No mention of GFDL. Claims copyright with all rights reserved. No links to original article or mention of Wikipedia. No history section. Copies of Wikipedia articles date to approximately the first quarter of 2006.
Fork of Wikipedia designed for gaming. Everything (including original content) is licensed under GFDL. This is noted at the bottom of every page, with link to offsite GFDL. Articles using Wikipedia include text "This article uses source material obtained from Wikipedia, as well as links to main page and original article.
No mention of GFDL. Claims copyright with all rights reserved. No links to original article or mention of Wikipedia. No history section. Moonlightchest have other Wikipedia stuff that appears to be equally non-compliant but I have not looked at it in detail.
States (in very fine print) "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Link to Wikipedia is broken (en.wikipedia.org/title/Albania rather than correct en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania). Links to gnu.org copy of GFDL
*webmaster AT geekopedia.ipupdater.com
admin AT ev1.net (ISP)
Asked webmaster AT geekopedia.ipupdater.com for fixed article and link and local GFDL. Superm401 - Talk 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Pages link to page mentioning GFDL, has local copy of GFDL. Does not mention or link to Wikipedia. Does not list or link to original history/authors.
Page updated 19-Feb-2009, so that it now mentions GFDL & links to that GNU.org license page, and now identifies the Wikipedia article as an origin. Still does not list or directly link to original history/authors. --Zigger«º» 04:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes confuses talk pages with real pages (see www.geodatabase.de/mozilla). In other cases, correctly links to original article, page history, and edit page (albeit all through tracking redirects) and a local copy of the GFDL.
They say (at bottom of page) "(...as imported from WP) article has not been saved locally". "About" page http://getwiki.net/-about says "GetWiki imports articles via XML from Wikipedia, Wikinfo, and SourceWatch, among others." They do say on http://getwiki.net/-GetMeta:Copyrights "The default imported contributions assumes GNU FDL terms", and that links to a copy of the GNU FDL, but it appears not to be linked from individual article pages.
Book, not a website: I wasn't sure where/how else to report this. Only bears an "all rights reserved" copyright notice. No credit to (nor mention of) Wikipedia, no mention of CC nor GFDL licenses. Some of the book's content does not appear (and from what I could tell, never did appear) in Wikipedia but other portions are verbatim copies. See also:Talk:Aissawa#Article issues.
Contacted Google to note that about this book page displays Jan 1, 2007 while actual book contents say "First Edition, 2009". This is important because the content was added August 4, 2007. Superm401 - Talk 19:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"Spiritual Value of Social Charity", in which the first visible page of text - apparently written by the publisher themselves - is a direct copy of "History and philosophy of social work in India" (published by somebody else, decades earlier).
A randomly chosen sentence from "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Sanskrit Literature" also appears in a 1996 book from a different source: 
"Nuclear weapons and national security: emerging challenges for Asia" copies extensively from 
A randomly chosen sentence from "21st Century India : View and Vision " also appears in a 2003 book from a different source: 
The first sentences of "Rāvaṇa and Laṅkā",  nominally written by R.K. Ramakrishnan, is copied from "India in the Rāmāyaṇa age: a study of the social and cultural conditions in ancient India as described in Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa", published 1967 
"Basics of guidance and counselling" appears to copy from a 1984 book by a different Indian publisher which in turn copies from the 1965 "Testing for Teachers".
"Role models in management (leadership and communication)" copies from "Effective Leadership" by Adair
Page: www.goddessflight.com/biorhythm/biorhythms_explained.php shortened copy of Biorhythm
States: "Excerpt above is from The Global Oneness Commitment at www.experiencefestival.com/a/Biorhythm/" though www.experiencefestival.com/a/Biorhythm_-_The_basic_theory/id/617210 would be a better link (see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Def#experiencefestival)
Doesn't seem clear to me. If there's copying from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, they probably both borrowed from the CCEL.org version; I caught this (and credited the source) in the Philipp Melanchthon article. Joelwest 01:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It seems clear to everyone else but you. The only theory that you have offered is that both numerous (probably in the double digits) _different_ wikipedia editors and the creators of greatsite.com misappropriated material from a mysterious third source. I'd like to know what this third source is. Take the example that I named above. The edit adds a paraph starting "Besides translating the Bible, Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, ...". Now do you honestly claim that a wikipedia user and the creators of greatsite.com both found the same paragraph somewhere and copied it? Do a google search for this first sentence:  - you'll see that the only websites that contain this material have taken it from wikipedia. (Funny enough the wikipedia page is not listed there.) I don't see how it could be more clear that they took the material for the Tyndale article as well as others from us. Please give some valid arguments besides saying that it is not clear to you. --snoyes 19:10, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 appearts to be based on Martin Luther. If you look at the history of our article (for example, the creation of the second paragraph of the "Exile at the Wartburg Castle" section in ), it seems to have been built up piece-by-piece, so I think it's pretty clear that they've copied us rather than the other way round. Camembert
Sent the standard letter. --snoyes 02:49, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As the one who started this whole thread, I believe the evidence is more consistent with either Wikipedia copying this site or both copying a third source (hopefully public domain). The problem was introduced in the 18:18, 01 July 2003 revision; see the new sections "struggle to find peace with God", "Warburg Castle" and "Luther's writings" which are almost verbatim quotes. It is quite possible both were taken from a 3rd source (since it reads like the work of a scholar or theologian) but google did not find it. GreatSite.com lists a specific author with its copyright, and is willing to let the work be reproduced with credit (scroll to bottom). Joelwest 01:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
But much of the content we had before that July 1 edit is included in the greatsite version as well. For example, compare the beginning of greatsite's "Martin Luther and Judaism" section with the penultimate paragraph of this Wikipedia version of January 7, 2002. They are nearly the same. So if the Wikipedia version has been copied from another source (either greatsite itself or a shared third-party publication), then it's been copied in bits and pieces by many different people in many edits over the course of two years. That seems unlikely, to put it mildly. More likely, greatsite has copied a Wikipedia version and edited it a bit. Don't underestimate the ability of Wikipedia contributors to write like scholars or theologians - some of them are. --Camembert
I have ruled out the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopediaand the Catholic Encyclopedia as the source of both articles; see the Luther stories at CCEL.org. Joelwest 01:58, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Possible GFDL violation by greatsites. The 05:51, 9 Aug 2003 Melanchthon correction is present there. The 00:45, 30 Sep 2003 Pope Leo III to X correction isn't, so the copying seems to have happened between those two dates. The remaining edits between those dates don't help to narrow it down further. Lots of other corrections and edits prior to 9 Aug are at greatsites, so I conclude that it almost had to have been after that 9 Aug edit. In more detail: greatsites.com appears not to have had much coverage of Martin Luther on 2003-02-06 . Regrettably there is no more recent archived copy of that site to compare with. The Luther's German Bible section is present and that was added at 20:26, 25 Jun 2003 so the copying seems to have happened after then. There's an extra sentence in the copy which doesn't seem to have ever been present in a copy of ours and the 1922 date differs from ours as well. Luther's early life was expanded at 17:47, 5 Jul 2003, including a mention of a copper mine starting from this 17:47, 5 Jul 2003 edit so the copying happened after this edit. this 14:17, 6 Jul 2003 edit changes text from "a few days later" to "the next day" and greatsites has that change. The changes in the 21:02, 8 Jul 2003 edit at the start of this examination are present. Until this 15:04, 11 Jul 2003 edit our text contained "From the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church". The greatsites version doesn't contain that, suggesting that the copying happened after this edit. Until this 18:34, 11 Jul 2003 edit our text contained "called to testify". The edit changed it to "summoned to either renounce or reaffirm them" and greatsites contains this change. The edits of 19:43, 11 Jul 2003 are present at greatsites. The Eck change of 21:47, 11 Jul 2003 is present at greatsites. The 18:28, 30 Jul 2003 near to nearby change suggests copying after this edit. The first of the 18:39, 30 Jul 2003 edits is present. The 07:31, 31 Jul 2003 changes are present, so it was after this. The 05:51, 9 Aug 2003 Melanchthon correction is present. Jamesday 10:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Here is a second example of similar text between Greatsite.com and Wikipedia:
Their Tyndale article has wording in it that was made to the old encyclopedia article on wikipedia by an anon user: . Again it should be clear that they copied from us and not the other way arround. --snoyes 06:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
States "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)"
States "Donate to Wikipedia" with link to wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
States "Wikipedia information about Mathematics. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Mathematics". More from Wikipedia" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article
It is a copy of all languages. Includes text "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Links to original article and offsite GFDL. Copyright statement at very bottom. No history section.
info AT hallmall.com (whois)
Sent violation letter. Superm401 - Talk 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The site is an exact copy of Hebrew Wikipedia with a very big banner at the top. Besides the "ברוכים הבאים לוויקיפדיה!" ("Welcome to Wikipedia!") at the top of the front page, it makes no mention of having taken its contents from Wikipedia.
The site claims to be in Beta and adds "Copyright 2005 HelpFox.com" at the bottom of each page. There is no mention of Wikipedia, Wiktionary or GFDL.
I ran into this when I googled for "Suoczil" a language that apparently a pure product of our contributor's mind. The only other site to use this language name is Helpfox where they had copied entire lists of translations from Wiktionary.
From book descriptions on Amazon: "Hephaestus Books represents a new publishing paradigm, allowing disparate content sources to be curated into cohesive, relevant, and informative books. To date, this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under Creative Commons licensing, although as Hephaestus Books continues to increase in scope and dimension, more licensed and public domain content is being added. We believe books such as this represent a new and exciting lexicon in the sharing of human knowledge."
Links to original Wikipedia article and offsite GFDL; clear GFDL notice. This is definitely a modified version, because articles are truncated. However, it probably is not fair use because articles are copied throughout the site. Note this Google search. No history section.
joner AT hi.is
Standard letter sent by: dave 07:43, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Does not display a CC license or cite wikipedia as a reference at all even though some material was taken directly (not verbatim) from the article here on b-boying --> [b-boying] was practiced as early as the 19th century by Arab street performs who incorporated flips and acrobatics into their dance.
E-mail: Peter Berger, dns AT suite101.com and Matthew Van Cura, email@example.com; Phone: 604-682-1402
Not a verbatim copy: embedding failure - they've inserted additional content (eg, Wikipedia logo, Wikipedia search box, link to Wikipedia front page) between the title and the start of the article. It is absolutely crazy that this should require them to follow the more complex regulations for derivative works, but this seems to be the case.
We could aid Scotiishlaw.org, and others in similar situations, by providing vastly more customisable skins. In this case, Wikipedia would be the publisher, and Scottishlaw could take a verbatim copy from Wikipedia. Hmm.
Bio at http://www.iankhama.com/about/ appears to be an uncredited copy of Ian Khama. It's possible that the wikipedia article is a copyvio, but since the wikipedia article has extensive referencing, I'm inclined (without further investigation) to believe the opposite is true. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Each IBTimes site (there are 16 country editions in 10 languages) has a "topics" directory. Each subtopic has a short summary lifted from Wikipedia with apparently no attribution. The one I have linked above is the Australian version. I have also found vios on the UK and Canadian editions.
Releases content under GFDL. Has a copy of the licence and a pointer to the Wikipedia site. Says that the copyright is owned by the individual authors, but doesn't actually list them or point to transparent copies of the articles, so doesn't get a "high" rating.
ICON Group International, Inc., 7404 Trade St., San Diego, CA 92121 USA
Fax: (858) 635-9414 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com (direct to the owner of this company)
Previously non-compliant. Now a notice in footer reads "The information on this page was used from wikipedia.org in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation Licence" with links to Wikipedia and the GFDL. No history section.
Private registration through Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Email: I-GRATIS.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com
Phone: (480) 624-2599
Fax: (480) 624-2599
Sent first GFDL notice via email on June 11, 2006. Sent follow-up GFDL notice via email on June 19, 2006. Sent final GFDL notice on July 3, 2006. Response received July 4, 2006, and website updated accordingly.
Illinois State University College of Arts and Sciences
It seems to copy the User's namespace (that's how I found it), and be a topic-specific fork of Wikipedia. JesseW 23:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to provide some links back to WP, but these links are broken for anything outside of the main article namespace. --carlb 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Indopedia began as a copy of Wikipedia as of December 2004. Since then some of this Wikipedia content has been modified by Indopedia editors, and 448 new articles have been added on Indological subjects.
Partial editing of Wikipedia content has produced false and misleading content.
For example, Project:About says falsely, "Indopedia is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."
And Project:How to edit a page says "Indopedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page." In fact one must be logged in to edit Indopedia, and registration is restricted. Perhaps this is why (as of July 2008) there are no Special:Recentchanges, and there are no Special:Newpages since December 2007. —teb728tc 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Eurasia Academic Publishers
Lyulin 332 B-25
Sofia, BG, 1336
Email:eurasia AT iztok.net, imago AT abv.bg
Two attempts have been made in early 2010, by the offended party and by a Wikipedia volunteer on the offended party's behalf, to contact an Indopedia administrator for assistance in blanking an AFD on an attack page which was created in 2004. (No indication that Indopedia ever hosted the attack article itself, but merely our AFD discussion about it; that discussion has already been courtesy-blanked on Wikipedia as it does contain discussion of some of the false claims in the article.) Both attempts have been unsuccessful thus far. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ends with: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and its copyright supersedes any copyright notice in Information About's Terms of Service below. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Factorial" with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original article.
Link to Wikipedia homepage via "Help build the worlds largest free encyclopedia"
No link to original article.
November 19: Now says the content is from Wikipedia.
Jan 8 2004: This is still the case. A lot of the wikipedia pages have dead links (eg the September 11 pages), but what is there is acknowledged as wikipedia material. Perhaps this site should now come out of this list and be placed in one of the other ones? Arno 22:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
At the bottom, it says: This content from encyclopedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It does link to the GFDL but has no mention of Wikipedia (and incorrectly credits www.encyclopedia.com)
Says on the bottom of each article (in Czech) "This is a machine translation of an article from the Wikipedia encyclopedia. The entire text is available under the conditions of the GNU FDL licence."
Links to Wikipedia Main Page
Links to local copy of GFDL (machine translated to Czech, but with a link to the official text of the licence at gnu.org prominently at the beginning)
Removes "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
That's quite a neat site, actually! While on the whole it's pretty good, it does show up some of the limitations of machine translation. Looking up "Bitva Jutland" which is the translation of "Battle of Jutland" which I had quite a bit of input to, I notice that many of the names of British ships have been tranlated to their Czech equivalents (Lion --> Lev, for instance), but no German ship names have been translated. Also some of the British commander's names also get translated - Rear Admiral A.L. Duff of HMS Superb becomes zadního admirála. L. Bezcenn˘ of HMS Nádhern˘, while if my reading of Czech grammar is correct Vice Admiral Sir Cecil Burney gets a sex change as zlozvyku-sir admirála Cecil Burneyová! :) -- Arwel 00:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No history section. Medium compliance. Uncle G 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
document.write("<hr> Under the terms of the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License>GNU Free Documentation License</a> Thank you wikipedia.org <hr>")
Received a reply "Thanks for the email, I'll make sure to make the appropriate changes to my site." That was pretty quick, so I am optimistic over this one. David Newton 18:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Second standard letter sent. David Newton 00:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This one is still not resolved; the situation is like described above. No direct link back to the original Wikipedia article, clicking on GFDL gives 404 error. The little line "Copyright Wikipedia Contributors", without link, is in fact the only thing about Wikipedia that can be found on the page.
Furthermore, something very nasty is going on: for links that do not exist on infopedia, a utility called webgrap is used to try to rip the info directly from Wikipedia, thus loading the Wikipedia servers. See for ex. Oncology and try the link to Adjunctive therapies in the article (it has a question mark behind it to indicate that the article doesn't exist on Infopedia). The operation does not succeed, but the Wikipedia servers are queried nevertheless; so this is a case of straight bandwidth theft. - Mark Dingemanse(talk) 07:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Situation unchanged. -Rholton 21:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wow. This one is really obnoxious. They copy the site layout, even the edit buttons, so it looks like you're really on Wikipedia. Looks like it's a fairly old snapshot. Isomorphic 02:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comment only: It demonstrates the run of a tool called infowrangler, as run against the Wikipedia database. Okay well, that seems like an interesting and innovative use of a wikipedia database. If they can tidy up their act a bit, this could become a good demonstration of what FSF licensing is all about. Now if only those folks could release infowrangler under the GPL ;-). Kim Bruning 12:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This site does not clarify that its material is a copy of the original source. Perhaps the owners thought that by including all Wikipedia namespace articles etc. with information about the project, that would suffice to clear them of legal issues. They were mistaken: the GDFL specifically states in part 4 to: "Preserve... the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on." This seems to be one of a multitude of policy breaches. Perhaps more importantly, usage of the Wikipedia name and logo (even a retired version) in this way is to be seriously discouraged as it leads to problems with retaining trademark rights. Has anyone sent a letter yet? -- Kwekubo 01:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note: how you access articles is by replacing www.iqexpand.com with the name of the article you are looking for i.e. for Linux, you would put in http://linux.iqexpand.com, and for Wikipedia, you would type in http://wikipedia.iqexpand.com/ (but in this case they're REAL sneaky, replacing Wikipedia with I.Q. Expand in the entry but forgetting to change the bottom links)
No GFDL notice. Claims copyright over the site.
Broken images everywhere on every article.
Absolutely no reference to Wikipedia, instead refering to the "English Information Megasite" for about information for iqexpand.com, thereby dodging reference to Wikipedia. The English Information Megasite is but of course nothing more than a cheaply done mirror of Wikipedia (check out the front page here: the front page says Wikipedia, and has tons of broken links to news, featured article of the day, etc.)
Deserves an e-mail from us; anyone who wants to do it please sign their name below (I can't do it since I have no time). --Bash 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Contains some wikipedia articles from 2004, some of them expanded with new information - i.e. a genuine fork using MediaWiki with its own edit buttons etc. GFDL link to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html. Link to wikipedia article with same name. No history section. Medium compliance. Uncle G 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Contains full and partial copies of Wikipedia articles about Canadian towns and cities. Multiple copies of each article exist in that domain. This is a content mirror, not a fork. Does not mention the GFDL, fails to provide atribution to Wikipedia, and claims copyright of the work.