User: JesseW/Full mirror list

Site: 4reference.net
link to main page only
no mention of GFDL. Standard letter sent by: MB 08:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Points of contact Wilson, Jaret jaret@msn.com.
Response received Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:44:48 -0400. "I'll be glad to include a GFDL notice. The site is new and still a work in progress, so it doesn't surprise me that I've missed something. Thank you for pointing this out. I'll make the change within the next couple days."
No note visible yet -- see [2] for example. -- Gutza 02:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Whatever they do over there, it's not particularly clever. One of the first pages I randomly clicked was this: http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Elisabeth_in_Bavaria.html . --KF 00:38, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Sternly worded followup letter sent to mr. Wilson by: Gutza 10:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- They now show a GFDL notice at the bottom of each page copied from Wikipedia, and they link to Wikipedia, as they always used to. This is good enough for me, I think these guys are GFDL compliant. IANAL though, so I won't strike them in this page on my own accord. --Gutza 23:02, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
They don't seem to be overly discriminating with regard to what they vacuum out of here, either. [3] - Hephaestos 08:04, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- LOL. dave 07:22, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
My issues with 4reference:
1. They use image captions without the images. Clever, eh???
2. They remove the original paragraphing so the articles are solid blocks of text.
3. Subhead captions are bigger than article headings.
4. No search function - you have to select from alphabetical lists.
5. Lags behind Wikipedia updates.
- Lee M 23:43, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
(IANAL) They're still not compliant, because they don't link back to the specific article, making it unreasonably difficult to retrieve a list of authors. Martin 20:34, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Just sent a letter asking them for per-article direct link-backs (or a list of 5 authors per article). --mav 12:37, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just got this response: I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for alerting me to it, I'll take care of it soon. Jaret Wilson --mav 22:59, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not updated as of 06:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- JesseW 06:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They have this text at the bottom of each page:

"This article courtesy of Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license. GFDL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html"

It thus appears that they are still not GFDL compliant. David Newton 16:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is wrong with that text being included? JesseW 06:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2BuyGood.com/InfoPedia

Site: 2BuyGood.com/InfoPedia
(E-mail sent by Dori asking not to do this -- no response yet)

Furthermore, the site doesn't mention GFDL, it claims copyright in the footer and it attempts to use Javascript to capture middle-clicks and right-clicks in an attempt to prevent copying of the text/source viewing, etc. Clearly, something should be done about this. 81.211.110.171 20:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

as User:Zzo38 noted, as of May 30th the wiki on that site is gone and the site's homepage is but a placeholder. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

- The wiki is back up. - Evil saltine 09:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's no contact information listed, but I found an e-mail on whois which came back as invalid. There's a PO-Box listed, maybe I could send a notice by snail mail (not that I suspect it would do any good). - Evil saltine 10:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The page info gives another copyright: "Copyright � 2001-2004 Neeraj Pajni". Together with the bottom-of-page reference ("Copyright 2001 - 2004 2BuyGoods.com"), it all gives a rather odd situation. --Kasperl 18:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is some kid (Neeraj Pajni) in his bedroom the about us even says it is. The Administrative contact for both 2buygoods.com and 2buygood.com is webmaster@ubuystuff.com. However when he registrated ubystuff.com he lists his own name, with a street address and telephone numbers. I'm not in the US, somebody ring his parents and tell them their son has been very naughty. Appologies to all Neerajs if it is a feminine name. The site is hosted by powweb.com in California, if you can find an article on his site that you wrote, send them a take-down notice if we can't get anywhere PowWeb Details
As of 17:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC), the site is back. It is copying live from Wikipedia. It also includes a very irritating javascript alert when you leave a page. I'm putting them in LOW. I'm contacting a developer to block the site. Live copying is not ok.JesseW 17:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Brian Vibbor has blocked the live copying. Let's give a day or two (since tomorrow the US celebrates Thanksgiving) for the dust to settle, then proceed with GFDL issues. -Rholton 05:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

A

Arkansas Encyclopedia

Site: Arkansas Encyclopedia

I didn't see this listed anywhere. It strikes me as very odd. I initially came accross this through a Google hit that led me to this http://lakewoodrepublicans.8m.com/michigan.html. They do state that the text content is GFDL ("All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."), but there is no link to the license and no link back to Wikipedia and no history. What is really odd though, is that it looks as though the content is actually spread across various domains. For example this entry on Germany: http://beerot.itgo.com/germany.html (which does not even mention GFDL anywhere). Or the "main" page: http://www.geocities.com/arkencyclo/. Seems like every click is a different domain. Bkonrad | Talk 14:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The pictures of the article Michigan are not hosted by them but directly form Wikipedia. That is not a nice thing to do. Walter 09:11, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just examined this site and they're no longer stealing bandwidth, and are now linking the article. I'd move them to high degree. Derrick Coetzee 13:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They mention Wikipedia nowhere. High is not appropriate. Medium? JesseW 15:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mentioning Wikipedia is not required. However, information on authors is, and I couldn't find any. — Kate Turner | Talk 15:34, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

All Science Fair Projects Encyclopedia

Site: All Science Fair Projects Encyclopedia
Copies of many science and science-related articles (example: [4])
Link to www.wikipedia.org exists but is not clickable
No GFDL link
"Copyright (C) 2003 All Science Fair Projects.com All Rights Reserved" listed on every page
Copyright notice and disclaimer, albeit very informative, are not linked to from either the main page or the article pages
Standard letter sent. Telso 04:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Article pages show update as of 10-05-04 but still not compliant. JamesMLane 12:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Mentions GFDL and has local copy
Acknowledges wikipedia source
No Link back to wikipedia original article

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

Ancientsites forum

Site: Ancientsites forum

(A forum post.) See Talk:Alamanni.

No mention of Wikipedia
No mention of GNU FDL

AskMyTutor

Site: AskMyTutor
Appear to be verbatim copies of (old versions of) many WP articles. Have not checked in great detail yet.
No mention of WP.
Main page mentions "free content", but no license info.
Looks pretty new - domain was registered 5 May 2004.

Please check facts before acting - I have not checked much, no time right now. Tualha 22:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

www.askmytutor.co.uk->67.18.53.36->ISP ThePlanet.com in Texas
It's definitely from Wikipedia. The site appears to use a dump from early February, 2004. See, for example, AskMyTutor's Optimimization (mathematics) compared to our Feb 5, 2004 revision. They seem identical (though I've not done any sort of exact comparison). Our next revision is on February 13, and those changes don't appear on AskMyTutor. -Rholton 22:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I sent a standard e-mail to Peter Pathos (abuse@theplanet.com), which appears to be the hosting site. -Rholton 00:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alumni @ alumni.grunderskolen.no

Site: Alumni @ alumni.grunderskolen.no
Article mentioned on mainpage where they state that it comes from wikipedia.com, apart from that they are not near compliance. No action taken. Should they prove troublesome or unresponsive, give me a wink.--Dittaeva 18:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No longer mentioned on the main page, but the article is still there. It is the only article that I saw, and they give prominent credit to Wikipedia -- though no link, no GFDL, etc. Looks like it was posted by one of their users. Let's call it fair use. Not worth pursuing. -Rholton 03:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About.com

Site: About.com
~~acknowledgement without a link~~
~~no mention of GFDL.~~ Standard letter sent by: MB 08:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Point of contact, Mary Bellis inventors.guide@about.com.
Response received Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:26:14 -0700.
Portions of affected articles at inventors.about.com (as of July 14 2003) link back to wikipedia and are released under the GFDL.

Any examples of the affected articles? Can't find any trivially.

Allabout.cc

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

Arts and Design Info

Site: Arts and Design Info
Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
No link to original article
Example: [5] from Digital Art

Asia Information 01

Site: Asia Information 01
Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
No link to original article
Example: [6] from China

Asinah.net

Site: Asinah.net
Acknowledges wikipedia authorship, links to wikipedia
- Not for their Dutch version.
States that the article is licensed under the GNU FDL.
- Though it links to what looks to be a partial copy or commentary about the license rather than the actual text of the license.
Does not link to the relevant wikipedia page, but does link to the edit function of the individual page (under the heading "edit this page")
- It no longer does this, at least not for an not logged in user.
- It now only links to their copy of our article on Wikipedia. [7] Guan aco 16:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Example: [8] from Kyoto Protocol.
forum page include some comments on articles and replies from site admins. Reading a few replies, it seems that the admins encourage people to edit articles on Wikipedia.
The placement of their own copyright notice makes it unclear exactly what they are claiming copyright for.
I could not find any link to the history of the article nor any attribution of authorship aside from the link to the Wikipedia main page.
No mention of Wikipedia on the Hindi version.

Academie.de Net-Lexikon

Site: Academie.de Net-Lexikon
copies German-language Wikipedia
indicates Wikipedia as source
links to original article
links to copy of the WikipediaDE GNU/FDL page, which links to GNU/FDL at gnu.org (minus point for indirect link; however the GNU/FDL is mentioned directly, so not a grave one)
Does not contain "aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie"

Abbaci books

Site: Abbaci books
Removed "From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia", but added "from the free on-line encyclopedia: Wikipedia" on the bottom
Link to the original article, with link text "Wikipedia"
Link to the GNU/FDL at gnu.org, and give a concise explanation of its meaning ("you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.")
Links have been removed, own links have been added
Example: John Hanning Speke

ArticleHead.com

Site: ArticleHead.com

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

The latter - I received the following email:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved to High although i would like them to have a link on the front page to wikipedia and GFDL --Davelane 22:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ArtPolitic

Site: ArtPolitic
Says that it is GFDL, but links to an explanation page of the GFDL ([9]), instead of the license itself.
Names Wikipedia and links to source article.
Does not have "title page".
Example: [10]

Axiomization

Site: Axiomization
Link to original Wikipedia article
~~no link to GFDL~~
contact point: Jón Erlendsson <joner@hi.is>
Standard letter sent by: dave 07:43, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Link to GFDL on www.gnu.org dave 16:55, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not a verbatim copy: changes in formatting and links, and not the full article. It should qualify under fair use, being a small extract of the entire article, giving credit to us, and licensing the extract under the GFDL.

B

Brandt.kurowski.net

Site: Brandt.kurowski.net
A number of articles, such as: http://brandt.kurowski.net/projects/lsa/wiki/view.cgi?doc=338
- I'm not sure who put this here or why, nor do I understand why they didn't email me with their complaint. To the best of my knowledge, I am in full compliance with all requirements for re-use of Wikipedia content. If there is a specific dispute with my compliance, please let me know so that I may either fix the problem or remove the content from my site. --BrandtKurowski
Each page has a link back to the appropriate page on Wikipedia. He also has a link to our GFDL page. His compliance may not be perfect, but he's certainly making a good effort. I've passed on a few suggestions for improvement. Meanwhile, I'm moving the status of this page to Medium Compliance. -Rholton 03:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BIGpedia

Site: BIGpedia
No mention on splash page; main page says "The content of this article is licensed from wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License." but has no links.

-- As 11:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems to be connected to science fair projects mirror, as there is a large banner advertising it on the site. JesseW 11:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Each page now includes "The content of this article is licensed from wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License." This includes no links to anything. The main page http://www.bigpedia.com/ contains a link "Copyright disclaimer" that leads to a page that includes a "disclaimer" that attributes the text to Wikipedia. Also, there are instructions for locating the appropriate article on Wikipedia. The page also includes the text of the GFDL.

So, while the situation is far from ideal, there are efforts to comply with the Wikipedia licensing. Thus, this deserves a rating of Medium. -Rholton 03:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

www.book-spot.co.uk

Site: www.book-spot.co.uk

A strange site that is apparently running Mediawiki, as pages are editable, although there is no edit button on the site. It has no contact info, but does list wikipedia and the GFDL, with links, at the bottom. Odd. JesseW 10:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Biography Base

Site: Biography Base
Contains copies of old Wikipedia articles on various people.
Has a mention of Wikipedia but no link to Wikipedia articles.
No link to GFDL.
Now links to GFDL and mentions individual Wikipedia article, but does not directly link. - Evil saltine 10:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Still as Evil saltine describes. I'm changing the category for this from Low compliance to Medium Compliance. Maybe it actually should be high? -Rholton 01:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Biography Finder

Site: Biography Finder
Contains older versions of Wikipedia articles on various people.
Has no mention of Wikipedia.
No link to GFDL.
Claims copyright.
Is apparently linked with Phobia Finder.
Sent standard GFDL e-mail. - Evil saltine 22:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Removed from main page (duplicate)
Now, at the bottom of each page, it reads: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article <article name>. Where <article name> is appropriately filled in. It links to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html and to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, but no link to the actual Wikipedia article. I'm moving this to Medium compliance. -Rholton 03:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Brough's Books

Site: Brough's Books
link to current version of article
link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
Example: [11]

BrainyEncyclopedia

Site: BrainyEncyclopedia
Link to GNU FDL at gnu.org
Link to Wikipedia
Do not link to the original article
Extend GNU FDL only to "the Wikipedia content included on this page", without further specifying what it is.
Updates seem to be inoften
Examples: United States Department of Defense

C

Clusty.com

Site: Clusty.com

Seems to be just a reparser of Wikipedia content, using clustering. Not clear how GFDL complient they are. Please update with more information.

Originally reported by JesseW 21:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person responsible for Clusty's Wikipedia section. Here's a brief overview of what we do. We received approval from "Jimbo" before the site's launch, and we intend to fully comply with Wikipedia policies.

We download the database 1-2 times weekly (whenever it's updated) and parse it with a massive converter. The entire search is indexed and hosted locally. We intelligently index the contents based on inherent Wikipedia features and structure including redirects, disambiguations, and categories. We also intelligently generate abstracts.

In addition to providing a dedicated Wikipedia search, we also boost relevant Wikipedia entries in general Web+ search results, showing their abstracts (with thumbnailed images) above other search results.

At this time, we only use the English database. As the Wikipedia collections in other languages grow, we may consider including them.

For the Clusty Wikipedia tab homepage, we crawl the Wikipedia "Main Page" daily and host it locally. We attribute the page and tab to Wikipedia in a large heading on top of the page.

We respect Wikipedia's limited (and often strained) resources, and try to minimize bandwidth drain. For images, we have downloaded the most recent available image dump (from July). For each image not in the dump, we download it from Wikipedia only once, upon its first request, and serve it to subsequent requests from a local cache.

Contact me with any questions or comments: arment@vivisimo.com

Marco.org 15:34, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (IANAL), what you're doing seems to comply, with the following exception: When you mirror the Wikipedia main page, there is no mention of the GFDL, and no direct link back to the Wikipedia main page.

Note that out GFDL license applies to the text only. Our images include some that are "fair use", "for non-commercial use only", etc. As a reuser, you are responsible for determining if your use of those images is acceptable. I don't know how that applies to your main-page mirror.

As far as the thumbnails in your search results -- this seems very similar to what Google does in its image search. I suspect that you are safe in that use (again, I Am Not A Lawyer).

For the moment, I am leaving your site in the "undetermined" category.

By the way, I really like what you're doing. -Rholton 15:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chessbase.com

Site: Chessbase.com

(article about Howard Staunton)

link to current version of article, mentions Wikipedia as source
no link to GFDL (perhaps not needed - very short text)
- I agree, but we could tell him to put source: wikipedia (under GFDL). wikipedia would link to article, gfdl to license?
- It's long enough to be copyrighted, so they should probably license the entire thing under the GFDL. Which will be nice, because they have some nice photos we could use. Martin 10:41, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Any more feedback for this? Should we tell them to license the entire article, or just add "(under GFDL)" with a link to the GFDL. The rest of the article is unrelated to the first part about Howard Staunton IMHO, so I don't see how it is even an extension of the Howard Staunton article. dave 18:28, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I suggest completely ignoring it. We're prominent enough that a link to our article with our name is ample notice that people can reuse that text. Chances are that we're better recognised as meaning open content than the initials GFDL are at this point... The picture of Howard Staunton appears to be a simple reproduction of a work made during his life and given his date of death and US law that means it is now in the public domain and can be taken from their site and used in the Wikipedia. Jamesday 21:05, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe this site should be listed as Low compliance (as it currently is). It may not be a shining example to hold up, but they sure made it clear where the article came from. Anyone following the link would then become aware of its GFDL status. There are better things than this to worry about. -Rholton 04:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chinese Psychology Online

Site: Chinese Psychology Online
Mention of wikipedia
No mention/link to GFDL
No link to wikipedia homepage or the article at wikipedia
Instead _they_ claim copyright of the article(s)
Examples: [12], [13], [14]
Sent the standard letter. --snoyes 18:16, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Got the following autoreply - most probably chinese (don't know what character encoding they're using), can anyone translate it?:

ÄúµÄÓÊ?�<thorn>ÒÑ?�-ÊÕµ1⁄2¡£

ÓÉÓÚ1?�ÖÏÈÉ?�ú£¬¡¶Ö<ETH>1?�<ETH>ÄÀíÈÈÏß¡·ÒÔ1⁄4°¡¶1⁄2ñÈ?�<ETH>ÄÀí¡·´?�?�?�<eth>ÔY´»ºÓÊ1⁄4<thorn>*ÉÑ¯»Ø¸´¡?�

ºÎÊ±»Ö¸´Áí<ETH><ETH>Í¨Öª¡£

This seemed to be in Simplified Chinese. The first line is "Your mail has been received". The second is scrambled by the markup text beyond recognition ("due to...."). The third one seems to be "we would notify you separately on when to resume...". --Hlaw 15:10, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Chess and beyond

Site: Chess and beyond

(Several pages. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27])

No mention of wikipedia
No mention of GFDL
Claims to own copyright
Standard letter sent by Arvindn 15 Nov 2003.
Still in violation - who sends another letter? Andre Engels 01:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Site's been down for a while -- Arvindn 12:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

~~Site back up, follow up letter sent by me -- Arvindn 09:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~ Online contact form gives 404 when you hit "send", and email bounced. Any idea what to do? -- Arvindn 10:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Run whois on the domain name. (Just in case: whois is a UNIX command, some web based whois interfaces are also out there, you might want to google for them.) Then contact the email address that whois returns. Legal issues with a web site are a valid reason to retrieve and contact email addresses from whois databases. 217.9.28.225 20:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Civil-War.ws

Site: Civil-War.ws
Copies large amounts of articles from Wikipedia pages such as Civil War and Abraham Lincoln.
No link to original article, no mention of Wikipedia.
No mention of GFDL.
Claims copyright to content: "The contents of this web site are Copyright © 2003 Otherground, LLC and Civil-War.ws. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Privacy Policy."
Is for-profit (has ads).
Is currently down. - Evil saltine 11:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Page is back up, haven't checked anything but status. --Kasperl 19:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Complexity Theory page

Site: Complexity Theory page
No link to original article
No mention of GFDL

Catholic University of Brussels

Site: Catholic University of Brussels
Most of main site is in Dutch
Copies the Semantic Web article completely
Mentions Wikipedia and has a link on the bottom (not clickable)
No GFDL Link
Sent standard GFDL email. David Newton 16:36, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If problem persists, and Dutch translation seems needed, add a message to my talk page. Don't expect a quick response from me, though. --Kasperl 19:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Page is now 404 missing. Diderot 10:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

chess.go.ro

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

CapitanCook

Site: CapitanCook (wiki)
Exs: (ca. 630 articles on geographic locations [28])

Link to Wikipedia article
All content is already under GFDL (notice on each page)
No local copy of FDL text (just a link to the GNU's FDL page)

Not a verbatim copy - is a wiki, all articles may be edited.

Casinozone.info

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

csf.colorado.edu

Site: csf.colorado.edu

seems to be dead Davelane 23:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Moved from main page
confirmed site dead. -Rholton 16:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Campusprogram.com

Example: http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/n/ne/new_forest.html

A link to GFDL from every page.
A link back to individual wikipedia articles from the top of the page. The text of the link is quite prominent.
Confirmed. High Compliance. -Rholton 15:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

D

Dutch wiki freeler

Site: http://static.machine.freeler.nl/cgi-bin/wiki.pl
Mentions the dutch wiki and freeler are partners
No link from freelerhomepage, so not yet in production
They (as yet) have not yet contacted the dutch wiki
They have a simple perl script directly querying the wiki servers, it is NO MIRROR. They are using wiki bandwidth, cpu and memory.
With the complete database of course also comes the GNU/FDL.
site unreachable on morning fr Jan 9, possibly in reaction to discussions on dutch wikitech.

Appears to be gone now. [ alerante 02:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) ]

Disease-Reference.com

Site: Disease-Reference.com
Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship, links to Wikipedia
Includes disclaimer releasing Wikipedia of any medical liability
No link to original article
Example: [29] from Autoimmune disorder

Dr. Damerow

Site: Dr. Damerow
Examples: Cold war article, French Wars of Religion (also Henry II of France)

Links to the articles
Links to GFDL on gnu.org

Not a verbatim copy: embedding failure - text inserted between title ("Cold War") and start of Wikipedia text ("The Cold War (September 2, 1945 - December 25, 1991) was"). Either needs the inserted text placed above the header (to make it a verbatim copy) or it needs to comply with the stricter rules on derivative works.

The French Wars of Religion article is a combination of two Wikipedia articles. There are rules on how you can do this, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

Din Cyclopedia

Site: Din Cyclopedia
Contains a number of pages of Wikipedia, with all links. The links point to the local copy if it is there, otherwise to the current Wikipedia article
Links to both edit page and current page on Wikipedia.
GFDL link Links to Wikipedia's article on GNU Free Documentation License
"Find out how you can help support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth." present

DomainsAreFree.com

Site: DomainsAreFree.com
Commercial domain registration site using a subset of technical Wikipedia articles
Removed "From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia"
Links removed, lightly edited
Footer provides links to respective article on Wikipedia and contains link to gnu.org copy of GFDL

DuranDuranFans.com

Site: DuranDuranFans.com
Non-commercial fansite, uses articles on Duran Duran and its five members - see Duran Duran
Removed "From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia"
Links removed, lightly edited
Pictures added -- looks like professional promo pics, probably copyrighted
Footer provides links to current articles and contains link to gnu.org copy of GFDL
- "This biography is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Duran Duran." "

E

e-paranoids.com

Site: e-paranoids.com

eBook 2u (ebook2u dot com)

Site: eBook 2u (ebook2u dot com)
Reproduces Wikipedia material without mentioning Wikipedia or the GFDL. Claims the copyright belongs to eBook 2u:
- Hex Color Code (eBook 2u) v Web colors (Wikipedia)
- About Portable Document Format (PDF) (eBook 2u) v Portable Document Format (Wikipedia)
Mirrors Open Directory Project (dmoz) content without compulsory HTML attribution:
- eBook 2u v dmoz
Persistent spammer of Wikipedia articles e.g.:
- Television, Agriculture, Video game, Computer hardware, Animation, Pop art, Xbox, Artificial intelligence, Robot, Sony, Food, Economics, Baseball, Health, Apache HTTP Server &c. chocolateboy 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The web site now appears to have a link to Wikipedia and the GFDL. Should this entry be moved to another page? --Chessphoon 03:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Low Compliance page. Need to doublecheck there are no other attribution oversights. chocolateboy 12:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ebroadcast.com

Site: ebroadcast.com
Moved from main page -- please add details --Davelane 12:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Example page: Washington, DC.
No mention of GFDL. Their copywrite page starts:

Copyright in the material on this web site is owned by eBroadcast Australia unless otherwise indicated. All content is published for viewing from the eBroadcast website or eBroadcast email only. eBroadcast Australia strictly prohibits you to copy or use (including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, acquisition ("grabbing") or replication of the content) for commercial or non-commercial (private) use.

No mention on the copyright page of GFDL or Wikipedia. Each article page does say Encyclopedia facts courtesy Wikipedia.org with a link to our main page.

Current Status: Low Compliance. -Rholton 17:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sent standard letter via e-mail. -Rholton 17:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

eurofreehost.com

Site: eurofreehost.com
plus they do some dirtyness to boost their google rating. Kim Bruning 14:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mentions GFDL (with no link). Does not mention Wikipedia. - Evil saltine 09:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Below moved from main page... Davelane 21:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The site http://www.eurofreehost.com/ appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia; each page claims to be under the GFDL but I found no link to Wikipedia on either a random article (http://www.eurofreehost.com/co/Compulsator.html) or the main page. Also, no Wiki source seems to be available, specifically violating the intent of the GFDL as I see it. Finally, the pages have no link to the text of the GFDL. I've sent a more-or-less standard complaint letter (although I didn't claim to be delighted to see another out-of-date broken mirror of Wikipedia) but it was taken before I made any major contributions, so if someone with more seniority would like to take over, that'd be great. Andrew 04:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Update: mail to webmaster@www.eurofreehost.com bounced; I'll leave this for now, awaiting comment from others. Andrew 04:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

That site now has the standard disclaimer (as @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Example_notice)

Confirmed. High compliance. -Rholton 03:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

www.earth-history.com

Site: www.earth-history.com
It claims that the page presents copyrighted material under fair use doctorine of the U.S. copyright law. The publisher seems to be a Dutch.
Mention that the article is from Wikipedia but without link to Wikipedia, GFDL, or the individual aritcle.
The extent of their use is not investigated. It may be just one article.
Example: http://www.earth-history.com/Publ-domain.htm

Tomos 06:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Elexi.de

Site: Elexi.de

Example mathematics
States that the article is from Wikipedia.
Links to GFDL.
The problem is that even the articles from English Wikipedia are explained as taken from de.wikipedia, and link back goes to de.wikipedia's URL, and its accompanying history page.
Confirm status (I guess). We probably need the help of someone who can read/write the language. -Rholton 23:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Sexuality

Site: Encyclopedia of Sexuality

Only four entries. It was listed elsewhere as Creative Commons content, but there seems to be no license notice (either that of GFDL or CCPL).
Some content (only 4 articles as of now - July 8, 2004) seems to be similar to Wikipedia's corresponding articles.
Now seems dead. -Rholton 23:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

exsudo.com - Konwledge Base

Site: exsudo.com - Konwledge Base
almost complete mirror of English Wikipedia
links to original article
links to local copy of the GNU/FDL
does not link to wikipedia main page

exsudo.dk - Konwledge Base

Site: exsudo.dk - Konwledge Base
almost complete mirror of Danish Wikipedia
links to original article
links to local copy of the GNU/FDL
does not link to wikipedia main page
license text in English, not Danish... not sure if this is in agreement on GNU/FDL?

exsudo.se - Konwledge Base

Site: exsudo.se - Konwledge Base
almost complete mirror of Swedish Wikipedia
links to original article
links to local copy of the GNU/FDL
does not link to wikipedia main page
license text in English, not Swedish... not sure if this is in agreement on GNU/FDL?

exsudo.de - Wissen und mehr

Site: exsudo.de - Wissen und mehr
indicates Wikipedia as source
links to original article
links to local copy of the GNU/FDL
links to german wikipedia main page
links to article edit page
links to article history
license text in German now

EncycloZine

Site:http://encyclozine.com/

Many articles, sometimes older versions, for example see Artzia/Law EncycloZine is organized into subsites which include: Artzia.com, Eluzions.com DiXionary.com Kosmoi.com and possibly others, all very liberally plastered with links to books available on Amazon. Wikipedia articles are most likely to be met with on Artzia.com and Kosmoi.com

Not always link to current version of article
Not always link to GFDL

eurovisionarchive

Site: eurovisionarchive

Year Pages for Eurovision takes from wikipedia for example see: http://eurovisionarchive.members.beeb.net/Years/1969.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_1969 (they have added the interval sections witch i amn finsihing at the moment and its not exactly the same).

No mention of Wikipedia
No mention of GNU FDL
- If there is any its not on each page.
  - Standard letter sent by Angela, 11 November 2003 via the feedback form on their site.
    - They now have a link with "From Wikipedia, licensed under the GFDL", but they link to the main page, not to the specific article. Angela 01:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      - The link and mention of Wikipedia has now disapeard. - fonzy
        Most of the site seems to not be working now. Maybe they are in the process of doing something with it and will add the links back in. I can't access any pages used to have Wikipedia content on them. Angela . 23:36, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
      - The site seems to be working and seems to be hosted by beeb.net, which has a no illegal acts policy for its end users. A polite email to abuse at beeb.net would probably take care of the matter. May want to give their customer another reminder first, since it appears to be an individual's effort and individuals do take time to get things done. Perhaps give three months to do it and say we'll ask the BBC to take care of it if not fixed by then? Jamesday 21:21, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ExplainPlease.com

Site: ExplainPlease.com
Uses Wikipedia articles. Examples: Call Center:Call center, Yoga:Yoga. External links section have been removed in articles. Titles of some pages have been changed (Oracle:Oracle database, Linux:GNU).
Mention of Wikipedia
Mention of GFDL
Local copy of GFDL linked
Linkback to Main Page
No link to exact articles
Contact mail ID given is mailto:hoteldealeo@yahoo.com

The website is of three parts. The "The Directory" part has got the articles. They claim "Writers from all over the world contribute to explainplease.com ...". Jay 08:14, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

- Standard letter sent by mav 10:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Received this reply: Thank you for the heads up, I will get on it when I get back home next week. --mav 18:29, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - Two weeks elapsed since last contact. Just checked, and they haven't changed a thing. →Raul654 05:06, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
  - Still no change. Perhaps mav (to keep the contact-person consistent) should send the standard follow-up letter? --Delirium 02:51, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Received this reply:

"Everything should be in order for compliance. Please upgrade my site from low compliance, or let me know what else I need to do."

"I added the contributed by and link to wikipedia on every page that uses articles from wiki. I added the GNU license and a link to the GNU license on every page that uses articles from wiki."

I upgraded the status and sent a reply that the only outstanding item is the direct article linkbacks. --mav 22:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedia 4U

Site: Encyclopedia 4U
Removed "From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia"
Link to original article with title, although through a slow redirect page
Idem link to GNU/FDL at gnu.org
Mentions Wikipedia as "It uses material from Wikipedia article..."
Claims copyright, but reserves no right and mentions GNU/FDL
Example: George W. Bush

Everything Preschool

Site: Everything Preschool
Uses Wikipedia content
Can't find any source information
No links to Wikipedia or the GFDL
Plenty ads

Solitude\^talk 07:40, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Example: Whales is a verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article. - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 20:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Each page now includes (at the very bottom of the page) the following text:

These fast facts are based off of several sources (including External Research, Journals, Personal Knowledge, & wikipedia articles) and are released under the GNU FDL. Feel free to print them and share them with anyone you wish. We would appreciate you mentioning you got them from EverythingPreschool.com. Also please use the suggestions box above to provide us with additional information to include on the Fast Facts Pages.

The word "wikipedia" links to www.wikipedia.com, and "GNU FLD" links to a local copy of the license at http://www.everythingpreschool.com/GNU.php

Issues:

- "wikipedia" should be capitalized. Right now it reads like a generic source, expecially when the other "sources" are capitalized.
- link should be to www.wikipedia.org (not .com)
- No link back to the source Wikipedia article; no mention of authorship
- "Feel free to print them and share them..." makes no mention of GFDL obligations.

Conclusion: Low compliance.

Action: Standard email sent. -Rholton 02:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enlightenweb

Site: Enlightenweb
Links to original Wikipedia article
Link to Wikipedia copy of GFDL
Links to Wikipedia.
Example: Astronomy

explanation-guide

Site: explanation-guide

(Taken from low degree of compliance to show how a site can be pushed into improving. See Gbe-languages for example at bottom of page and after clicking on image.)

Mirror site
No mention of GFDL
Links to Wikipedia says "Some material used on this site derives from the Wikipedia project" and other links back to here
Claims "Are you subject to US Copyright Law?

No. We believe in fair use and freedom of speech. We do however also strongly believe in the rights of copyright holders and do our best to preserve copyright and will not knowingly publish materials without permission."

Contact: feedback-1607@explanation-guide.info given as contact details

Moved from top page where it said "They link back to Wikipedia, but in an unreadably small font." however i can't see this in the page source 12/9/04

In impossibly small blue font at the bottom of an article, it says "copyright information". Only if you click this does a miniscule popup window appear telling you this is GNUFDL from Wikipedia. I don't know if that's compliant -- I don't know GFDL well enough. Also, they use all our images without a link....maybe do they think acknowledging the article gives them the right to use the images? I'd contact them, but I need to figure out how our license works first, I suppose. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Davelane 12:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It uses javascript, not just to popup the link to the original wikipedia article, but also to avoid using the word "Wikipedia" in the HTML source code. However there is now a www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html link on the page. --Henrygb 17:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks like they are there now: line near the bottom (for Red) looks a bit like

Licensing information: This article uses material from Wikipedia (credits) and is made available under the terms of the GNU FDL - Henrygb 18:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But not every article has that line. Gbe languages for example has no copyright information at all (as of today). - Mark Dingemanse 15:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Follow up. Since explanation-guide (EG) did not give attribution for the image at Gbe languages which I created and released under CC-by-2.0, I thought I'd send an email. Below I paste the contents of my first mail, the answer of mr. Lawrence Smith of EG, and my response. I sent my mail to feedback-1607@explanation-guide.info and to info@explanation-guide.info and I got an answer from info@explanation-guide.info. I will be posting further results soon. - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 21:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

As creator of the images used on http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Gbe-languages.html, http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/African-languages.html, and http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Nilo-Saharan-languages.html (all copies of the Wikipedia articles of the same title) I object to your use of them.

The images are released under the Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0). Explanation-Guide, unlike Wikipedia, does not give the required attribution, thereby violating the license.

I trust that you resolve this issue soon, either by not using the images or by giving proper attribution to the creator.

Thank you,

Mark Dingemanse

Dear Mr. Dingemanse,

Please accept my apologies: I was not aware that the images are licensed seperately to the texts. Thankyou for pointing this out.

As a short-term solution we have linked each image to an information page which links to the relevant page at Wikipedia. I hope this established attribution. We will try and add a more user-friendly and informative solution in the near future.

Yours sincerely

Lawrence Smith

Dear Mr. Smith,

thank you for your quick response. However, the short-term solution you propose does not work at present for the images I mentioned. The problem is that the respective Wikipedia articles contain scaled down versions of the original images. In the Wikipedia articles, this scaled down version is linked to the original image and to the attribution information, thereby fulfilling the license requirements. On explanation-guide, this link is lost, the scaled down version is copied, and the information page instead refers to a non-existent page on Wikipedia. Which leaves the issue unresolved.

I do trust that you will find a solution soon.

Thank you,

Mark Dingemanse

Dear Mr. Dingemanse,

Once again my apologies. The links now take into account scaling issues and link to the correct Wikipedia page.

Yours sincerely

Lawrence Smith

Looks OK now; they responded to my question (see above correspondence). But can anyone doublecheck if this site is compliant or not? - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 07:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you have done well, as clicking on the image leads to a short page saying "Copyright and licensing information for this image, including author attribution, is available at the following Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gbe_languages.png ". --Henrygb 18:47, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ezResult.com

Site: ezResult.com
Keeps "From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia"
Links to original Wikipedia article
No other mention of Wikipedia
Link to local copy of the GNU/FDL
However (reason to put it at medim compliance): Apply the GNU/FDL only to the original page, not to their version of it.
Example: Lake Tanganyika
First email sent with a proposal for improvement. Andre Engels 00:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Reaction: "We will take up your suggestion during our next database/site update." Andre Engels 10:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- This has been updated. (ezresult webmaster) 10:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

F

Fact-Index

Site: Fact-Index
Sample article: Albania - http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/albania_1.html
Frequently appears higher in Google results than Wikipedia itself.
* Donated $2500 to Wikipedia. Says in small print, "Fact-index.com financially supports the Wikimedia Foundation. Displaying this page does not burden Wikipedia hardware resources. This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." (As of 06:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC))
Did not previously link back to Wikipedia, but now has a prominent link to the corresponding article and a small-print link to the Main Page (As of Oct 20, 2004).

Fixed reference

Site: Fixed reference
Complete copies of WikiPedia and simple at fixed moments in time
Simple WikiPedia 1 May 04 Simple WikiPedia 24 July 04.
En WikiPedia 24 April 04 En 24 July 04
Following a request at Le Bistro a French static copy has been added. Couple of minor bugs still being fixed.
Links to Wikipedia site
Link to local copy of GFDL
Done by BozMo and others: so people can see the project development and cite a fixed text with certainty.
Posted by website owner to assess for compliance
does not even attempt to restructure the content, and simply states that it is a static mirror. Manning
No problems with compliance
Removed from front page --Davelane 21:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Removed from disputed page --Davelane 09:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fastload.org

Site: Fastload.org

copying Wikipedia without mentioning us. I can't find them on any of the pages about various degrees of compliance, so I don't know if anyone is giving them heat yet. --Fritzlein 06:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

fastload.org does link back to Wikipedia - at least it does now. At the bottom of each page it says "to view or edit this article on Wikipedia, click this link." ←Hob 23:48, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Moved from main page --Davelane 14:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Mandelbrot fractal" at fractalmovies.com

Site: "Mandelbrot fractal" at fractalmovies.com

To be investigated
Moved from main page Davelane 21:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

fablis

Site: fablis
I don't know if this web site has already been recorded somewhere. It seems to be an exact copy of the English Wikipedia, including our Main page! <KF> 21:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Famous-astrophysicists.com

Site: Famous-astrophysicists.com
Uses Wikipedia articles
No mention of GFDL
No mention of Wikipedia
Examples: [30] from Frank Drake, [31] from Thomas Gold
Standard letter sent. --snoyes 18:34, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Standard follow-up sent by mav 10:53, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

FIDE

Site: FIDE
Edited version of the World Chess Championship article (this is on the official site of the 2004 FIDE World Chess Championship, and is quite a high-profile page)
No mention of Wikipedia
No mention of GFDL (FIDE claims copyright)
Slightly altered standard letter sent June 18, 2004 by Camembert

FirstCarHire.com

Site: FirstCarHire.com
Uses Wikipedia articles - text from country / city articles used to pad out car-hire listings for respective locations.
~~No mention of GFDL~~
- now has link to GFDL
~~No mention of Wikipedia~~
- now has text wikipedia content based (about - copyrights) on bottom of respective pages, links to Wikipedia:About and Copyrights. --Ianb 08:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Examples: [32] from United States. See [33] for more.

Fitness pills

Site: Fitness pills
Copied Hangover article (after adding his own ad to the bottom!)
Claims copyright, no link to GFDL
(Moved up from "Obsolete Section" 24 March 2004)
All of the above still exists on the current date --Kasperl 19:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Copies most of article (with minor rewording). Could not find the terms "wiki", "FDL", or "doc" on the page. Standard letter sent. --Astronouth7303 00:01, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No action taken on part of website. Still claims copyright to article. No mention of Wikipedia anywhere. EagleFalconn 20:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.freeglossary.com/Ragnar_Lodbrok (for example)

Uses old copies of Wikipedia
no back link to Wikipedia
append their own ads to bottom of page
assert the right to modify terms and conditions of use
No GFDL acknowledgement
However the About Us link contains the following: freeglossary.com is powered by PHP, mySQL and Wikipedia each linked to local articles, and the Wikipedia article links to http://www.wikipedia.org
Violation letter sent October 21 2004 Sjc 09:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No change, still in violation. Sjc 19:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Free definition

Site: