Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the official Mirrors and Forks talk page. You can leave comments, answers, questions, and concern about the page here.
Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Old talk is at:

See also for more discussion:

goo?[edit]

An editor attempted to use this page as a reference. It looks like a part of goo. Is this a mirror?--Auric talk 10:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

===goo Wikipedia===
{{Wikipedia mirror
|       name = goo Wikipedia
|        url = http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/
|     sample = http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/List_of_Pakistani_inventions_and_discoveries
}}

Complying websites[edit]

Hello! In case of websites that comply with our policy, do we still list them in the alphabetical list for the purpose? I have come across this site http://www.razorrobotics.com which i think complies with our licenses. Sample is http://www.razorrobotics.com/knowledge/?title=Category:Dams_completed_in_1966. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they should be listed under High (note, that short list probably isn't complete). This can be seen as both a "thank you" and a good example to other sites. Superm401 - Talk 03:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Unable to enter the site http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/[edit]

While trying to enter http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/, I am getting the following notice: Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /onlinesp/list/ on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Please help, Thanks in advance, (Schwiki 14:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwiki (talkcontribs)

Legality[edit]

I have just changed the beginning of the project page that read [my italics]:

Legality of mirrors and forks
Every contribution to the English Wikipedia has been licensed for re-use, including commercial, for-profit websites. Republication is legal, so long as the licenses are complied with.

I've amended this to read Copyright status of mirrors and forks...Republication is not a breach of copyright. The problem with the original broad statement is that a court might deem republication to be illegal or actionable for reasons other than copyright, and it is not in our best interests to offer an open-ended guarantee of legality. In particular, the exemption in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may not apply where a third party intentionally copies material from Wikipedia. If someone is defamed in a Wikipedia article, WMF is apparently protected by §230. If a third party who copied the article accepts liability, it would be undesirable to let them sue us because we have assured them that "republication is legal". I'm not a lawyer, so please undo this if you feel like taking the risk.... - Pointillist (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Forbes recently published an op-ed on how this might apply in the UK. Their article (UK's New Defamation Law May Accelerate The Death Of Anonymous User-Generated Content Internationally) seems to be saying that publishers are only protected to the extent that they know who their users are. As I see it, any UK republisher of Wikipedia content can have little idea of who is behind most of our contributor's usernames and IP addresses. Anyway, if the republisher has deliberately copied the material from Wikipedia, can the republisher successfully claim it is "user-generated content"? The anonymous individuals who generated it weren't users of the republisher's service. - Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Zeably - Unattributed mirror[edit]

Please see http://www.zeably.com/. jonkerztalk 13:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

New section for simply viewing the list[edit]

I arrived here wanting to simply view the list, to see what was in it. Apparently, to view the list, you have to click one of the links in "How to list new mirrors". This seems kind of confusing to me. So I'd like to propose a new section for editors who just want to view the list.

This new section could be entitled "How to view the list", or "List of mirrors and forks", or simply "The list". It would contain the alphabetical links, moved to this new section from "How to list new mirrors", and a sentence to the effect "Click one of the following links to view the list."

The "How to list new mirrors" section would need to be modified, since the list of sections has been moved. I'd also suggest that instead of simply "List new mirrors in the appropriate alphabetical section" (what to do), we should explain how to do it. For example, as follows.

  1. Click one of the sections in "List of mirrors and forks" to display the appropriate page in the list.
  2. Edit the page, adding the new mirror in alphabetical order by name.
  3. Preview your edit, and save it if you are satisfied.

When adding a new mirror, use the following form.

Step 3 in particular may seem like overkill, but if you asked a technical writer I think that's what they would suggest. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledging wikipedia[edit]

re" and must acknowledge the contributors (which can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia

IMO this phrasing is weak. You can have link to wikipedia like, <--this and yet formally comply with the requirement.

CC-BY-SA says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". It means that wikipedia community have the right to require that the word "Wikipedia" is present in the attribution. Can it be done?

It is not a theoretical topic: I recently reported at WP:RSN a new super-duper World Heritage Encyclopedia as an active source of circular-refs, since an unsuspecting reader of it will never guess that it is a rip-off of Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Another problem[edit]

In addition, WHE has several quite arrogant, grossly misleading statements:

  • Unlike many online encyclopedias, World Heritage Encyclopedia is crowd sourced, referenced and edited, making our information reliable.
  • Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles."
    • Peer reviewed 4 million articles, yeah, right.

I would not give a fuck how they brag, but they drag Wikimedia into their deceit: ..and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation... I find it exceptionally improper to claim that Wikimedia endorsed such brazen lies. (And if it did indeed, then it is in deep shit again.)

Can anybody whom Wikimedia would listen talk to Wikimedia, so that Wikimedia either demands its name removed or WHE act straightened? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki2 mirror questions[edit]

I ran across wiki2 as a mirror site while doing a web search for copyvio in an article. It is a complete cut and paste of wikipedia: look here here here (Yes, this is wiki2) and here. However, it does give a link to wikipedia for the articles and does release under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Could someone advise as to wether this sort of behaviour is acceptable? Iwilsonp (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

All right, I found it is a live mirror (see here). I have reported it on the list of live mirrors. What do I do now? Thanks. Iwilsonp (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Google books[edit]

I am running across various books that use, strait out, wikipedia articles. Some do acknowledge Wikipedia (claiming that they are donating a part to WP), some look like they have the right copyright and some have their own copyright. Disney Channel 273 Success Secrets - 273 Most Asked Questions On Disney ... straight claims their own copyright on this. So who and/or how do we handle this. I went through the "report and issue" and given that I am not an officer of the Wikimedia Foundation thus I can not act on its behalf. Spshu (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)