels 04:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's not a collection. It's an aggregation (i.e., a single document). Does Wikipedia need a separate licence notice for every single contribution? Of course not. Anthony DiPierro 11:14, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If Wikipedia (or someone else) decides to make a print encyclopedia, are you saying they have to put the license notice at the bottom of every single entry? Anthony DiPierro 11:37, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think on the web, the bottom of each page should have a footer with the license information. A website is more disjointed than a book is: it's more like a set of pamphlets all collected on a shelf. --Delirium 12:26, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
That's fine, but this isn't a page about what you think, this is a page about GFDL compliance. The GFDL does not require a licence notice on every single page. Anthony DiPierro 20:47, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Update: the bottom of the articles now includes the note "Copyright and licensing information is available on the title page." Now can we move this to high compliance?

A different issue - Mcfly lets users modify the articles. Therefore, it is bound by section 4, which has a LOT of requirements. Is it in compliance with those? →Raul654 01:17, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, it is. Anthony DiPierro 01:52, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On the main page you claim copyright, but you do not specify over what. Obviously you can't claim copyright over parts that you copied under the GFDL. Dori | Talk 02:01, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • This is defined in copyright law. " The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material" Anthony DiPierro 02:12, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, but for those of us who are not psychic, how are we supposed to tell where your contribution ends and the GFDL material begins? →Raul654 02:16, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • It's all GFDL. Well, parts of it are fair use. And hopefully those fair use parts are clearly marked. But there's not really much I can do about that. Anthony DiPierro 02:34, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, it's GFDL, but that's not quite the same thing. You own the copyright to whatever you wrote (presumably the main page and a little more here and there), and give people permission to copy it under the GFDL. Wikipedia's individual contributors own the copyright of most of the rest, and license it under the GFDL. But it's important to know where they're contribution starts and yours ends. As it is now, since individual articles are not marked, I think it is impossible to tell. →Raul654 02:41, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
          • I don't see why it's important to know where my're contribution ends and they're's begins. And this isn't required by the GFDL anyway. Anthony DiPierro 03:06, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anthony you are simply wrong on this issue. McFly's version of the Wikipedia database is not a single document so you can't just list five authors on the title page and say that that satisfies the author requirement of the FDL. That is unless you merge every article into one document - then that would be fine. As it is each article is a self contained entity which has cross links. So each article either needs its own list of five authors or a direct link to the Wikipedia article. In practical terms internal links are little different than ones going to other websites. And yet other websites can have their own copyrights. --mav 05:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But it is a single document. I did merge every article into one document. Also, a direct link to the Wikipedia article is not sufficient. The GFDL requires five authors on the title page, unless they (the authors) release you from that requirement. Also, as you see, it's called the title page. It obviously doesn't have to be on the same page as the rest of the document. As a courtesy, I've added a conspicuous link back to the title page. I fail to see what your problem is. I've complied with the GFDL more closely than even Wikipedia is. If Wikipedia adds 5 authors to the title of every single article, then maybe I will. But until then, I certainly won't. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia. Making forks jump through elaborate hoops which aren't even followed by Wikipedia itself is exactly the opposite of free. Anthony DiPierro 06:17, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Last time I checked every McFly article was on a separate page. So there is not just one document. Each Wikipedia article has it own, separate copyright notice and it own separate history page. Encyclopedia articles by their very nature are supposed to be fairly self-contained - they are not analogous to pages in a bound book (a book being a document). A page taken out of a book will be disjointed and out of context whereas an encyclopedia article would not. --mav
Documents can have multiple pages. That's why the title page is called a title page. As to whether the text is self-contained, that's disputable, and quite irrelevant. As to your claim that "each wikipedia article has it [sic] own, separate copyright notice and it [sic] own separate history page," that's complete bullshit. There is no copyright notice whatsoever on wikipedia, and the only history page I have found is copied onto my history page. And that's also irrelevant, because multiple copyrighted documents can be combined into one under the GFDL. Finally, I don't even see what your problem is. Instead of the ridiculous "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)." which in itself is a pointer to the actual details I've included a pointer to the actual copyright and license text required by the GFDL. Anthony DiPierro 15:30, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah, once again, let's pick that statement apart

  • Documents can have multiple pages. That's why the title page is called a title page.
    • This is true. Single articles (spanning multiple pages) are a single document. All of Wikipedia, with its many articles, is *not* a single document. Your claim that McFly is a single document is ridiculous. This is what mav was pointing out.
      • Great argument. It's not a single document because that's ridiculous.Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Ok, single means "one". Document means (in the computer sense) "a file containing text". McFly is many documents containing text. Those files are not identical. This means McFly is not a single file. →Raul654
          • Document means (in the GFDL sense) "a work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License." Mcfly is a single work. It contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of the GFDL. Anthony DiPierro 16:43, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • As to whether the text is self-contained, that's disputable,
    • In your mind, only.
      • No in lots of minds. Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • and quite irrelevant.
    • No, it's the primary determinant as to which catagories of the GFDL you fall into.
      • Right, so if Wikipedia combines two articles (say, Al Gore, and History of Al Gore's Presidential campaign), into a single article, they have to include two copyright notices? Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I have a two simple formulas for you: 1 article = 1 document; 1 document = 1 copyright notice. Therefore, by combining two articles into one article, we can consult our formula to see that it is in fact one document. Further consulation of the formulas shows that 1 document implies one copyright notice.→Raul654
          • That's a great formula, but you just made it up to suit your puroses. Documents can contain multiple articles. Anthony DiPierro 16:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no copyright notice whatsoever on wikipedia
    • Funny, at the bottom of every page, it says "see Copyrights for details".
      • And at the bottom of every McFly page it says "Copyright and licensing information is available on the title page." Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Confirmed. A big improvement. That will go a long way to ending this discussion.
          • Sorry, I thought you already had seen that. Anthony DiPierro 16:45, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • and the only history page I have found is copied onto my history page.
    • If you haven't found the page histories yet, I suggest you look harder. They're not exactly hidden.
      • Great answer. Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Top center of every page under "page history." Middle left of every page under "page history" →Raul654 16:38, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
          • That's not a section entitled history, and it wasn't contained in the copy which I downloaded. Is Wikipedia illegally distributing these copies? Anthony DiPierro 16:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • And that's also irrelevant, because multiple copyrighted documents can be combined into one under the GFDL.
    • If (and only if) each seperate document still contains a copyright notice. If you copy multiple articles, each one must retain a copyright notice, unless you are appending them together. You are not.
      • I have included all copyright notices. I.e., none. Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • From above:
There is no copyright notice whatsoever on wikipedia
Funny, at the bottom of every page, it says "see Copyrights for details".
          • Yeah, and the copyrights page doesn't contain a copyright notice. And the copy I downloaded doesn't even contain that link. Anthony DiPierro 16:49, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Finally, I don't even see what your problem is.
    • In think the general impression is - you are being intentionally evasive and obtuse in an effort to waste our time. We do not appreciate this, and tend to react in kind.
      • The general impression is incorrect. Or else your thoughts on the general impression is. Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • If the general impression is incorrect, it is only because your actions and your intentions are in conflict. As to whether or not I have correctly gauged the public opinion, I would be very happy to post a poll on the village pump, asking whether or not you are wasting everyone's time. →Raul654
          • One of my main intention is to keep Wikipedia free by allowing the possibility of a fork. That conflicts in no way with my actions. As to whether I am wasting everyone's time, you're the one wasting your own time. If you don't like McFly, ignore it. I fully admit there is a small but loud group of people who have a problem with me and will attack me for just about anything I do, but I'm not being evasive or obtuse. If you're going to challenge my use of the GFDL, you need to come up with actual violations. Not give vague "well, it's just obvious" statements. Wikipedia itself is in gross violation of the GFDL, and this has caused a lot of misconceptions as to what it says. It's a problem which stems from the entire structure of Wikipedia. Legal decisions regarding licensing and copyrights require a single person or chain of command to make, you can't just throw some documents out there, let half the world change it according to her whims, and then expect that to be a legally binding interpretation. Anthony DiPierro 16:51, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Instead of the ridiculous "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)." which in itself is a pointer to the actual details I've included a pointer to the actual copyright and license text required by the GFDL.
    • Because (as we have shown above and said numerous times) in order to find the copyright notice on your site, someone has to actively seek it out and probably won't find it. In a site of several hundred thousand pages, a person is expected to find the one page that has the information they want. This is neither the spirit nor the wording of the GFDL.
      • Look at the page again. As I've said above (see Update), I fixed this to address those concerns. There is a prominent link to the title page at the bottom of every article. Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If I were to create a fork of Wikipedia and come up with an intrepretation of the licence so that my fork is arguable compliant, but designed to irritate Wikipedia contributors as much as possible, I would probably come up with McFly. It's a rather pathetic fork because it offers nothing that Wikipedia doesn't. If we simply ignore Anthony and seeming desire to play games and annoy people (judging from other pages too) then would we lose any right to protect our copyrights against other parties? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is an issue in copyright with "selective enforcement", which I believe is not allowed. This issue has come up with SCO's suit against IBM, for example. Martin 17:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't think you're right about this. This is an issue with trademarks, but doesn't generally apply to copyrights. Anthony DiPierro 17:28, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
From GrokLaw, SCO's claims:
The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity.
Does that help? Martin 18:12, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Surely you're not suggesting that anything argued by SCO is necessarily correct, are you? SCO very well have made this argument, but that doesn't make it a legal truth. SCO made a lot of ridiculous arguments. Anthony DiPierro 18:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In any case, there are a whole lot of other forks you should be worrying about before McFly. How about WikInfo, also on the list of "medium compliance?" Anthony DiPierro 18:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm simply responding to Pcb21's qustion. Nor am I worrying about your fork. When I decide to enforce my copyrights, rest assured that I will do so in a non-selective manner. Martin 18:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sure the content of this page belongs on meta? I was hoping for a survey of forked websites and their content, not a list of non-GPL-compliant sites. The current page is not encyclopaedic in my judgement. Lupin 14:18, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The current page is not supposed to be encyclopaedic. It's in the Wikipedia: namespace. There is an article on software forks, which might be what you're looking for. Angela. 08:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)


"The Free Dictionary"

from the pump

This site: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/ seems to be picking up all Wikipedia non-stub articles and offering the material without attribution as a free online encyclopedia. Obviously, this is not a copyvio, but I'm curious about the relationship (if any) with Wikipedia. Is Farlex, the site proprietor, just opportunistically using Wikipedians' work to pump up a site and sell banner ads? JamesMLane 04:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not a copyvio my eye - they are *not* allowed to copy our material unless they are granted permission to. The GFDL provides them that permission, provided they abide by the terms. If they don't provide attribution, then they are not abiding by the terms, they have no license, and they are violating our copyright. →Raul654 04:12, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
On further searching, at the bottom of every page: This article was derived fully or in part from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.. They are abiding by the terms, so somone please add it to our list of mirrors. →Raul654 04:14, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)


That site is a cool presentation of Wikipedia content. If you hover on a link, then a small window of text opens up and exposes the first part of the linked article for preview (you click the link to get at the rest of the linked article). - Bevo 04:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


And if you double-click on a word, it looks it up in a dictionary. -- Cyrius|&#9998 05:07, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)


They've done this properly including attribution and a full link back from each article to its Wikipedia counterpart. I don't see any problem with their implementation. It's nicely done.-- Derek Ross 04:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


As usual with the forks and mirrors though, they make the GFDL text as inconspicious and small as possible but make their own (c) much more prominent... even though they have no copyright over the actual text, just the layout. I don't think there has been one fork who has entered into the spirit of a free encyclopedia... merely just tried to make some profit by dumping our database and paying as little lip service to the licence as they can get away with. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 06:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


OK, sorry, I missed the attribution on first glance, for the reason Pete points out. The Farlex people certainly don't go out of their way to make it clear that they didn't do the work. Under each article they put a table with some "What links here" links, although they don't call it that; then comes the "Encyclopedia Browser" chart, which has the ten preceding and ten following topics in alphabetical order (admittedly a useful feature); then a "Full Dictionary Browser" that repeats those twenty links and supplements them with twenty more links to dictionary definitions in that alphabetical range. All of this takes up about half my screen. Then, under these tables, all the way down at the bottom, in what looks to be about 7-point type, they put the attribution notice that →Raul654 found.


Even if you find that notice, you'll read only that the article was "derived fully or in part from Wikipedia." Their copyright notice says that they "use multiple sources of data." All this is pretty disingenuous, given that the few articles I've checked were essentially copied verbatim. The only change I've noticed was the deletion of links to nonexistent articles. The proprietors (or, I suppose, their bots) even pick up stuff that's on VfD (e.g., Christopher Zarba). Interestingly, however, they omitted at least one non-stub -- namely, the article on the subject "Wikipedia."


Their own copyright notice also states: "The site contains copyrighted material, trademarks, and other proprietary information. You may use the content of up to 10 articles from the site without an express permission from the publisher provided a clear reference to the source of information is given. If the information is placed on a web site, a link to the source or home page is required." Only then does it mention that "[s]ome articles" are GNUFDL. I suspect a more accurate statement would be that the "Dictionary" portion of the site is copyrighted but the content of the "Encyclopedia" portion is entirely GNUFDL.


Their whole process of grabbing our database is probably automated. If I turn these comments into a Wikipedia article about Farlex, emphasizing the facts that show what a bunch of sleazeballs they are, do you think it will appear verbatim on their site?  :) JamesMLane 06:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the TheFreeDictionary link comes up before the Wikipedia link in a Google search, tell Google via thei search-quality@google.com address. I reported that a spammy version of Kolmogorov's zero-one law appeared above the real Wikipedia version in the results, explaining that the Wikipedia version of any such article is the authoritative one. About two weeks later, I got a mail back from them, stating that it had been fixed. Sure enough, the search I'd done ("kolmogorov zero-one") now showed the Wikipedia link above the TheFreeDictionary link. Of course, now it's gone back the other way; I suppose TFD has some kind of attempt going on to exploit Google's algorithm or somesuch.

If you plan on doing this, make sure you include the exact text of your search, so the Google folks can do their job more easily. If enough folks do this, we'll take eyeballs away from TFD and bring them here, where they might even contribute. Grendelkhan 08:30, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

I can't imagine that Farlex and these are other sites are making much money if any off repackainge Wikipedia content. Running banner ads for "Classmates.com" is pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel. As someone who has been through the wars of e-commerce and seen the worst of it, I can affirm that if you ain't offering your own product for sale, or if you're not a highvolume site selling proprietary ads (like Drudge or Fark.com), or you're not really good at affiliate programs, then you better have a day job if you want to peddle free content. Perhaps I'm wrong: if so, I'd love to know how they are making it work. -- Decumanus | Talk 06:07, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Moreover, a legal agreement can't do much to enforce things like "spirit of usage" which seems to be what disturbs people about this. If somebody wants to do things just like Wikipedia does, they'll probably do it here. Jgm 11:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think TFD.com are one of the better mirrors of wikipedia content. They've got other features (dictionary, classic lit. search) using public domain text, as well: so they've at least done some programming and thinking, rather than just a straight dump. Features such as article text in mouse-over are quite original too. Even though it's tiny, they do mention the GFDL; i'd be tempted to make a long legal string like that small size too.
My favourite mirrors though, are the ones that have a link to edit the article, which goes to the wikipedia.org article with &action=edit. I think that's a nice compliment to the wiki concept. T 12:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's too bad a provision to require just that wasn't integrated into the Wikipedia usage license. Jgm 11:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question for T: Is their dictionary stuff from a public domain source? I checked a couple entries to see if they were just grabbing the Wiktionary content, and they weren't. I concluded that perhaps they were doing their own (copyrightable) work on the dictionary, then supplementing it with Wikipedia content to make their site more useful. As for linking, I'd consider it dishonorable to run a site like theirs and not link in the way you describe, regardless of what my lawyer told me about copyright law. JamesMLane 17:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yep, they have to link back to the original article. Which they do. Some mirrors also have a specific edit link, that takes them to wikipedia to edit the article (as opposed to just viewing the original).
I'm pretty sure it's one of those expired PD dictionaries that they use. At least for many/most of the entries. I looked up a random word: Fyrd, then googled for their result [2], they show up as well as www.thesaurus-dictionary.com, www.brainydictionary.com, www.webster-dictionary.net, hyperdictionary.com, monsterdictionary.com, hipwords.com, okay, enough examples, you get the picture :-)
I think the only copyright they have is over their 'site content', whatever that is. But it's fair enough for them to claim it. T 22:53, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed anon entry of nexusscience.com commercial copy of Wikipedia since it is already on the "high" page. - Tεxτurε 18:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC)