A number of sites that
mirror and fork Wikipedia may not be complying with all the terms of the CC-BY-SA.
Please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for instructions about adding new sites.
There is also the category "Former content users" for sites that at one time used Wikipedia content, but no longer do. This should be periodically checked.
Problematic sites sometimes get listed on the mirror list without ending up here. So check the mirror list too:
(Numbers) ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQR STU VWXYZ All
Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance, which is still the appropriate place to list sites that do not use CC-BY-SA-only content. Remember that the dual licence which applies to all new editor generated text since 15 June 2009 means that a site only has to comply with one of the licences. So check for compliance with either licence and make a note of which licence the site is most compliant with. The exception is text imported from external sources which could be CC-BY-SA licenced only.
Descriptions of the categories:
Undetermined or disputed:
Either more research is needed, or it is disputed.
Fails in a very significant way, usually by lacking mention of Wikipedia, the CC-BY-SA, or both.
Makes an effort to comply, usually including mention of Wikipedia and the CC-BY-SA.
our licence; should mention Wikipedia should link to original article (or stable equivalent) [1 ] , maintain copyright [2 ] , license [3 ] , and warranty [4 ] (see [5 ] Wikipedia:General disclaimer) notices and include or link to license. [6 ]
Undetermined or disputed [ edit ]
In this section, please add new entries to the bottom of the list.
WikiNASIOC - Mirror seemingly unchanged since 2008. Does not mention Creative Commons at all, but since the edits are so old, I guess it doesn't have to mention it.
http://www.qype.com/place/722628-Fulda-Bahnhof-Fulda contains the abstract from de:Bahnhof_Fulda no attribution etc. One might check if it's automatically edited or user edited - I could not easily find similar pages on qype. It's a commercial site...
http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=National_Basketball_Association The Hoopedia wiki on nba.com ("All rights reserved") appears to have a lot of identical content as the respective Wikipedia pages (see NBA, similar situation for WNBA vs. WNBA (Hoopedia) and possibly many other pages). For one particular edit, I have been able to find out that the content in question appeared on Wikipedia first (on Dec 28 2010), while the text was inserted into Hoopedia between Jan 27, 2012 and Apr 27, 2012. While there might be legitimate explanations for the duplication, this might be interesting to investigate further given NBA's tough stance on copyright.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hweimer ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 11 March 2013
Could you give an example of their "tough stance on copyright"? Have they been in the news for being particularly litigious or quick to send DMCA notices? —
Psychonaut ( talk) 10:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
NBA v. Motorola, they tried to establish copyright on sports games. Some background on their recent activities regarding Youtube videos: . — Hweimer ( talk) 16:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Scientific & Academic Publishing (sapub.org). Dubious publisher of 194 online "journals". This article in their International Journal of Arts was a blatant copyvio of Manifestations of Postmodernism with no attribution and marked "Copyright © 2012 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved." We may see a lot more of this stuff from them in the future. See . for more. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
http://truskemata.blogspot.de + http://truskemata.blogspot.com – sample: http://truskemata.blogspot.de/2012/09/atasi-masalah-silau-dengan-helmet.html copied part of Motorcycle helmet#Laws and standards ( oldid=491661146) including blue & red wikilinks; marked as " Copyright © 2013 Mata & Penglihatan - Created by SoraTemplates and Blogger Templates" at the page bottom. Also listed at -- Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Blogspot "truskemata" Trofobi ( talk) 06:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Low/None [ edit ]
Former content users [ edit ]
^ Attributing Wikipedia required by §4.c of CC-BY-SA 3.0 since Wikipedia is the applicable "publishing entity"
^ §4.3 - "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work"
^ §4.a and 4.b - "keep intact all notices that refer to [...] License"
^ 4.a - "keep intact all notices that refer [...] to the disclaimer of warranties"
^ §4.a and 4.b - "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for [...] License"