A separate page explains that the content in the "Language" section is taken from Wikipedia and available under GFDL, but does not link to original articles, doesn't list authors and doesn't provide local copy of the license (just a link to gnu.org is provided).
These are a group of interlinked mirror sites. The owner claims the duplication is for "load balancing". On all the sites I checked, there is a link to internal GFDL, the original article, and the original history, below the last ads. The sites use dynamic loading (the owner claims he has set up 1 year caching), and hotlink images. There is no mention of CC-BY-SA. Many registrations use whois cloaking services.
jin AT 1bx.com, 1BX.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com, TOSHARE.INFO AT domainsbyproxy.com, emule2005 AT host.sk (donkeylink.com whois admin), jinhui AT jcomsoft.com (askmore.net whois), generalmanager AT domainsbyproxy.com (private registration), abuse AT sitelutions.com (DNS) (UTC)
Emailed host to complain about lack of contact information in whois. Superm401 -
Received email from generalmanager AT domainsbyproxy.com saying "In this particular instance, we have contacted our customer and requested that they contact you by February 7, 2007 to resolve this situation. Please confirm at that time that our customer has made this step. Failure to contact you as we have requested would be a violation of our terms of service. If our customer fails to contact you, we will proceed with the cancellation of the privacy service on this domain." The subject of the email is "RE :: 1BX.COM :: 100170"; this is probably necessary for followups. Superm401 - Talk 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I received an email noting that 1bx.net has been fixed. Superm401 - Talk 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Replied noting that they were dynamically loading, and that some sites still aren't in compliance. Superm401 - Talk 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
He replied saying he had fixed another site (and said there is a 1 year cache). I replied back asking him to stop hotlinking. Superm401 - Talk 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
He said he would fix the hotlinking, and that all sites should be fixed. Superm401 - Talk 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I just checked the first five URLs and they are all dead (mostly with the usual "search" page that domain registrars tend to put up when a domain expires). Looks like these ones no longer infringes Wikipedia. The first URL infringing on The Simpson's copyright is sombody else's problem. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Site reported to use only GFDL, no CC-BY-SA(-only) content.
Footnote says "mainly selected from the English Wikipedia with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details of authors and sources). The articles are available under the GNU Free Documentation License." The GFDL is linked and locally hosted, and the URL of the exact version of the article history used is given to help identify authors.
See also discussion on project pages for this copy at en, on the Wikitech mailing lists and at the wikimedia blog 
There is a notice that mentions Wikipedia and the GFDL. The whole thing links to wikipedia.org, but there is no history section, link to the original article, or link to the GFDL. Other pages besides "Sharon Tate" appear to be a partial derivation of older wikipedia articles, or, just possibly, some text from them has been uploaded to wikipedia, as I have found exact word for word passages in Jay Sebring and Charles Manson from around 2004 November 8 or later. -Wikibob - Talk 19:32, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
Note: I've changed this to medium, as both Wikipedia and GFDL are mentioned, and the images are not being ripped off WP's servers.
webmaster AT 2violent.com, clasione AT verizon.net (domain admin), abuse AT godaddy.com (host)
Emailed webmaster AT 2violent.com, clasione AT verizon.net (domain admin) politely referring to Sharon Tate copy.
Sent standard violation letter to adminc-sponagl-nospam AT 7val.com and adminc-sponagl AT 7val.com . Superm401 - Talk 02:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem was caused by an error in their rendering engine. Is now fixed. Added link to GFDL and page history. For future issues regarding 7val: Wikimedia Deutschland is in close contact with them. Please contact de:Benutzer:Akl in case there are any problems.
Still dynamic mirror 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
A network of sites, each covering one topic using one Wikipedia article. Articles carry a link to Wikipedia home, direct link to source article on Wikipedia, and a link to GFDL directly under article text. Articles are edited versions, based on a one-time export, and are not updated. Images are not used. Author names and dates are not listed.
List of colo[u]r details, such as names & RGB values, at least partially scraped from en.wikipedia. Contains some problematic content which was removed from enwiki for other reasons (ie. simply made up by an editor); existence of this (mirrored) content has been used to justify re-adding it.
"Medium"-"Low" compliance with GFDL (matches Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance).
"This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" with link to local page; that has two paragraph description of GFDL and nonlinked URL for GFDL at gnu.org. No obvious link to Wikipedia or original article or history
info AT abaara.com (local), telania AT gmail.com 5022914650 (whois)
I don't see any mention of "GFDL" or "Wikipedia". (I don't see any "Contact" information either). As far as I can tell, all the content on *every* page on this site comes from Wikipedia.
Contact listed as "Joe Damien" with email address 4leenda AT gmail.com. The contact also includes a phone number +001.41512345678 (fake) and a real physical mailing address which is actually the location of the 5th Avenue Theatre in Seattle, Washington.
no mention of GFDL. Standard letter sent by: MB 08:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Point of contact, Mary Bellis inventors.guide AT 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.
Don't email the person above; she is only responsible for "inventors" section, and seems rather grumpy.Proyster 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
They have started mirroring the whole thing - see http://experts.about.com/e/a/index.htm. They seem to be compliant, albeit in a very discreet way.
They are putting a "copyright 2006 About.com" on the content--which (in my view) violates the terms. I find this extremely objectionable.Proyster 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) As of the current time, they do not display an About.com copyright, instead: "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia". AnonEMouse(squeak) 19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I emailed a complaint today regarding their page at http://experts.about.com/e/j/jo/Joshua_Scottow.htm and (a few hours later) the page now re-directs to the Wikipedia original page.Proyster 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at this mirror, I don't see any acknowledgement that the articles originally come from Wikipedia, or any history of contributions. FreplySpang 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No mention of Wikipedia or GFDL I saw before their obnoxious spyware?/adware? finally crashed my browser. John Reid ° 14:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I know an editor there, she definitely writes her own stuff. No adware/spyware at about.com either.
experts.about.com now redirects to en.allexperts.com Allexperts is a wikipedia mirror apparently owned by about.com
About.com (not url)
http://classiclit.about.com/cs/profileswriters/p/aa_mshelley.htm?terms=Mary+Shelley is a former version of Mary Shelley.
Varies from article to article. As mentioned above, some copyright it under themselves, others link right to
This one has a copyright on the bottom saying that it is copyright of About.com , a member of the New York Times Company.
classiclit.guide AT about.com is the email address to the specific guide of this page. The problem was mentioned above. To other people, I don't know.
Check this out though, it almost sounds like the "guide" claims she wrote the article: http://classiclit.about.com/mbiopage.htm
This website formerly violated the GFDL. I am uncertain whether they currently use Wikipedia articles. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/planets/Uranus.htm , for instance, is similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus but I haven't determine whether there's still copying. If you remove this entry, be sure to archive it.
No obvious sign of GFDL, copyrighted by website and no mention of wikipedia - http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Alice%27s_Restaurant_(film) L∴V 15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
"COPYRIGHT - AbsoluteAstronomy asserts its legal copyright for all original works of authorship or intellectual property published on AbsoluteAstronomy.com. You may not publish, modify, or transmit this content without express written permission from AbsoluteAstronomy"
This implies that AbsoluteAstronomy has copyright to the content on it's site, but mostly it doesn't. The vast majority of content on the site is copyrighted by wikipedia authors, and licensed to AbsoluteAstronomy under certain terms (GFDL I guess?), which include the right for others to 'publish, modify, and transmit' the content of the site. IMHO it's a bit misleading. Decora 23:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea whether they often crib from us, but the last paragraph of the cited sample page on "Archival Investigations: Early Electro-mechanical Sound Works and Artifacts from Trimpin’s First Five Years in Seattle" is a straight-out copy of the first two paragraphs of our article on Trimpin - Jmabel
Telephone: 740-587-3326, Fax: 740-587-4103
Email: help AT wwar.com or help AT absolutearts.com
Snail mail: World Wide Arts Resources; absolutearts.com; 3678 Loudon Street; Granville, Ohio 43023; USA
Only contains top edit in article history, looks to be a mirror of the WP database as of June 23, 2005. No links back to Wikipedia, no mention of Wikipedia as a source, GFDL is mentioned via its link to Wikipedia.
http://academickids.com/contact/index.htm lists jd4ga7 AT yaoo.com [sic] as the contact, WHOIS lists jd4ga AT classroomclipart.com, (310)832-5686.
Page bears all the licenses at the bottom, as it is a straight copy from Wikipedia, without any indication that you are actually not on Wikipedia anymore; it even contains a Login link at the upper right hand corner (which, thankfully, doesn't work).
Wikipedia pages are attributed to Wikipedia. At the bottom of every page that includes a Wikipedia article is reported: "Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..." and "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."
webmaster AT advantacell.com
Suffering from technical issues so little or no Wikipedia content Rumping 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC).
The contributor whose content was copied wrote to the webmaster and the content has been removed. There may be no future issues, but the listing here can be helpful in case the problem recurs. It is particularly important to document these issues in the event that they should continue and should become less obvious, to avoid our contributors being unfairly accused of copyright infringement. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Medium (generally compliant, where applicable, except for disclaimer of warranties)
Article on Africa is was an apparent copy-paste of our Sub-Saharan Africa article (starting with "Climate zones and ecoregions").
afropedeain AT gmail.com, afropedeaout AT gmail.com, bloowis AT netzero.com
2010-10-18: E-mailed standard CC-BY-SA violation letter to afropedeaout AT gmail.com and bloowis AT netzero.com
2010-10-25: Received response; website owner stated his intent to comply, but claimed to have created most of his webpage's content. Still no Wikipedia attribution.
2010-11-02: Sample page has since been blanked, other pages (e.g. https://sites.google.com/site/africanarchitecture/) still use (uncredited) Wikipedia content
2011-12-20: Site's African Architecture () and African Science and Technology () articles both credit Wikipedia.
A seeming verbatim copy of all Wikipedia. It does not seem to use remote loading except when it has no copy of the article. In other cases, it appears to refresh a cache occasionally. However, it does appear to load images remotely, which is unacceptable. This should be verified. Now has text "Source: this wikipedia article, under CC-BY-SA", with appropriate links, on every page.
Sent a letter to gmail address, mentioning CC-BY-SA. Superm401 - Talk 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
He replied stating, "But I do say all of those things on the bottom". I replied noting that the requirements had changed due to the licensing transition, and KForge (which I cited) is CC-BY-SA only. Superm401 - Talk 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
He replied, "so if I say CC-BY-Sa I will be fine?". I responded, "Generally yes, since all Wikipedia text is now available under CC-BY-SA.", with some further details. Superm401 - Talk 01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
He replied that it had been changed, and now seems compliant. Superm401 - Talk 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Administrative Contact: Adrian Agafitei, Calea Nationala nr. 67 Bl. J1, Botosani, BOTOSANI 710006, RO ( )745125530 adiaga AT gmail.com
Technical Contact: Administrator DNS, 1 N State Street, 12th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602, US (312)2362132 administrator AT siteprotect.com.
As I am not a contributor to any of the cat breed articles, I have not tried to contact the site. I did leave a note at Talk:Korat advising the contributors that they could contact the site to complain. Posted notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats. -- Donald Albury 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Contacting with letter 1, ST47Talk 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Contacted this one as well ST47Talk 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Upgraded to medium. Now mentions Wikipedia, no link to direct article. Gives link to Wikipedia version of GFDL. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Copies of many science and science-related articles (example: http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology)
Copies of every single Wikipedia article (Examples: http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Barry_Bonds Barry Bonds, http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/House_rules_of_Monopoly House Rules for Monopoly)
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* http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/copyright.html Copyright notice and http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/disclaimer.html 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)Update statement removed
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)
No, this site has every WP article. I linked examples above (http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Barry_Bonds Barry Bonds, http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/House_rules_of_Monopoly House Rules for Monopoly) -- Daniel Pritchard 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
MIT example says "The contents of this article is licensed from www.wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. Click here to see the transparent copy and copyright details"
Standard GFDL compliance request sent. Sancho 15:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
GFDL licensing information is now included on the web site, giving credit to Wikipedia and linking to the article. However, the GFDL is not hosted locally, but is a link to Wikipedia's GFDL page. I changed this site's compliance rating to Medium. Sancho 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
At least one Telenovela plot summery has been lifted straight from the Wikipedia article (see sample). I believe that the Wikipedia article came first because its evolution is visible in the edit history.
Amazon.com books by mass production publishers
Amazon books published by Betascript, authors Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, and Susan F. Marseken
http://www.amazon.de/Sachiko-M-Lambert-M-Surhone/dp/613110610X/ as just one of over 80.000 articles by this author
The abstract is taken from the Wikipedia article Sachiko Matsubara with no attribution. This is not just a single incident, but a massive misuse of Wikipedia material. The publisher advertises "High Quality content by WIKIPEDIA articles [sic]!" on the book covers. It is a books-on-demand publisher.
States twice: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia with 2 links to GFDL at gnu.org, link to avoo.com wiki main page and link to en.Wikipedia main page
got a mail from one sysop of animefanwiki. The problem may be solved soon. --22.214.171.124 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (don-kun)
once more, GDFL oder wikipedia is not mentioned . No solution found in Diskussion in the forum . They have no will to mention GNU or wikipedia. What to do? --126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (don-kun)
They acknowledge Wikipedia and note that the content is under the GFDL. There are links to the original articles, as well as to a local copy of the GFDL. Each article has an automatic list of misspellings of the title. Update: the site seems no longer to mirror Wikipedia at all. 08:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
domains AT quigibo.com (whois), legal-response AT theplanet.com
Copy of Wikipedia article seen was a much earlier version which suggests that Answers.com may not be able to cope with Wikipedia's "ongoing editing" format. The unsuspecting visitor to Answers.com has no means of knowing this. Nor does this help Wikipedia's image. A mere external link on Answers.com rather than the article in full would be more satisfactory. Portress 19:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, they might do some kind of fact checking on the article version they mirror. But they should mention the date of the last edit on the article they mirrored and mention that the article could have undergone further changes since then. --L33tminion(talk) 17:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
They have started making "Answer Notes". These are shortened versions of Wikipedia articles (and possibly other content). At least one of them is a derivative work of the below Wikipedia article. This is certain because the first sentence is an exact copy. However, it is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Others are probably also illegal deriviative works. Hence, they are now at medium compliance. I have sent a violation letter. Superm401 20:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Rather than license the note under the GFDL, they rewrote it to attempt to stop it from being a derivative work. I suspect that other notes are derivative works, so I'm keeping it at medium. Superm401 18:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Image pages now appear to display copyright correctly. See, e.g., . Are there any concrete objections at this point? Slow mirroring isn't a valid compliance issue, and I don't see any concrete examples of pirated AnswerNotes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
In the Absolute Power page above, the content appears to have been kept up-to-date with our version, including the image, which is also identical. There is a large bar at the top of the page including the Wikipedia logo and name, and their framing of the image looks distinctly familiar. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
ARCHAEOLOGICS.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com, DBP AT domainsbyproxy.com (webmaster listed in dns), noc AT godaddy.com/abuse AT godaddy.com (isp admin)
sent "Letter for website that doesn't acknowledge Wikipedia as a source" to first address. 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
sent reminder letter to first address. 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Third letter sent. No change or reply. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
NOTE - someone needs to finish the final step for this domain (the DMCA takedown notice). The reason is: this fork is very old and I am a fairly new editor so none of the material on the fork infringes on any of my copyrights. An older editor needs to look through their old (2005?) original contributions and find it on this site before a takedown notice could be sent. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Link text "Wikipedia" (redirected) to corresponding Wikipedia page, and a link to a local copy of the GFDL. However, both links are impossible to distinguish from regular text except on hover (because of CSS). Also, they have pidepikiw instead of Wikipedia in the source, then reverse it with a CSS hack; I consider this a dirty trick and it shows up as pidepikiW with CSS disabled (though the links become more obvious). They also have nofollow on both links.
a_rikah AT fastmail.fm (webmaster) ipnet AT layeredtech.com (isp admin) domain.tech AT yahoo-inc.com (dns admin)
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)
Not functioning as described in examples 23:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No mention of GNU FDL either on individual pages or on http://www.armageddononline.org/disclaimer.php (site disclaimer and legal information).
Some pages contain links to original article and/or Wikipedia:Copyrights (eg, http://www.armageddononline.org/comet_shoemaker-levy_9.php, but not all of them (eg http://www.armageddononline.org/worldwar3.php, http://www.armageddononline.org/biowarfare.php). Appears to be haphazard.
http://www.armageddononline.org/contact.php says "All articles on Armageddon Online were written exclusively for Armageddon Online and may not be used under any circumstances with out explicit permission from the administration."
amazingbible AT verizon.net, http://www.armageddononline.org/contactadmin.php, http://www.armageddononline.org/contactwebmaster.php
Sent tweaked standard violation letter to amazingbible AT verizon.net. Superm401 - Talk 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
They have a feature called "embeds". If someone links to Wikipedia in a comment, it will have an option, "show embeds". If you click this, it includes a significant chunk of the Wikipedia article. They could argue fair use, but I think it may not be when done on a consistent basis. It has the Wikipedia logo, the text "Wikipedia", and the full URL (which is also a link). However, there is no mention of the CC-BY-SA.
States that it is an "art history encyclopedia," but contains articles on subjects unrelated to art.Seahen 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Achalmeena has been inserting spam links to this site in wikipedia and claims that industrial.org is his website. The top level of the domain http://188.8.131.52/ identifies itself as software.org, with the contact details of root AT industrialsoft.org. Whois doesn't return the users name (Achal Meena), but ??
Every page has a Copyright citations section at the bottom. "It says This article is licensed under the GNU License", with GNU license linking to an off-site copy of the GFDL. The next line is " Click here for original article: ABBA". The article name links back to Wikipedia. At the very bottom it says "Copyright 2007, iCubator Labs, LLC, All Rights Reserved."
corporate AT artistopia.com (WHOIS), http://www.artistopia.com/About-Us/Contact.asp
Contains a list at the bottom of every article of (computer-generated) misspellings of the title, each one of which links to a subpage identical to the parent (which contains the copy of the article, of course), probably in order to rank high on Google searches.
Does not handle the interwiki or category links properly, which causes a load of rubbish to appear at the end of every article (apart from the aforementioned list of misspellings) - see, for example, http://richard-stallman.ask.dyndns.dk/. --Fibonacci 05:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Now redirects to empty web directory --Rumping 09:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a text notice saying "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article" (the actual name of the article does not appear). There is no link to the original article or the GFDL and they do not include the history section. All instances of Wikipedia are changed to AskFactMaster.com (e.g. http://askfactmaster.com/?title=Wikipedia) but there is no history section entry for this change.
Now links to GFDL at gnu.org 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
support AT lukol.com, abuse AT sagonet.com (host)
Emailed support AT top-greetings.com asking for a plain-text notice with links to the GFDL and original article. I also asked for replacements (Wikipedia->AskFactMaster.com) to be reversed (or a history section entry added). Superm401 - Talk 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Received reply stating "I'll address the issues you mentioned in details within several days and will get back to you." Superm401 - Talk 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Sent followup asking that GFDL be hosted locally and that he link to actual article not main page. Superm401 - Talk 00:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Site takes some text and tables from Wikipedia articles on television and radio technology in the UK, no GFDL mention or links. GFDL violation became apparent after a suspected copyright violation discussion, with evidence on the Birdsong (digital radio channel) talk page.
Site links back to specific Wikipedia articles in a few cases, but most Wikipedia links are generic, and all together absent in some articles. Notice appears licensing all contributed content under GFDL, with link to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1.
help AT wikispaces.com (for the hosting site, only email I could find)
email address office AT azplayers.com is shown. whois says domain is registered to Nicolae Adrian Chirica, email nachirica AT gmail.com, phone +40.744992325, post Sos. Barajului nr.22 bl.1 sc.D et.3 ap.13, Tulcea, 820222, RO. Hosted on IP address 184.108.40.206, whois says this is Sago Networks, reverse DNS says delta.fastbighost.com
Reply received, they have added links back to Wikipedia source articles. I've thanked them for doing that promptly, and have explained that they should also mention the GFDL, and have provided sample text. From the email they sent me, I don't think there should be a problem sorting it out. -- AJR - Talk 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Currently links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article --Rumping 09:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.backgammon.co.uk/strategies.htm (only article I can find)
Does not link to enwiki article, but has GFDL notice.
info AT backgammon.co.uk
The site uses an image I created, licensed under the GPL. I sent an email stating that the page should note the GPL license of the image, and the GFDL license of the article. I included links to the licenses at gnu.org and a link to Backgammon.
4 October2006: Webmaster replied to my email noting the updated copyright notice.
You may freely contribute to this article using the authoring tools provided at the article's source, Wikipedia.org, sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition, this article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you may copy and modify it as long as the entire work, including your additions, remains under this license. Iraq Museum International always displays the most recent published revision of the article; all previous versions may be viewed here.
In addition, the paragraph above includes the article title and a link to the Wikipedia article itself, the GNU Free Documentation License, and to the history of the article on Wikipedia.
A site-wide copyright notice -- which may have been misinterpreted by Wikipedians as a claim on the Wikipedia article appearing on a particular page -- has now been dropped altogether on all the Wikipedia pages. (Wikipedia articles can link to pages protected under US Copyright law, but do comments and sidebars added outside a Wikipedia article on the same webpage count as additions under the GNU License? In other words, if a Wikipedia article appears on a web page and Gore Vidal writes an essay about the Wikipedia article just below it, can the essay be copyrighted?) On the BaghdadMuseum/Iraq Museum International site, where the copyright notice used to be is now the statement: "The Iraq Museum International Open Encyclopedia is offered to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License" with yet another link to the GNU Free Documentation License.
Yes, they're better than most. However, I'd still like to see a direct link to the original Wikipedia article. I think that's reasonable, given how generous we are in interpreting some GFDL provisions(like what's a "modified work", including our copyright notice, 5 original authors, history...). I sent an email asking for a direct link today. Superm401 | Talk 01:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
There are now direct links for the original article, editing the original article, and the article's history. The GFDL link is to the FSF copy, but I don't think that's really an issue. Superm401 | Talk 20:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
No mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL. Excerpts of various ticket-related articles are used.
info AT barrystickets.com, (800) 928-7199 (818) 990-8499 FAX (818) 990-5433, Technical Contact: Katz, Randy randyk AT CCSALES.COM, (213)307-9581 fax: 123 123 1234; Administrative Contact: Rudin, Barry info AT BARRYSTICKETS.COM, 818 990-8499; IP=220.127.116.11 = Broadwing Communications
Sent standard violation notice to info AT barrystickets.com. Superm401 - Talk 08:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Received autoreply with only text "test info AT barrystickets.com"
Example Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/nh3n/ a version of the Rolling Stones article; and many more
Disclaimers at the end of the articles state that "This entry is from Wikipedia, the user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you find the biography content factually incorrect, defamatory or highly offensive you can edit this article at Wikipedia" with links to Wikipedia home, the GFDL at gnu.org, and the Wikipedia article.
Comment at http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/faqs#why_is_the_bbc_using_wikipedia
We know that many people using our website would like to find out more about artists, and basic biographical information is one of the key things that people expect to find on our pages. We feel that we provide best value to the licence fee payer by concentrating our resources on providing great original content (mainly through broadcast) and making it easy to find that content on the web. Biographies are a standardised type of content that are expected across thousands of artists. Wikipedia offers good quality biographies with very good coverage across artists. There are two good reasons to use this content rather than recreating similar content in-house or sourcing it from a commercial supplier:
It's available under the GNU Free Documentation Licence, which means not only is there no licensing cost to the licence-fee payer for this text, but it is freely available to all our users to use and share in turn.'
It's editable by anyone. This may seem like a mixed blessing, but the entire Wikipedia model is a living demonstration that openness to user contribution and amendment tends to improve content over the long term and not vice versa.
Note: looks like it may be mirroring the site by crawling, since it handles section edit links poorly and has specific error pages indexed all over the place where the crawler has tried to follow them wrong (this is a mirror, so of course no actual vehicle for editing).
This is a mirror as of June 23, 2005 that has apparently had minor forking since then. However, almost all instances of Wikipedia have been changed, even in people's talk comments. This makes it a modified version, and these modifications have not been specifically mentioned on page history. Also, the GFDL specifically states that "The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version." However, the bottom of every page states, "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2.", with a local link to the GFDL. With images, it also says "This document originates in his first or later version from the English Wikipedia. You can find it there under the keyword (ARTICLE). The list of previous authors is available here: (link to Wikipedia's history of ARTICLE). ... This text falls under the same license (GFDL). Additions to biocrawler (starting from 23.6.05 will be doubly licensed under the GFDL and CC-by-sa)." Without images, it also has simple links to Wikipedia, the original history, and Wikipedia's copy of the GFDL.
Sent letter requesting correction of these issues. Superm401 - Talk 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Received apparently form reply that didn't address complaints. It ranted about things like "Biocrawler being a fork, you can edit pages yourself." and "Please edit each page being aware that this is a biological Wiki." The closest it came to addressing the fraud and improper page history was "There is a full detailed disclaimer on every page stating the source of each article, and the history of each page." I replied asking for a direct response to the real issues. Superm401 - Talk 06:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Received response noting that another Wikipedian told him to replace all mentions of Wikipedia with Biocrawler. Said he would fix it if I demonstrated consensus here that my advice was correct. I referred him to Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks#Weird. Superm401 - Talk 01:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Site does copy wholesale biography articles from English wikipedia. It does not provide information of the source of the articles, it does not give attribution to authors or link to wikipedia history page, the site does not acknowledge that content sourced from wikipedia is licensed under GFDL.
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)
No information about articles being copied from Wikipedia, imposes its own weird license called Biolicense. The site states: "Biolicense is a license scheme to enable human beings and machines to openfreely share information and knowledge for limitless number of purposes. It is a license that tries to protect information and knowledge from being exclusively owned by limited number of classes, races, and economic groups in the world. It also aims to maximize human creativity and entrepreneurship." Also see http://biolicense.org/index.php/Biolicense.net:About The site seems to be a part of some spammer's link farm. See its links to other sites.
admin phone and email from whois: +82.01077996754 (Korean number); firstname.lastname@example.org
No mention of GFDL. Claims copyright. No links to original article or mention of Wikipedia. No history section. Contains copies of the old wiki entries.
Apparently related to gamelow.com, which infringes similarly and has the same graphics.
BIZGOS.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com
Sent standard violation letter. Superm401 - Talk 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"Low/None" compliance with GFDL (matches Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance).
Does not mention GFDL. Claims copyright. No links to original article or mention of Wikipedia.
Michael Gordon, email@example.com, 727-592-9400, ISP is magnetic.com
Sent standard violation letter. Jigen III (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As of April 2010, the text remains on the Blastgard website. I sent an email with the standard violation letter to firstname.lastname@example.org. -- Gyrofrog(talk) 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Has notice, "User Bits and Wikipedia articles licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. The wikipedia articles uses material from the Wikipedia article name.". However, this links to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/article_name" (i.e. that actual URL, unsubstituted), and an offsite GFDL.
At http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html, they make it clear that they will consider only complaints sent to them on paper or by fax. Kind of amazing: this is Google, and they provide no online means to complain when they plagiarize. And the wording on that page is very belligerent: "Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/ for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees."
Fax number is 650-618-2680, Attn: Blogger Legal Support, DMCA Complaints. I think someone should follow this up, and also Wikimedia Foundation, who I understand have some working relationships with Google, should ask about setting up a procedure to streamline it when their bloggers plagiarize us so blatantly.
Further examples from Blogspot are listed on the talk page, to document other Blogspot users' WP usage without messing up the format above.
Brief mention of Wikipedia on homepage, copied articles lack attribution. [EDIT]: On their sources page (linked at the bottom) they cite "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Data from Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL". There are no backlinks to the Wikipedia article, there is a notice at the bottom 'Copyright 2010, Discovery Media'.
http://bookonlinesale.com/ and http://booksonlinesale.com
http://bookonlinesale.com/258082_edgar-prestage_1131743628lettersofaportuguesenundiscountbookstores.html and http://www.booksonlinesale.com/623250_margaret-mitchell_113517007xautantenemporteleventbookreportforfree.html
Includes text "This artikel <ARTICLENAME> is licensed under the GNU free Documentation License. There is a list of authors available. You can edit this article if you like. " The article name links to the original wikipedia article, "GNU" links to the GNU's copy of the GFDL, Authors links to the history tab, and edit links to the edit page. However, on some pages none of these links are colored or formatted distinctly from normal text (until you hover over them); thus, it is hard to tell they can be clicked.
INFO AT 100000BOOKS.COM (whois), http://www.cd-music.org/mailform.php (contact form), info AT server4you.de (host)
"Wikipedia Introduction": http://booksllc.net/book.cfm?id=3744759 Sample title and summary on Amazon:. Google Books search:
The website states that "Paperbacks marked "OCR" may have numerous typos or missing text. Other paperbacks contain Wikipedia content." The FAQ states that: "All content cam [sic] from Wikipedia. Please check the book's Publication page, Introduction and the end of each chapter for further details. For example, you can click the hyperlink at the end of any chapter and then click the history tab to see a list of each chapter's contributors. Our license with Wikipedia is at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0"
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 VSD and/or authors Ronald Cohn and Jesse Russell, but the article content is still copyrighted. See also VDM Publishing.
Articles end with "borgfind.com, 2005. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Albania"" with links to local GFDL and to original article. Redirects from geeks.dnip.net, e.g. http://albania.geeks.dnip.net/
Examples not loading Wikipedia content --Rumping 16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Like the section above: mentions Wikipedia and license, but has clearly incorrect info as well, like "It uses material from the Wikipedia article " USA"" More worryingly, this looks to be a live mirror, which is normally not allowed. Fram (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Mentions Wikipedia, which leads to this explanation: "This is a static mirror of the wikipedia site. It exists for the purpose of testing experimental interfaces, made for wikipedia. It is my own project. I am using wikipedia content to gather anonymous user navigation behavior as a statistical sample for a centroid cluster based recommendation system" No links to the original article.
As of 09:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
~tpryor appears to no longer exist --Rumping 16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems to combine links to ads and other non-wikipedia content with links to related articles on bopedia, which in turn has proper compliance info. This is the result of a brief look, however. DES(talk) 21:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Research requested.JesseW 22:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
No longer has any content - just domain parking --Rumping 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Home page gives 403 Forbidden as of 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
domain.names AT xplore.com (whois), service84 AT brainyquote.com (customer service email)
Standard complaint letter, modified to include request to remove copyright claim and request for link back to individual articles, sent to domain registrant (as found via whois) and customer service (as found using Inquire link in the drop down menu on their pages) on 12 November 2006 by User:WAvegetarian
Example now states "This article uses material from the Wikipedia article "Telectronics"" with link to original article --Rumping 16:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Example now links to broken code with no indication of wikipedia content --Rumping 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Address info AT brassbandinformation.co.uk is mentioned. WHOIS says very little:
Registrant: Carl Wilkinson
Registrant type: UK Individual
Registrant's address: The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.
Registrar: GX Networks Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG] URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk
Looks like a parked domain advertising page at first sight. Filled with ads. No good purpose for existence. This, that and the other[talk] 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that site is compliant. However I have only imported one article as above and request that someone more up to speed with this advise whether current efforts are acceptable. Thanks in advance Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.britain.tv/articles/publish/ and http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php
http://www.britain.tv/articles/publish/parliament_house_of_commons.shtml from British House of Commons and http://www.britain.tv/articles/publish/belly_dance_belly_dancing_music.shtml from Belly Dance and http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php?title=Philippines.
A separate mirror has also been created. This is located at http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php. An example is http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php?title=Philippines. Articles in this section clearly note that Wikipedia is the source. They say "extracted from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" with a link to the Wikipedia main page; Wikipedia also appears prominently elsewhere on the page. However, there is no link to Wikipedia or the GFDL, and "Copyright (c) 2006 Britain.tv All rights reserved" appears at the bottom in a graphic.
As of 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC), this second set (/wikipedia.php) appears to be dead.
webmaster AT elite-media.co.uk
I sent an email asking that the ad hoc copies in the article section be removed outright, and explained how to make the articles in the Wikipedia section GFDL-compliant. Superm401 - Talk 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sent followup to webmaster AT elite-media.co.uk . Superm401 - Talk 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sent a final notice to webmaster AT elite-media.co.uk - Localzuk(talk) 12:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost completely copy and pasted from the Tabitha and Napoleon article here on wikipedia but not written verbatim. It's written in the author's own words but clearly all the information is taken from wikipedia with no attribution at all. It's even in the same arrangement (early life, career, directing, married life) but without the section headings.
email: vlado AT thracetech.com and andrewiliu AT yahoo.com
phone number +1.2068594180
Full WhoIs summary here
No mention of the GFDL or Wikipedia on individual pages. On the About page, it says "Copyright: much of Bvio contents are directly from Wikipedia that follows GNU license." but there is still no link to the GFDL, even there. Website is badly mirrored, with misparsed formatting and broken images.
Still non-compliant as of April 2006. Any WP content there is badly outdated ( is marked "last updated 2004", for instance) and provides no attribution as to the origin of the text. --carlb 15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Still non-compliant as of July 2006. - Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Should be non-compliant since nothing seems to have changed. --Puzzlet Chung 23:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Bvio has been erroneously listed on the GFDL compliance page as a former user of Wikipedia content. Since it still uses our content, I've reclassified it. Lurker (said·done) 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Gives database error as of 00:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
biopark AT kaist.ac.kr
He said he'll comply with our interpretation of the GFDL for derivative works. Let's give him some time to do so. Superm401 - Talk 20:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I've sent another email asking for a notice and link on every page. Superm401 - Talk 20:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Calendar of historical events births holidays and observances is an e-book published by MobileReference for use on mobile devices. The URL links to Google books' incomplete copy. A complete copy has to be purchased from a commercial supplier.
Medium, judging from the Google books copy. Precise degree of compliance is difficult to evaluate without buying a commercial copy
The licensing information provided on the "back cover" acknowledges that material from Wikipedia has been used, and that this material is licensed under the GFDL, although it also wrongly implies that this material is also "public domain". However, it also asserts "all rights reserved" over the work as a whole, whereas the GFDL requires that the whole of any modification of a work licensed under it—which is what this is—must also be licensed under the same licence or a substantially similar version.
A copy of the GFDL licence doesn't appear to be included anywhere in the publication, as required by the terms of that licence, although a link to an on-line copy of the licence appears to be provided with the licensing information. The licensing information includes an apology for not listing all the authors of the Wikipedia material, and asserts that these can be seen "by following the hyperlink at the bottom of each article". As far as is possible to tell from the Google books copy, such links do appear regularly throughout the the publication, but it doesn't appear to be possible to use the Google books copy to check that these links work and do in fact point to the proper articles.
States: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Partial differential equation". In the Wikipedia, a list of the autors/history is available."
Articles state towards top that "Portions of the summary below have been contributed by Wikipedia." but fails to identify the readers rights nor link back to Wikipedia. As an example the sample URL contains content that is word-for-word identical to this diff  which I do not believe is WP:COPYVIO. The text at the bottom says that "Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information." which is wrong as Wikipedia is not published originally in print form.
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)
update - Doesn't seem to be using wikipedia content any longer. \Rexruff
update - I am the owner of campusprogram.com and only removed the wikipedia mirror because I believed I was not in compliance and that it was generally frowned upon. There are 1000's of backlinks that now go to a 404 page which is a shame. Any advice would be appreciated.
I've told him by email that he was complying perfectly, and he has expressed interest in setting up the mirror again. I referred him to some information on how to do so. Superm401 | Talk 20:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
No authors or dates are listed. Medium compliance. Uncle G 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Low compliance with GFDL (matches Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance). Full compliance.
Has a note at the bottom of article, which includes several photos from wikipedia, that says "courtesy of Wikipedia" with a link to our main page. No GFDL, no link to the article (dog agility), no clarification that both text & photos come from there--and they have their own copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Have link back to article, GFDL text, and link to gnu.org copyleft page.
Patricia Hunter is owner, cannot find email or phone number of admin and ISP. Patricia's company's phone number (UK: 01608 73 83 77) is on their web site, along with snail-mail address. April 4, got response from info (at) canineconcepts (dot) co.uk, signed Peter Hunter.
01:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC), emailing standard letter from Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter using GFDL letter for site that doesn't acknowldge WP (since compliance is so minimal). Used their form-based emailer since that seemed to be the only way to get them email. User:Elf . April 4, 2006: They revised this page and are in full compliance. Note: I have not checked their site for other wikipedia-source articles. User:Elf
Has a note at the bottom of article (which includes photos from wikipedia), that says "courtesy of thefreedictionary" with a link to their main page. No GFDL, no link to the article (dog agility), no clarification that both text & photos come from there--and they have their own copyright notice at the bottom of the page. (freedictionary is a wikipedia mirror)
info (at) canineconcepts (dot) co.uk, signed Peter Hunter.
4 April 2006 (UTC), sent nice email about breed articles in reponse to his fix of the agility article (above). User:Elf
Doesn't give credit or link back to WP; claims copyright by prominently adding THEIR copyright directly onto each photo
caninecrib AT caninecrib.com, legal AT crystaltech.com (host DMCA)
Sent email Dec 2, 2005, have received no response & n othing seems to have changed. Elf - Talk 23:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Have just sent another email using the standard wikipedia gfdl & linking text as recommended on this page's main page. Elf - Talk 23:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Just sent 3rd warning using standard 2nd warning modified with note about takedown notice if they don't comply, with list of some specific photos (there are too many on their site to list individually if I don't really have to go through the whole thing! but one can start comparing their photos to what we have posted at Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs). Sent again to caninecrib AT caninecrib.com. Elf - Talk 01:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Update: Just got this email (email address syntax edited by me):
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:19:47 -0700
Subject: re: invalid use of Wikipedia material on your site
From: "CanineCrib" <caninecrib(at)caninecrib(dot)com>
Apologise for the late reply. Photos were sent to me via the public.
I will go through them and take them ones that are from wikipedia
That page is dynamic and displays different versions at random on each load. Three of the versions contain quotes or very close paraphrases from Wikipedia articles Paper, Book, and ISBN. The only credit is "[Source: Wikipedia.com]". No GFDL information, no link, and entire site purports to be covered by a license that seems very much incompatible with GFDL: .
Example failed to load --Rumping 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Examples failed to load. Main page www.caribbean-forum.com said "Lo sentimos, este sitio web está temporalmente cerrado" i.e. "Sorry, this website is temporarily closed" --Rumping 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Strangely, if a search term is appended to the URL of a celebrity, and the search term happens to be the name of a Wikipedia article, then you get the celebrities page in the browser but with the biography replaced with a mirror of the named Wikipedia article. States it is extracted from Wikipedia but no GFDL, link to original or original authors.
If you have any questions, please contact us at celebrityfuzz [at] gmail [dot] com
No mention of Wikipedia or GFDL. Pages copied verbatim from Wikipedia.
No contact details listed on site. Whois lists contact as Ian Hawkins of AcornSearch, ian AT acornsearch.com, with a UK postal address & mobile phone number. Webhost appears to be Easynet, who publish an abuse contact email on their website & in whois.
I don't know what the term for this is, but it's basically link spam, they try to attract every search engine match possible to their link pages. That particular page rips off content from Limb darkening. There are lots more on that group of sites. No wikipedia credit or gfdl mention whatsoever. Actually the several that I looked at all use Sun-related snippets. Weird.
Wikipedia content not obvious in example --Rumping 17:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
http://www.zgxl.net/eng/health/humanbody/dna.htm, http://www.zgxl.net/eng/health/humanbody/rna.htm (RNA version copied), http://www.zgxl.net/eng/health/disease/infectiousdiseases/meningitis.htm
fundset AT hotmail.com (whois), abuse AT jsinfo.net (host), shanghai AT hichina.com (ISP/nameserver)
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?:
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)
Sent followup to cpo AT 163.net. Superm401 - Talk 00:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Partial. Some articles credit Wikipedia, some do not
admin AT citizendium.org
At 14/07/2009 I sent the standard letter about the article Chess. SyG
At 25/07/2009 I sent a follow-up letter. SyG
At 27/07/2009 I received a letter from "email@example.com" saying they had started a discussion on their forum at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2787.15/topicseen.html and they added a mention on Wikipedia on their "Chess" article. SyG
At 01/08/2009 I checked that the link to WP was in their "Chess" article indeed, and I sent a reply saying thank you (among other things). SyG
has a policy that articles that take content from wikipedia should credit but not all do. Situation with images worse. However the site is new so it is to be expected they will take some time to find their feet. No action taken at this time.
Actually, they are now widely violating the GFDL and they explicitly intend to do so according to their founder on their forums. Last I looked, their plans were not yet finalized but they were bouncing between either taking Wikipedia content and calling it cc-by-nc or calling Wikipedia content GFDL and keeping CZ originated articles as CC-by-nc with the explicit intention of using a non-free-content license to avoid any cooperation with Wikipedia (from whom they take a significant amount of content). Their frequent copying of images from commons, even in approved articles, with zero attribution or license data is especially troubling. --Gmaxwell 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Where on their forums do they explicitly say that they intend on violating the GFDL? I checked out this topic on the GFDL but I couldn't find what you are talking about. I saw something on CC-by-NC-SA: is that the same as CC-by-nc? Even if it is the same, how does CC-by-nc violate the GFDL? I'm only asking because I don't know. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am of course not a lawyer, but it does seem re-releasing GFDL under CC-by-nc might require a day in court at some point. But that may be okay. We don't really know what the GFDL means until such a time, nor the interoperability between the GFDL and any CC licenses. A "day in court" could be a considerable societal good.
That's reply #3 in above mentioned thread. The idea is then re-inforced several times in that thread, also by Larry Sanger. But it's only one of many alternatives discussed there.
In very small print: "(Source: wikipedia.org)" The text "wikipedia.org" links to www.wikipedia.org. Does same thing for some pages taken from IMDb. No mention of GFDL. Claims copyright at bottom of page. On its "disclaimer" page, it quotes U.S. copyright law on fair use.
Admin: webmaster AT classictvhits.com 978-886-2357 ISP: domains AT ev1servers.net 713-333-7873
Book's copyright page mentions Wikimedia Commons as the source of the images, but there is no mention of the GFDL. The text is clearly stolen from a variety of articles related to Manchester United F.C. but no mention of Wikipedia is made.
I attempted to email the company using the email address on their website, but I immediately received a failed email notice. I have also submitted a copyright (or copyleft) infringement notice to Amazon.
Absolutely false copyright claim on Wikipedia data, inappropriate usage of Wikipedia Trademark as logo
http://wikipedia.cognition.com/info/tos.html Ownership of Materials Materials are copyrighted and are protected by worldwide copyright laws and treaty provisions. They may not be copied, reproduced, modified, published, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, without Cognition Technologies' prior written permission.
Site features numerous comedian profiles; all four I checked were cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia articles with minor editing. Pamela Stephenson article includes material written by me. Comedy Zone notices claim copyright to site content, no mention of Wikipedia, GFDL, or link to source. I checked threefour more comedian profiles at random, and all were simply cut-and-pastes of corresponding Wikipedia articles with some abridgement.
ray.chapman AT comedy-zone.net (registrant whois), hostmaster AT POSITIVE-INTERNET.COM (technical whois), good AT positive-internet.com (host email listed on their site)
Sent copy of PD letter (modified to note the other pages besides the one I contributed to) to technical contact with request that they pass on on to Mr/Ms Chapman. --Calair 00:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sent followup letter to ray.chapman AT comedy-zone.net. Superm401 - Talk 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Still non-compliant more than a year later, http://www.comedy-zone.net/standup/comedian/s/smirnoff-yakov.htm does make it appear that in Soviet Russia, copyright violates YOU!! --carlb (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Notes that material ("information" as the site says) is from Wikipedia, with link to original article and main page (at top and bottom of article respectively) and links to local copy of the GFDL. Specifically disclaims copyright of Wikipedia material in copyright section (with another local link to the GFDL). Authors and dates are not listed.
jrutherfordmd AT hotmail.com (whois), support AT oar.net (host)
Sent letter asking for a direct link to article, on-site GFDL, and no claim of copyright. Superm401 - Talk 02:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Received reply stating "I am forwarding this to my webmaster, who only works on this in his frre [sic] time, to make corrections. We will stay in touch and follow-up." Superm401 - Talk 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The site uses Wikipedia (and Wikibooks) content about cooking, kitchen appliances, diets, ect (all of their recipes come from Wikibooks). They provide a link to the text of the GFDL at the GNU's site, and to the Wikipedia Main Page, but not to specific articles (and make no reference to Wikibooks at all).
I received a reply from Chris Anstey, letting me know that the links have been changed to the relevant articles, and wikibooks content is now properly attributed. Gentgeen 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think I would call them medium compliance overall, slightly higher compliance with respect to Wikipedia, and slightly lower in respect to Wikibooks.
Changing to high compliance, after checking the site. Gentgeen 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Standard letter (modified to include Wikibooks issues) sent on January 5 by Gentgeen
Received reply January 15, 2005. Gentgeen 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No authors or dates listed. Medium compliance. Uncle G 11:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Like #Algebra.com, it looks like a nearly complete copy of Wikipedia from May 18. Links to the corresponding Wikipedia articles and notes that each article is licensed under the GFDL at the bottom of each page. However, it appears to be dynamically fetched, which is a major drain on Wikipedia resources. See for instance http://www.cooldictionary.com/words/Portal:Current%20events.wikipedia.
Notified wikitech-l about dynamic loading. Superm401 - Talk 01:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
States: 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. The source of this article is Wikipedia and a list of the authors can be found here. with broken links failing to reach GFDL at gnu.org, original article and history
The above sample is a slightly amended and shortened version of the Wikipedia article Bowling machine. No mention is made of GFDL or Wikipedia. I found two other examples: , a significant portion of which is lifted, with only minor re-wording, from Hawk-Eye and , which consists of a few extracts from Hot Spot (cricket). These pages aren't complete copies of whole articles, but they are clearly derived from them and consist mainly of shortened and slightly modified extracts. At the foot of every page it says "This blog copyright � 2008 Cricket Updates. All Rights Reserved"