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:

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)

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)

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)

10 months later, WHE still appears to be comprised of unattributed stolen Wikipedia content.... 2601:283:8102:2C0:64A6:58AB:600E:59B2 (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

@Staszek Lem and Alsee: What's been happening about the World Heritage Encyclopedia? Why isn't it listed here? I just stumbled upon a POV bit at Project Gutenberg about it, which I zapped for lack of independent sources, but I'm told off-wiki that it's cited in several articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you do it yourself? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking there might be a criterion it doesn't meet? I'll go ahead, after searching the history to see if it was formerly listed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Way, way, way too complicated for me. World Public Library, a portal that leads to World Heritage Encyclopedia among others, is listed here, but to add an entry I'm expected to examine the legal licence and evaluate a sample article? It seems I can't even see their articles without switching from Firefox to an alternate browser because of some bug with Project Gutenberg sites (I know about this because the Wayback Machine suddenly started giving me blank pages), and I am not a forensic analyst. Please, someone who feels comfortable with the format and requirements, add the necessary separate entry. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I have a semi-clear recollection that WMF-legal gave me a generic "we'll look into it" response. I haven't looked at the issue since then.
I just tried the site. After a painfully long delay, the search engine returns lists of articles copied from here (with text snippets). However but trying to view the articles themselves all seem to turn up 404 errors. Maybe it has been sloppily shut down? The site is still serving the articles though. Including abominations like
I just searched for our articles here citing or mentioning World Heritage. I'm in the middle of cleaning up about 19 hits. I found a BLP that was stubbed as unsourced and inappropriately written, then copy-pasted back with top and bottom text saying "Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0".[1] I will repress my urge to spew profanity here. I restored the stub version. Alsee (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I struck through my comment that WorldHeritage doesn't seem to be serving articles. It is.[2] Alsee (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Alsee: That "Wikipedia" article is very disturbing. I am told that my inability to see the "History of Wikipedia" article is not the Firefox bug, but a sign that they've taken it down. Clearly they need to be ordered to take down the other one too. Can you contact the WMF again? And thanks very much for removing the links. I didn't have the time yesterday, although someone talked me through formulating that scary template so at least WHE is now added to the index. What do we do now? Bother the WMF again? I'm finding scads of off-wiki references to the thing, both journalists and research paper authors. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC) ... and no sooner did I save this than I recalled that Kuru had left a note on my talk page pointing to this page, where an astounding list of domains associated with World Public Library / World Heritage Encyclopedia are listed. Then, of course, my connection had died. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I think World Heritage only removed the one article after the last time I contacted WMF legal. I just sent WMF legal a new email, and noted that the search-and-replace problem probably isn't limited to the Wikipedia article. I also included the links for all of the World Heritage Domains listed at User:Kuru/mirrors. Alsee (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yngvadottir (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Some automation to reduce circular refs[edit]

The issue of the large supply of circular refs raised by @Staszek_Lem could be addressed by a bot that output reports such as EranBot does.

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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)
Yes, though rather than sub-page search I scanned the mno section and didn't find it. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Added a description field[edit]

I'm looking around at the innovations in wiki technology, especially with respect to WP aggregators and enhancers, and thought it would be nice to have a place to keep notes that others might find useful. So I added a field to this project's data array.

So far I added a description for WIKI 2. I was surprised that they have a bot that is adding a relevant video to each article. The Transhumanist 05:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Should I report something this minor?[edit]

On a online homeschool/high school program that I used a while back, there is a "dictionary" which I found just straight-up copies from Wikipedia. No attribution, no mentioning of the license, etc. Should I report/email them for something like this. It's a small program, and not accessible to non-paying members. Pi-or-tau (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Listed below what?[edit]

The intro says that sites are listed below ... but they aren't. Am I missing something? IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Check section Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#How to list new mirrors. Indeed the Such pages are listed below sentence could be improved. Batternut (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Please help to add this site as a clone. It is updated quite frequently, and is identical to Wikipedia. Tuanminh01 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)