Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mirrors and forks page.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Old talk is at:
See also for more discussion:
- Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Abc
- Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Def
- Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Ghi
- Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Mno
- Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Pqr
- Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Stu
- Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/All
Zeably - Unattributed mirror
New section for simply viewing the list
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.
- Click one of the sections in "List of mirrors and forks" to display the appropriate page in the list.
- Edit the page, adding the new mirror in alphabetical order by name.
- Preview your edit, and save it if you are satisfied.
When adding a new mirror, use the following form.
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)
- You raise two separate issues: the mass violation of copyright and licenses; and the WP:VER of articles relying on such site. I entertain myself sadly by undo-ing such refs. Per site, there are not so many, but the number of sites doing this is pretty large. Batternut (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
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.)
- Take a look at their article History of Wikipedia: The History of WorldHeritage formally began with the launch of WorldHeritage on 15 January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. The fraudulent article just gets worse from there. They did a half-ass search-and-replace job, changing 'Wikipedia' to 'WorldHeritage'. See WP:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Gutenberg. I'm in the middle of sending off a letter to WMF legal about this. Alsee (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Wiki2 mirror questions
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)
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)
Some automation to reduce circular refs
Some restructuring of the alphabetical list pages, possibly including retrospective application of the mirror template to older entries, might help. @Margin1522 pointed out last year that the list is a bit confusing to use.
Indeed EranBot uses a blacklist to ignore mirror sites. That's the opposite logic, and that blacklist has the ability to select by regex certain sets of pages on the site being blacklisted. There seems to be a good measure of common functional between the two lists. Batternut (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Explicitly exists to save deleted content from WP via script. Claims CC-BY-SA, but all articles appear to be copy-paste, don't retain any history, and don't appear to be licensed sufficiently. Base URL here. There's also a disclaimer page. MSJapan (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I just ran into a few of their domains via a plagiarism detector. Looks like (see political sociology) they're a mirror but don't see them listed. Are they listed under a different domain? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes they are, a yet another advert revenue farm: "Our Wikipedia™ supplement is provided separately and is drawn directly from Wikipedia™ via a third-party caching provider; it is neither hosted locally nor cached locally.". IMO we must list all domains alphabetically regardless same site or not. You search for the domain name as you see it in the URL, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)