Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/PQR

See also Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks for the main discussion page

Personal vendetta

Is this the place for continuing what is apparently a personal vendetta? The user was repeatedly asked to identify breaches of copyright and refused to do so on RationalWiki (see contribs linked to above), it appears to be rather a grudge match caused by his membership of Conservapedia. I recommend that he be told to take his battles elsewhere. TheresaWilson (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW: if he denies his CP identity here's evidence) The "Lolcat" ref is untrue (WP referred to TWICE on the image page) and the stop hand image has now been linked. All you need do is tell us of specific instances and we'll correct them. TheresaWilson (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'd also like to point out that the "contact" is not the ISP providing web access to the server, it's Trent (user:tmtoulouse here and at RW), his email is ttoulouse@gmail.com, but really, if someone has a copyright complaint, they can just come to the wiki and tell us (specifically) what it is. Huw Powell (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that I have a personal distaste for RW; it is a very childish slander site which serves no legitimate purpose in my opinion. It slanders more than just CP, and anyone not involved in the anti-Conservapedia cabal should be shocked at their "article" about Wikipedia. They list WP's homepage as http://www.nationalenquirer.com/! Granted it appears they're trying to make fun of CP's take on WP, but it's still disgraceful. Fact of the matter is, I was checking out what the site is all about, and when I found one copyvio, I looked for more. I refused to give examples because I feel as if the copyright holders should see it for themselves, and if I gave examples, they would delete the images (some of which other users had pointed out only to be ignored) before the CR owners ever saw it. When Wikipedia benefits from personal goals, is it so bad to persue those personal goals?

One last thing: I see some RationalWiki editors carry out their personal vendettas here as well, only Wikipedia does not benefit from their actions. Unlike some of the RW trolls I've seen editing the Conservapedia article, I do not, and would not, carry out "personal vendettas" here that I did not think Wikipedia would benefit from; I am not trying POV push or be disruptive, therefore, I don't see what the big deal is. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"shocked at their "article" about Wikipedia" Hee! Hee! You are joking, I hope Mr Morris! Show please (with diffs) any edit made to the Conservapedia article that have been made by RW members that did not improve the article.

"if I gave examples, they would delete the images" Isn't that the right thing to do?

The only deal here is what you're making of it. TheresaWilson (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a whatever deal; the issue at hand has been solved (the Wikipedia images), so there's no reason to keep this thread going now is there? WP is not the place for arguements about CP/RW unless issues somehow concern WP. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prabook

Prabook is not a Wikipedia mirror. It is an open-content biographical encyclopedia whose database is compiled from various sources, including Who's who publications, Wikipedia articles and user generated content. Examples of Prabook content lacking on Wikipedia can be found on Wikipedia itself: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Gambia/Prabook Prabook content from biographical archives is often used to create new Wikipedia articles. It is an intercourse of two separate open-content encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigh7 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list includes partial mirrors (websites which mirror parts of Wikipedia or parts of which mirror Wikipedia). By all information available, this website is a derivative work of several Wikipedia articles, and it's most definitely a copyright violation, so it belongs here. Nemo 16:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prabook compiled its content from different biographical sources such as dictionaries, who’s who, encyclopedias, archives, and registries the same way as Wikipedia originally got its content from Britannica and other authoritative sources.

Below are examples of biographical articles about French Prime-Ministers that illustrate the identical content of Wikipedia and Britannica. Some articles have references to Britannica, others do not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Monis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Goblet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Casimir-Perier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Tirard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Brisson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Armand_Dufaure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Courtot_de_Cissey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Buffet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Duclerc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Falli%C3%A8res

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Brisson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Floquet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Tirard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Le_Pautre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Monis

Thousands of articles on Wikipedia are similar to Britannica. Besides French Prime Ministers, there are also people from other countries with various occupations and activities copied from Britannica to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.232.70 (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but all this is irrelevant. The entry was added based on the observation that https://prabook.com/web/abdul.qader_al_rais/3720595 plagiarises an English Wikipedia article. Even a single example is sufficient to merit inclusion in the list of mirrors and forks. Nemo 12:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prabook does not have problems to mention Wikipedia as its source of information in some of its articles. However, it would mislead readers since the primary source of information is Britannica, not Wikipedia who only “copy-paste” the original text onto its pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.232.70 (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, facts about people mentioned in these articles are not subject to copyright (Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright). The issue is different if one goes beyond biographical facts and scrap articles defining events, categories or notions such as “life”, “death”, “courage”, “treason”, etc. Definition to these articles requires from authors originality and creative approach.

Unlike Wikipedia, Prabook limits itself only to biographical facts thus to be in full compliance with the existing regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.232.70 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Abdul Qader Al Rais was certainly not covered by the 1911 Britannica. Stop changing topic: nobody is talking about public domain sources, it's exclusively about copyleft sources. Nemo 15:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing our attention to Abdul Qader Al Rais. At first we trusted your claim that Prabook's version was secondary to Wikipedia's, but after checking the history of both articles, to our surprise it turned out that the opposite was true.

Prabook's version was added to the site by contributor in March 2018:

https://i.imgur.com/psD7e9d.png

If you check the history of Wikipedia article, at that point it looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdul_Qader_Al_Rais&oldid=823088253

After the article on Prabook was published in its current version, the article on Wikipedia has started to take its current shape. So if you insist that one article plagiarises the other, then it is Wikipedia's verion that was scraped from Prabook without any credit to the source.

Should we now make Prabook:Mirrors and forks page and put Wikipedia there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.232.70 (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "In 2015, his artwork was used to decorate carriages of the Dubai Metro, as part of the Dubai Arts Season" was present in the Wikipedia article in January 2018 and you've just kindly confirmed that the Prabook article was created only in March 2018, so this proves that the English Wikipedia article is the likely source and the Prabook article is a likely derivative. My suggestion is to delete the article and run antiplagiarism check on all your articles. You could also provide more training to your authors using Wikipedia's extensive resources on copyright, such as Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.

Alternatively, you could avoid a lot of trouble simply by licensing Prabook under CC-BY-SA and crediting the authors of corresponding Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Nemo 10:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence has indeed likely come from Wikipedia, but it is purely factual and as it's stated both by our previous comment and in Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing 'Facts and ideas cannot be protected by copyright'. There was no creativity used in that sentence so having it on Prabook is not a copyright violation. Other than that, Prabook's article did not borrow anything else from Wikipedia and had clearly more information than Wikipedia could provide at the time of its creation. So having Prabook listed as Wikipedia's mirror based on this specific case seems inappropriate.

Prabook as a project is much younger than Wikipedia and is still under development. We appreciate your advice and will work on improving our policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.232.70 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence is not a fact, it's an expression. You can argue it's not creative but that's often a hard case to make in court, especially in EU where many English Wikipedia authors reside. Nemo 12:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion... A sentence: "The Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September, 1939." Is it a fact or an expression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panlog (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC) I think it depends on the observer. Polish people would consider this sentence as a fact. However, Russians would consider it as an expression. They would compose this sentence differently, i.e. "The Soviet Union liberated Western Byelorussia and Western Ukraine from Poland on 17 September,1939". From their viewpoint the second statement is a fact. However, Polish people may disagree to consider this sentence as a fact, but rather an expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panlog (talk • contribs) 11:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

protectedplanet.net

Hello, everybody. I have a question about the URL protectedplanet.net in the list. I can't really tell at the moment that this is a fork or something like that. It seems to be the database of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Commission on Protected Areas. Could it be that the site should no longer be on this list in the meantime?--Starkiller3010 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the website changed a lot, possibly around 2016. Unless someone sees pages where they still embed Wikipedia text, it could be removed from the list. Nemo 15:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starkiller3010, Nemo_bis: Archived. --MarioGom (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extortion ?

Discussion about Pipiwiki’s intentions. The website logo is the PayPal logo in dark green, is the site actually operated by PayPal?

pipiwiki is a closed source. No editing, no article creation, no user accounts, no contact details or information about the site operator.

The pipiwiki pages are Wikipedia dump files.

Lots of issues with a site like that if it gets hacked.

Anyone have the expertise to take it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:6135:6501:7CFF:2BE9:2E1B:B4C7 (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]