Mentions wikipedia, links to wikipedia articles with mention of CC-BY-SA 3.0. Claims to 'use material' but in fact is a straight mirror. Does not seem to release material under same license.
Contact info
hakkikonu@gmail.com, phone +90.5547347332 (Turkey); for ISP use abuse@godaddy.com, phone +1.4806242505 (US)
I'm also going after this one, again articles of mine have been copied, leading to particular annoyance. Standard letter sent. David Newton 17:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Second standard letter sent. David Newton 00:34, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Example produces "Page not found" 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
States "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" and contains direct copy of the start of the article as a blurb, which is then published online (the creation of the book itself is a separate issue). No links to original article or authors. Claims to be published by Bookvika publishing and/or authors Ronald Cohn and Jesse Russell, but the article content is still copyrighted. See also VDM Publishing.
In French but apears to be translation of old version of Ancient Greek in English rather than copy of fr:Grec ancien in French. Pages have English names.
Titled "Wikipedia" withe faint "fork"
Ends with "Cette page est basee sur l'article garanti les droits d'auteur 'Ancient Greek' de Wikipedia qu'il est employe sous le permis de documentation de GNU librement. Vous pouvez le redistribuer, in extenso ou modifie, fournissant que vous vous conformez aux limites du GFDL" with link to English GFDL at gnu.org
No obvious link to Wikipedia, original article or history
http://wiki.w2n.net/pages/Wikipedia.w2n explains how Jimmy Wales founded The W2N.net Wikipedia
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
"The W2N.net Wikipedia powered By The Rozaleenda Group, Inc." lacks GFDL information. Edit links produce script errors. This looks like an edited webscrape, as it reflects recent changes made this minute.
Contact info
The Rozaleenda Group, Inc., K304, Binayak Enclave, 59 K C G Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, IN 700050. Admin: Swagato Gangopadhyay contact AT w2n.net 1-206-984-2222. ISP: Defender Technologies Group Llc of Ashburn, VA, USA
The text at the bottom of each article I examined is: "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." (See, for example, James Branch Cabell, a copy of our article ([7]) as it stood at the end of 2003.)
Thus, it mentions the GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it.
Each article that I examined does not credit authors, does not link to the Wikipedia article, does not link to the Wikipedia main page, and does not even give the Wikipedia URL in text.
An odd feature is that each article has this line near the bottom: "See a correction needed or have another comment? Post it in the Encyclopedia Forum". That forum invites visitors to report article corrections, add more detail, or post new articles, with the promise "We can also list you as a contributor if you wish." The forum was set up last week and has no activity thus far
Aside from GFDL compliance, does the Foundation want to make an issue of possible confusing similarity between "Wacklepedia" and the Foundation's trademark "Wikipedia"? There would be a case for requiring this site to use a different name.
The site owner previously created the "Bobby Fischer Chess Page" (now moved to [8]). He was editing Wikipedia articles to add external links to his site -- some appropriate, some not -- but then took to removing other Fischer links and substituting his own. I corresponded with him. He explained that he had misinterpreted the reversions of his initial edits, and promised not to cause any more trouble. Until now he has kept that promise. I'll direct his attention to the compliance requirements he's not meeting. He's edited the external links in a few of our articles to use a "Wacklepedia" URL instead of the "Bobby Fischer Chess Page" one, but I'll leave those links alone for a reasonable time to see whether he brings his site into compliance. JamesMLane 17:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The site owner responded very promptly. He said he could easily make each page link to Wikipedia, presumably meaning the Main Page: "That should be easy as it's common code. But linking to every article is going to be quite a bit of re-work. Is there something easier?" I don't know of anything. Can someone more knowledgeable about compliance and coding advise me on what to tell him? JamesMLane 19:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Each page now has a javascript end which says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This article is from Wikipedia" with links to local GFDL text and to original wikipedia article. Annoyingly, will still turn up on "-wikipedia" searches. --Henrygb 00:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No credit is given to Wikipedia and no mention is made of the Creative Commons license on the Natasha Bedingfield page cited here. No copyright notice appears at all. However, other pages (such as their Avril Lavigne page) do say "Source: en.wiki.x.io" near the end of the material taken from Wikipedia.
Clearly states "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia": looks to be a live mirror, not a copy, and hides the history and other tabs,and things like the Wikipedia footer (woith all licensing info)
contact point: Editor <webstersedits2 AT hotmail.com>
Indicates source is Wikipedia
link to local GFDL page, as specified in GFDL, in separate window.
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" present
Links to Wikipedia article
Does not include a history section listing authors and dates.
uses various articles within larger collection
the site's general "terms of use" notes the following in several places "Exception: the only terms that apply to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, articles are the ones specified in the GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE." Thus exempting Wikipedia content from the site's restrictions.
each article links to the following, with copies of GFDL,etc.,: ""Note: The text referenced in the "source," is exempt from any compilation copyright held by this site or the editor, so users can use the text freely under the copyleft GFDL license established by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which is described in detail below. Any other material having copyright on this page resides with their respective owners."
A republisher of various internet dictionaries and encyclopedias. It does not mention Wikipedia on the front page but it does include "This article is a copy... GFDL" text at the bottom of articles. Probably fine. JesseW 05:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
NB: This is not the same as websters-online-dictionary.org
Links to Wikipedia & GFDL
Links back to original article
I think we can move to high --Davelane 09:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
GFDL and wikipedia links at bottom of pages depend on Javascript being turned on. They are not in the article source code and so will turn up on Google searches with -wikipedia. --Henrygb 01:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does not attribute Wikipedia as source; does not specify copyright or GDFL. They claim that they "provide biographical facts with surrounding information and external resources depending on biographical entity"
States comes from Wikipedia, with link though not to original article
The website states it is available under terms of GFDL and attempts to link to the GFDL, but the link is off-site and (now) broken (a good reason to link on-site). Also, there is no included history section or link to the original article, but only the main page.
Modified formatting, with quick color selection. A subject-relevant video is added to many articles, chosen by a bot called "Tubie". Multiple languages are supported, including English and Spanish.)
Says it complies with CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and makes all text available under that license. Says all articles are based in Wikipedia. Currently a live mirror, see here.
Says it complies with CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and makes all text available under that license. Says all articles are based in Wikipedia. No refrence to contributors, history, donations. Currently a live mirror.
Site officially releases all content into the public domain. However, content copied from Wikipedia is tagged with a license indicating it is used under the Creative Commons license Wikipedia uses.
Contact info
Actions
Licensing issues were discussed at AN/I with administrators from WikiAlpha.
Text from Wikipedia is clearly indicated as such under a tab named "Wikipedia article" with a link to the source article at the bottom, rather easy to spot and click. However, the CC-BY-SA license is not mentioned until you click "More", after which the footer expands to " This is a part of the Wikipedia article used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). The full text of the article is here → ".
Says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" with link to GFDL at gnu.org. Seems to contain some deleted Wikipedia articles (in this case see for example [9]), but apart from logos at top no indication of history.
Actively copying many, if not most, chiropractic articles and then "chirofying" them, IOW whitewashing them by removing criticism and making them chiropractic propaganda.
None. I'll let Wikimedia's legal department take care of this.
Having never done this before, I'm unsure what to do next. This seems like blatant misuse of the hard work of many editors here who have contributed to those articles and kept them NPOV. This is an attempt to create a huge mirror that will be "the premiere site for information about Chiropractic". Since it will be a whitewashed version, it can't be "fair use" by any definition of the term. This obviously deceptive use of material here shouldn't be allowed to occur. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[COMMENT] At Wikichiro. we are not "removing all criticism", only that coming from a specific cabal of people who have invaded and taken over the rules of Wikipedia to slander a profession. This group has been the subject of numerous discussions, and their leader is, according to my sources involved in dozens of self-promoting lawsuits around the country designed to abuse the legal system to squelch free speech and the practice of any alternative to drugs and surgery their fearless leader deems quackery. This band is notorious in all Alt med circles. They have in this way perverted wikipedia's purpose and found very creative means of twisting wiki's rules to accomplish their goals. This may well constitute a violation of a permanent federal injunction in place since the late 70's. They also band together to so completely harass anyone who opposes their prejudices that they force them from editing on Wikipedia. Thus, the necessity of Wikichiro and other sites which sincerely try to provide an objective and less overtly prejudiced view of these fields.
For example: In the article on back pain, I tried to provide a reference to the fact that some major studies were done and Published in the British Medical Journal, in 1990 and 1995 which used Chiropractic adjustments, NOT generic manipulation. I was reverted on the grounds that some study later without Chiropractic involvement (perhaps they used some PT or MD who had a weekend class in manipulation) showed that manipulations had no better result that any other form of therapy. The lame excuse was that I can't use even a landmark published study from 1990 and follow-up from 1995 to modify somthing that uses a newer study. But we are comparing apples and oranges. It's an absurd position. These people have a highly coordinated agenda.
BTW: All articles used from Wikipedia on Wikichiro are fully attributed to Wikipedia. There are other parties who, I also understand, have taken this cabal to your legal department, and are negotiating to avoid federal lawsuits. Those voices, which most vociferously oppose this conspiracy have already been totally banned from Wikipedia. If the management of Wikipedia would undertake to purge itself of this kind of organized and coordinated bullying of serious editors (WHICH really constitutes the worst meatpuppetry!!!, then expert in these fields, could contribute without the endless harassment that these bullies are creating, to drain their time and energy away from improvement of wikipedia knowledge base, then perhaps the whole encyclopedia could benefit, and the world would be the beneficiary. I know it's a long read to get to the crux of this, but please see the talk page at [[18]] if you are truly interested in improving the climate here, and read this garbage, as well as the harassment over the bio at Stephen J. Press
BTW: we were advised from a very high level, that we could copy Wikpedia's articles so long as they were properly attributed. Sincerely, 68.239.180.104 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the IP editor above is none other than Stephen J. Press himself, User:Drsjpdc. His conspiracy theory rantings are not only incorrect, they are incorrect because he is siding with and repeating the rantings of an editor who has been indef banned by the Arbitration Committee itself. The rant above constitutes a serious and libelous violation of WP:Battle and WP:BLP. Press is currently the (again, again, again!!) subject of a new SPI (he's already a proven sockmaster) and an ANI thread:
I note that Press did a big no no when he edited my original entry by adding the following link. I'm moving it here with an explanation. He added this link http://www.wikichiro.org/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_attribution_to_Wikipedia, and it wasn't on any articles I looked at, and I looked at quite a few. That is a category that must have been very new when I wrote the entry above, if it even existed at the time. I doubt that such a notice qualifies as proper attribution, as it doesn't link directly to the original article where the contribution history is located. That's what counts when it comes to attribution. A generic link back to Wikipedia doesn't qualify. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category over there was created on 28Dec. The attribution requirements from Wikipedia are very loose, but IANAL and I have no idea whether this qualifies. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A new development: Misuse of the copyrighted term Wikipedia to imply a relationship, and inclusion of WikiChiro links in a copied Wikipedia/Wikimedia template that reinforces that implication:
I'm a but confused about what the complaint here is about. If they are complying with the GFDL or the CC, (attribution in particular), for example as outlined at [19] then there's nothing we can do. They have the right to re-use our content, modifying it as they see fit, in accordance with the license that content was released under. And any contributor to wikipedia should hopefully know that, since the licensing terms are made clear whenever you edit a page. (And just to make that clear, if you are contributing to wikipedia, you should be aware that provided they comply with the license, anyone can copy content you have create, modify it and re-use it as they see fit whether you like or agree with their changes and be those changes removing criticism or 'whitewashing'.)
If they are not complying with the terms, then someone who made substanial edits to one of their pages they copied may want to pursue them. I doubt you'll get much help from the 'wikimedia legal department', there are unfortunately plenty of violators and the foundation has not yet taken an active interest in pursuing them which given the likely difficulties thereof isn't surprising so expecting them to take care of this is pretty pointless.
At the moment, it sounds like they may be willing to cooperate, so I suggest you discuss with them what you expect if you are not happy with how they are currently attributing, no matter how much you may disagree with their views. If you aren't willing to do that, then I don't see much chance for anything happening.
If they are improperly implying a relationship with wikipedia, then the foundation may be interested in that however if they copied a template it may be simply they haven't yet properly updated the template and so it's unintentional. While that's still wrong and something they need to fix, that sort of stuff tends to happen when others copy our content so in such a case I also doubt the foundation will be interested in it.
Finally if you believe a wikipedian is violating policy here on wikipedia, then that should be handled elsewhere not here.
Each article ends similarly to example "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Wikipedia article "Mathematics and God". This entry is a fragment of a larger work. Link may die if entry is finally removed or merged." with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original Wikipedia article (so no history if that was deleted).
Appears to be a Betascript imprint. The "books" reprint Wikipedia articles related to a central topic. Includes this disclaimer "WikiFocus Books are collaborative books designed for education on specific subject matter. Our motto is “Collaborative Books for Creative Minds” and it is our mission to provide focused content for both educational and entertainment purposes. We present targeted information on specific subjects which are compiled from online collaborative resources from across the globe. Some text and images contained in this book have been reused and/or repurposed for commercial distribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)."
Contact info
George Andersen
Actions
Compliance with GFDL and Wikipedia's terms should be assessed.
Mentions Wikipedia at [20] on every page of the site. The GFDL is mentioned on the site and links to the text of the GFDL License. Each article has a link back to the originating article on the English Wikipedia and full author and edit history. The site also has a link on each page of the wiki linking to the Wikimedia Foundations Donations page asking for contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia.
Contact info
jmerkey AT wolfmountaingroup.com,
Actions
None
Currently (17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)) appears to have no local GFDL (or broken link), and no links to en.wikipedia including nothing to original article.
http://www.wikinfo.org/10 Things You Didn't Know About Wikipedia
Rating
High
Compliance
Compliance is very good, attribution, licence mentioning and linking, page mentioning and linking, the whole shebang. Common message is: Adapted from the Wikipedia article, "(Page name)" (Page URL), used under the GNU Free Documentation License. The website also used the MediaWiki engine and links to mediawiki.com and mentions the GPL. The site is very similar to wikipedia, modifing most project pages and all the disclaimers to the site, all in compliance with the GDFL. The site itself also uses the GDFL.
Copyright: the website just reproduces the copyright footers and page history verbatim. Trademarks: the Wikipedia logo is reproduced as is and there is no indication anywhere that the domain is not Wikipedia, except by following some roundabout chain of links to reach https://wikiless.org/about ; there is evidence of users being confused: it's probably a trademark violation.
No ref=canonical back to Wikipedia.org, no terms of service or privacy policy provided.
As of January 2023 the sidebar looks broken, the logo doesn't load and the favicon is a struck W. It's not clear whether some of this was a consequence of the skin changes (as Vector 2010 is still used).
Unreleased, prototype. Object-oriented, version controlled, inheritable theorizing (and wikiing) for sciencing. Appears to be very slow or almost down as of 2020.
Sample
http://en.wikimergic.org/wiki/Our:Copyrights
Rating
High
Compliance
full. Every possible page links back to original article save for a few in WP:MediaWiki namespace in which case this is done through their talk page. Identical licensing.
Mentions Wikipedia and the GFDL but there is no included history or link to the original article. There is no link to the GFDL. Checked, March 2010, site no longer hosts Wikipedia content
Contact info
information AT wikimirror.com, abuse AT domainsbyproxy.com
The website only serves mainland China, Wikipedia service is blocked in mainland China. In addition, in order to avoid attacks by DDOS, the website refused to connect to non-mainland China. You can use this mirror for editing.
No compliance. Evil porn site! Checked March 2010, site no longer hosts Wikipedia content, now displays: "NOTICE: This domain name expired on 03/09/2010 and is pending renewal or deletion"
Contact info
wikimiki.org AT contactprivacy.com, admin AT adpilot.info
Actions
Sent standard non-compliance GDFL letter. UPDATE: sent reminder + warning=
Trimmed-down version of Wikipedia with live updates to the frontpage etc. According to third party statistics, the website appears to be growing its visibility in the first half of 2019 (+100 % monthly growth for a few months) but may have stabilised at the end of 2019. Monetised with several advertisements.
Sample
https://wikimili.com/en/Virgin_Killer
Rating
Low/Medium
Compliance
Includes a discreet but clear footer "This page is based on this Wikipedia article [linked] Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license [linked]; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses." The header "WikiMili The Free Encyclopedia" can be misleading if one doesn't scroll to the end and is brought to think it's the actual free encyclopedia i.e. Wikipedia.
Images are hotlinked, but clicking the thumbnails only shows the same image in a lightbox, so there is no mention of license or authors in any way. The non-text content is therefore a total copyright violation. Fair use content is also included.
Page ends "(C) 2006-2007 wikimobs.com - v0.9 beta Disclaimer : WikiMobs is not affiliated with Wikipedia Foundation. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."
No obvious links to Wikipedia, original article, or text of GFDL
Contains data from meta:Help:Unified login. I haven't found any problems with Wikipedia content (although the example page from Metawiki seems to be a copyright infringement). I'm not sure if this site should be listed somewhere on Metawiki instead, and if so, where.
The site appears not to have been updated since 2008, so Creative Commons licences are irrelevant. GFDL is mentioned, but the Wikimedia source is not mentioned. One revision by User:Bináris was imported and is correctly sourced on the history page. However, this was not the first revision of the Wikipedia page, and earlier revisions are not mentioned at all (as far as I can see). Thus, the history is incomplete (without any link to a complete history), which is why I think that there is a copyright infringement. The second edit on WikiNASIOC (by User:2k2blackwrx) appears to be a local edit; I can't find it on MetaWiki (and the user account is not registered on any Wikimedia project according to Sulutil, although there's a possibility that it might have been renamed in the past few years).
Mentions "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." but the link goes to an external copy of GFDL 1.3 (!), i.e. wrong version number. Has "Category:Meta-Wiki" (with a red link) but does not mention Wikimedia in any way. Not sure if the category is enough for crediting Wikimedia.
Appears to be a complete snapshot of Wikipedia from 6 April 2021, to the point of calling itself Wikipedia. However, it is not possible to edit the articles, create an account, or view the history. It appears they just copied the current state of the articles on 6 April 2021. The most prominent difference is that unlike Wikipedia, each page includes advertisements.
There are two issues that stand out: (1) While the site calls itself a wiki, it is not possible to edit the articles. (2) The site claims to be Wikipedia instead of having copying it.
Contact info
Found an e-mail address at the very last row on the main page: admin@wikinew.wiki. No idea whether the address works as no attempt has been made to contact it.
Example: www.wikipedia.net.pl/en/wiki/Dollar_sign.html (in English)
States: Autorem skryptu AdWiki v0.7 (2007) jest husky83 Licencję na skrypt dla strony WIKIPEDIA.NET.PL posiada blf jest zarejestrowanym znakiem towarowym Wikimedia Foundation Wszystkie materia�y pochodz� z Wikipedii, obi�te s� licencj� GNU Free Documentation License with link to local copy of GFDL in English and to pl.wiki.x.io
No obvious link to original article
Update, March 2010, site no longer hosts Wikipedia content
Appears to be a Wikipedia mirror with Wikipedia name and logo throughout but no attribution. The main page looks current. No one can edit. There is an anchor HTML tag that appears to be an editing link but only serves as a link to the "Home" page. There is a footer saying, "This website is a mirror of Wikipedia, and is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation" but no mention of the CC-BY-SA or GFDL.
Contact info
None provided Edit: used WHOIS here and found wikipediam.org[at]domainsbyproxy.com
Machine translation of English Wikipedia articles into all languages other than English (default target language is Hebrew)
Sample
http://fr.wikipeluangusaha.com/wiki/Mirror
Rating
Medium
Compliance
Licensing of content seems OK. The website infringes Wikimedia trademarks by branding itself as "Wikipedia" and cross-linking to actual Wikipedia/WMF pages without warning.
A Wikipedia fork using articles related to Greece. A cursory sample of articles indicates that most were copied from Wikipedia from mid-2005 through 2006 and intended to be edited locally thereafter. No GFDL notices or mention of Wikipedia on the pages I saw.
Contact info
E-mail (feedback form): http://www.phantis.com/forms/contact_form.html – Phone number of admin: 610-631-5361 (?) and ISP.(?) – Mailing address: Decision Group, Inc., c/o Phantis, P.O. Box 176, Eagleville, PA 19408, USA
Most articles attribute the English Wikipedia; but many images don't or have false attributions. (Compare English Wikipedia and Wikipilipinas) Attribution is often incomplete - the articles that do attribute the English Wikipedia merely link to the main page. Almost no copied article links to the original article they were forked from.
http://wikitextbook.co.uk/index.php?title=Cell_structure%2C_tissues_and_organs_%28A_level_Bio%29 from Cell (biology)
Rating
Low
Compliance
Link to Wikipedia main page, but no link to original article or GFDL. This is a fork of Wikipedia meant to serve as a series of textbooks to UK schools; the Wikipedia articles have been taken to seed this effort. The owner is aware of Wikibooks and thus far chooses to fork anyway; he believes the interests of UK students can best be served through a separate site.
This is a site for criticizing/parodying Wikipedia. They have a namespace "Uncensored" where they put articles that have been deleted from Wikipedia. They make it clear that the article is from Wikipedia, and now have a proper GFDL notice. They do not host the GFDL on their site. It is also apparently a modified version and they don't link back to Wikipedia or provide page history.
full compliance. (Only thing they got wrong is they renamed the entire Wikipedia: namespace "The UCSC Wikipedia Trust Project:" which was a little confusing at first).
Beta test; contains a static copy of Wikipedia from 2007, marked up in order to indicate the level of "trust" or credibility of the content: in a nutshell, material added by edit warriors is highlighted in yellow or orange, and material added by veteran editors who don't engage in revert-wars is displayed in ordinary black-on-white type. Hosted by the University of California at Santa Cruz. Site says that it is affiliated with http://quality.wikimedia.org. Additional documentation can be found at http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/. Site seems to work only intermittently.
Contact info
University of California School of Engineering 1156 High Street Santa Clara, California 95064
Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society 281 Hearst Memorial Mining Building University of California Berkeley, California 94720-1764
Actions
none needed. (however, I think the site is notable, so I have submitted an article.)
Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it. Also references the Copyrights section, which is a verbatim copy of Wikipedia:Copyrights (does not mention that wikiverse.org != wikipedia).
Articles do not link to Wikipedia, nor acknowledge the article authors.
The first page clarifies the site's relationship to Wikipedia: "Wikiverse, an up-to-date high speed static mirror of Wikipedia, a worldwide community of volunteers building an open-content encyclopedia."
A person who claims to be responsible for the site has allegedly tried to disrupt the VfD process on a page about Wikiverse, and has responded to some, but not all, concerns about the copyright situation. See [23] and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wikiverse.
A mirror that focuses more on images and videos, and making things visually appealing for users.
Sample
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/American_Civil_War
Rating
Low
Compliance
Copyright violation: fails to mention Creative Commons license. Doesn't explicitly state provenance or authors, instead provides oblique references to Wikipedia such as "the entire wiki" (in the header). A link "show wikipedia page here" loads a popup with the original HTML of the Wikipedia page, which states "This page is loaded from Wikipedia" but again fails to state that the initial page is also copied from Wikipedia. Only from Wikipedia's own HTML, one can finally reach license and author information.
Contact info
Actions
Reported to Google AdSense for various violations of their policies.
Mirror seemingly from an HTML dump, with some stylistic changes, probably trying to ride on the popularity of Wikivisually. "Wiki as never seen before with photo galleries, discover something new today". Alexa rank around 100k as of 2019. Appears to be down as of March 2020; domain is for sale as of January 2023.
Sample
https://wikivividly.com/wiki/Louis_XI_of_France
Rating
None
Compliance
No mention whatsoever of copyright, licenses, Wikipedia or Wikipedia contributors, no links.
Links to Wikipedia page, license (on creativecommons.org), and contributor list; notes that "additional terms may apply" and that images may be licensed differently.
Includes "Released under GNU FDL. Uses material from Wikipedia." Wikipedia is linked directly to the article copied; however GNU FDL is an offsite, broken link.
Contact info
webmaster AT wikix.ipupdater.com, http://www.ipupdater.com/contactus.php?/dns&PHPSESSID=591bc9fda50dc5ca356f063330e6e0dc (domain contact), User_talk:213.216.196.114? (anon who first updated this entry to say links added)
Received reply that "We will correct this issue, but it can take a couple of days, please have patience." He also noted correctly that the copyrights page still recommends an off-site GFDL, which I'm trying to change. Superm401 - Talk01:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1:1 live mirror, displaying advertisements above proxied content, confirmed via "Special:MyTalk". Server IP is blocked from editing on the English Wikipedia.
Unsure; ToBeFree is hoping for trademark action by WMF in the next weeks. They will probably comply "highly" after that.
Compliance
Now complying with CC-by-sa (implicitly using the compatibility clause of version 3, they are attributing version 4 of the license). Apparently no imprint. As of time of writing, still potentially misusing Wikimedia trademarks, by displaying the Wikipedia logo in the top left and displaying the project logos including the WMF information text on the front page.
Contact info
E-mails, phone numbers, contact form URLs, etc. of admin and ISP.
Actions
No imprint found, IP hidden behind CloudFlare. DMCA request sent for Alte Brücke (Frankfurt) by ToBeFree, reached ISP and admin via CloudFlare. After first telling me that they are allegedly actively in touch with Wikipedia, allegedly having fullfiled all their requirements, and basically denying my request, they fortunately came to their senses on their own accord a few hours later. They have now added a red attribution box below all pages and are now apparently complying with the license. Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel has been informed and is now aware of potential trademark violations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mirror (live) of all languages of Wikipedia. Copies the main HTML of Wikipedia, moves the TOC to a sidebar and injects ads from https://admatic.com.tr/ . Main page is in Turkish (but suggests 7 languages), suggesting it's mostly a way to evade the block of Wikipedia in Turkey. 40 % of traffic from Turkey and top 1000 website in Turkey, according to Alexa.
Switched to wholesale copyright violation in 2020. The footer now doesn't contain any mention of the source, only a permanent link to Wikipedia without explanation. The Creative Commons license is not mentioned anywhere.
Formerly had a link to Wikipedia at the top as "Wikipedia open wikipedia design." Footer stated "This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit). Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses." However, this is not non-exisitent.
Bogus further footer states "Copyright 2020 WikiZero".
Email bounced back, with the following message: "DNS Error: 8685848 DNS type 'mx' lookup of wikizero.com responded with code NOERROR 8685848 DNS type 'aaaa' lookup of wikizero-com.mail.protection.outlook.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN 8685848 DNS type 'a' lookup of wikizero-com.mail.protection.outlook.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN". This indicates an incorrect email address. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the site "Wokiwiki" (http://www.zaped.info/) is a "distorted mirror" of Wikipedia. It serves WP articles after arbitrarily replacing a percentage of the words by other vaguely related words, so that the articles look superficially right but are actually nonsense. Since they offer advertising space, my guess is that they are trying to bypass Google filters that eliminate similar pages. See e.g their Iron article. It doesn't seem that WP is being properly attributed on that page. I have been told that this looks like a case of Wikipedia's copyright/license violation (besides potentially damaging WP's reputation). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site is still up, serving their intentionally and extensively corrupted version of Wikipedia under the name "Wikipedia" — including a corruped copy of Wikipedia's main page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The URL above now redirects to a site that asks the user to answer a "survey". It looks like a phishing site, and uses javascript in an attempt to prevent the reader from leaving or closing the window, or even exiting the browser. (I had to disable javascript in order to get out of it.) Since I did not answer the "survey" I cannot tell whether the adulterated Wikipedia contents is still being served.
My guess is that they used the adulterated copy of Wikipedia in order to get their site indexed by Google. As a consequence, a Google search under almost any subject will now turn up that site as an alternative hit *distinct from wikipedia*. Now that they have seeded Google's database, they have moved on to their real purpose. (But this is just a layman's guess.) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample of what Google turns up with the search "germanium Wokiwiki"
Germanium tetrachloride Wokiwiki
Germanium tetrachloride is a colourless aqueous acclimated as an average in the assembly of antiseptic germanium metal. In contempo years, GeCl4 acceptance ...
Footer states <This article uses material from the Wikipedia article "History of the Japanese in Seattle", and is written by "contributors". Text is available under a "CC BY-SA 4.0 International License"; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.>
States the GNU FDL license the articles are under.
Links to the GNU FDL (on FSF site, not local)
Acknowledges wikipedia authorship
Links to source wikipedia article
Links to the wikipedia history as author listing As of 05:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC), every article's history link is to the history of Wikipedia's Main Page.
Links the history of the source page and their own copyright page which mentions CC-BY-SA.
The attribution text is rather discreet, at the end of a footer-like text in the right sidebar: «This article is distributed under the terms of this license. WordSense is a Wiktionary fork. The list of authors can be seen on Wiktionary in the page history. The article was edited and supplemented».
Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
No link to original article
Has copies of about 25,000 Wikipedia articles; the intention is that they will be edited according to their different policy. Obviously, not a verbatim copy.
link to current (or sometimes older) version of article
http://translate.dc.gov/ma/enwiki/en/Anwar_Choudhury ... it's an old copy of the current Wikipedia article, taken from sometime between May-August 2008.
Rating
"Low/None"
Compliance
Articles now say "The original article is from Wikipedia."
They are routinely using photos (from Commons, as far as I can tell) and crediting them as "GNU/<author>". They seem to be making an honest effort to credit the photo, but don't seem to understand that if they are not GFDL-compliant, then they can't freely reuse these.
They appear to be some sort of syndication thing (supplying a lot of news sites) so these get heavily reused.
They copy Wikipedia articles without attributing Wikipedia in any way - or if they do attribute it, they hid the notice so well that I can't find it. As Jmabel noted, "[t]hey appear to be some sort of syndication thing (supplying a lot of news sites) so these get heavily reused."
Contact info
They've got a "contact" pop-up link at the bottom of each page.
Gives a link to Wikipedia as the 'citational source', but attribution given to affiliated[29]other mirror 'World Heritage Encyclopedia'. Page footers implies they own copyright to the content.
The copy is crude, with reference link numbers that don't actually link to references and a mess of unresolved metadata at the bottom. But some of the links in the article also point to other "self-published" pages.
Was not in compliance for a long time, but now links to Wikipedia and the GNU FDL.--Eloquence* 11:02, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
No mention of GFDL. Claims exclusive copyright. No link to original Wikipedia article. No history section. Compliance: None Uncle G12:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledges copying explicitly or obliquely (the latter has said "from Wikipedia" since its earliest archive; the former "cf. Wikipedia"), but claims full copyright. Unknown if it acknowledges all articles copied. Non-compliant. No action taken. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Says, "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."
Also says "Copyright 2004. World Wide Web Find. All rights reserved." immediately under that (probably part of their default skin, but possibly confusing)
has directly copied Wikipedia articles related to motorcycles with no reference to the source or GFDL. Vigilante attempts (not me) to remove content have resulted in the stolen content restored.
says "extracted from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" at the top of each article. Specifically mentions the GFDL. No mention of the general disclaimers, however.
Contact info
Walrecht
T. Walrecht (domainadminATuniserverD0Tnl)
Pastoor Verhoeffpark 70
Breezand
,1764 GS
NL
Content forking, mentions and links to Wikipedia, states "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply". Uses clickfarm-style google advertising. Provides direct links to WP image files but wikilinks are migrated to their website in order to generate more click revenue
Contact info
webform
Actions
should be re-educated
I am currently in the process of negotiating with AOL. Unfortunately, due to the nature of negotiation, this may take a while and I will not be able to provide status updates. Also, please note that the above notes on compliance were not written by me. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a true Verbatim Copy, but Wikipedia itself did not include a GFDL notice at the time of copying (see Internet Archive). Nevertheless, it is still required.
Contact info
chen_huailin AT yahoo.com, huailin AT xtrj.org (whois), abuse AT register.com (host), copyright-complaints AT register.com (host)
Checked the site, there is a very prominent GFDL notice at the top. Links back to article, history, and even to edit page. I don't change the rating because I am just an anonymous coward visiting, and I don't know if there is any protocol to follow. 190.134.22.98 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.youqa.com/diseases-conditions/3154-1-youqa-4.html and http://www.youqa.com/mental-health/2441-youqa-4.html and site should be checked for others
Rating
Low/None
Compliance
Claims copyright, no mention that text was taken from Tourette syndrome
I don't know if this web site has already been recorded somewhere in Wikipedia, but I came across an exact copy of a Wikipedia article (although it was an old version, from somewhere down the edit history) as a #1 Google hit. The nasty thing about this site is that our links do work. However, red links are not shown, and if you click on one you are all of a sudden right on a Wikipedia edit page. This is an invitation to vandalize Wikipedia, but I was unable to find an e-mail address. <KF> 00:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is a mirror of Wikipedia. It mentions the GFDL and Wikipedia once on its main page, but none of the articles have a list of authors or links to the Wikipedia pages. Guanaco 23:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Huh? I just looked at a few articles and they all had this at the bottom of the page, with links: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia - see source." ←Hob 00:00, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
User:Zanimum moved this to medium from low. I'm not exactly sure why, but I assume because it mentions the GFDL and links to Wikipedia. JesseW 22:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Low compliance if any. (www.yamour.com/evolution/wikipedia.html) Claiming its own right without any reference to GFDL: "This document was realized for educational purposes. You do not have the right to use or copy any of the images ; but You are free to link to this document. In case you want to link to this document for Educational purposes ,please read the term of service at the end of this page." Now feeding back as viral advertisement through its own "term of service" [sic]: "Term of service : In case you want to link to this document for educational reasons : you should also link to the main page [http:// www.yamour.com/]". Reported by Kaihsu21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC). No action taken yet.[reply]
Well, at the time that I write the SEO link-spam is back again in the article (removeing it now). As I am not a frequent editor on the English Wikipedia I believe you should report this behaviour to an administrator. Greetings, --5ko17:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a dictatorship you can not ban someone if he does not agree with you ,
the link you are talking about does mention the GFDL , and the user 5ko that pretends it's a SEO link apparently is an expert in SEO check this link and you'll see that he is a user in every possible version of wikipedia and have hundreds of links toward his personal site , if this isn't SEO than what is see the link : 5ko many faces
i assure you if you ban one more time the user because he simply does not agree with you , both of you will be reported to administration Newww18:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you start by learning more about Wikipedia. (1) User accounts in different languages are needed to post interwiki links. (2) The page that you try to link is not relevant for wikipedia readers, comparing to http://nostalgia.wiki.x.io or http://web.archive.org, probably where you took the screenshots. (3) Two days ago the note about GFDL was not there, you added it lately, however you still infringe the GFDL by not publishing the list of all co-authors, not even a link to the page itself and to its history. (4) If these screenshots are so important, we can legally add them here, on Wikipedia, which would be easier for everyone. (5) As it is "your" page, you have some difficulty estimating the relevence of your "work" for the encyclopedia readers : please, leave to the Wikipedia editors do that relevence estimation. --5ko06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just recieved an amusing letter, seo confession, threats that my user page will be vandalized again, and a job offer from this person, and will post it at User:5ko/Yamour (in French language). I work primarily at Bulgarian Wikipedia where I have done more than 17500 edits mostly on articles and help pages, and 6000 pictures (not counting the +64K edits with my bot). Wikipedia editor since February 2003, I am not surprised that Google knows about me... --5ko06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one violation - an entire infobox (including image) copied from the article Zinc (Infobox zinc). No credit given at all, not a single mention of Wikipedia or any of our licenses.
verifiedhandles.org)
Resolved
