Mirrors andForks :(Numbers) ABC -DEF -GHI -JKL -MNO -PQR -STU -VWXYZ -All -Archive

• Site: http://www.about.com/
• acknowledgementwithout a link
• no mention of GFDL. Standard letter sent by:MB 08:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
• Point of contact, Mary Bellis inventors.guide AT about.com.
• Response receivedSun, 13 Jul 2003 04:26:14 -0700.
• Portions of affected articles at inventors.about.com (as of July 14 2003) link back to wikipedia and are released under the GFDL.
• Any examples of the affected articles? Can't find any trivially.
• Don't email the person above; she is only responsible for "inventors" section, and seems rather grumpy.Proyster15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They have started mirroring the whole thing - see http://experts.about.com/e/a/index.htm. They seem to be compliant, albeit in a very discreet way.

• They are putting a "copyright 2006 About.com" on the content--which (in my view) violates the terms. I find this extremely objectionable.Proyster 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) As of the current time, they do not display an About.com copyright, instead: "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia".AnonEMouse^(squeak)19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I emailed a complaint today regarding their page at http://experts.about.com/e/j/jo/Joshua_Scottow.htm and (a few hours later) the page now re-directs to the Wikipedia original page.Proyster20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at this mirror, I don't see any acknowledgement that the articles originally come from Wikipedia, or any history of contributions.FreplySpang01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No mention of Wikipedia or GFDL I saw before their obnoxious spyware?/adware? finally crashed my browser.John Reid °14:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I know an editor there, she definitely writes her own stuff. No adware/spyware at about.com either.
• experts.about.com now redirects to en.allexperts.com Allexperts is a wikipedia mirror apparently owned by about.com

Check this out though, it almost sounds like the "guide" claims shewrote the article: http://classiclit.about.com/mbiopage.htm

August 2014:

• Site: http://www.net-lexikon.de/
• copies German-language Wikipedia
• indicates Wikipedia as source
• links to original article
• links to copy of the WikipediaDE GNU/FDL page, which links to GNU/FDL at gnu.org (minus point for indirect link; however the GNU/FDL is mentioned directly, so not a grave one)
• Does not contain "aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie"

NoteWikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-23/News and notes andAustralian Refugee Review Tribunal

--Wondigoma (talk)13:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:ArtPolitic
• Says that it is GFDL, but links to an explanation page of the GFDL ([7]), instead of the license itself.
  • That page(wikipedia-copyright-gnu-fdl.html) would be fine, except for the fact that they did not slurp up the correct pages from Wikipedia to makehttp://www.artpolitic.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License andhttp://www.artpolitic.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License load. Those pages are currently 404'd.
• Names Wikipedia and links to source article.
• Does not have "title page".
• Example:[8]
  • Examples no longer seem to contain Wikipedia content --23:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Site:Asinah.net
• Acknowledges wikipedia authorship, links to wikipedia
  • Not for their Dutch version.
• States that the article is licensed under the GNU FDL.
  • Though it links to what looks to be a partial copy or commentary about the license rather than the actual text of the license.
• Does not link to the relevant wikipedia page, but does link to the edit function of the individual page (under the heading "edit this page")
  • It no longer does this, at least not for an not logged in user.
  • It now only links to their copy of our article on Wikipedia.[9]Guanaco 16:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Example:[10] fromKyoto Protocol.
  • Now seems to be a Thailand tourist page, but previous version can be seen on Google search and cache[11]Henrygb17:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• forum page include some comments on articles and replies from site admins. Reading a few replies, it seems that the admins encourage people to edit articles on Wikipedia.
• The placement of their own copyright notice makes it unclear exactly what they are claiming copyright for.
• I could not find any link to the history of the article nor any attribution of authorship aside from the link to the Wikipedia main page.
• No mention of Wikipedia on theHindi version.

• Site:www.assault-weapons.com
• Example:http://www.assault-weapons.com/wiki/Sony_HiFD
  • No response 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

—ptk✰fgs04:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—ptk✰fgs20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:[12]
• contains this explanation:
• You may freely contribute to this article using the authoring tools provided at the article's source, Wikipedia.org, sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition, this article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you may copy and modify it as long as the entire work, including your additions, remains under this license. Iraq Museum International always displays the most recent published revision of the article; all previous versions may be viewed here.
• High Compliance

In addition, the paragraph above includes the article title and a link to the Wikipedia article itself, the GNU Free Documentation License, and to the history of the article on Wikipedia.

A site-wide copyright notice -- which may have been misinterpreted by Wikipedians as a claim on the Wikipedia article appearing on a particular page -- has now been dropped altogether on all the Wikipedia pages. (Wikipedia articles can link to pages protected under US Copyright law, but do comments and sidebars added outside a Wikipedia article on the same webpage count as additions under the GNU License? In other words, if a Wikipedia article appears on a web page and Gore Vidal writes an essay about the Wikipedia article just below it, can the essay be copyrighted?) On the BaghdadMuseum/Iraq Museum International site, where the copyright notice used to be is now the statement:"The Iraq Museum International Open Encyclopedia is offered to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License" with yet another link to the GNU Free Documentation License.

Yes, they're better than most. However, I'd still like to see a direct link to the original Wikipedia article. I think that's reasonable, given how generous we are in interpreting some GFDL provisions(like what's a "modified work", including our copyright notice, 5 original authors, history...). I sent an email asking for a direct link today.Superm401 |Talk01:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are now direct links for the original article, editing the original article, and the article's history. The GFDL link is to the FSF copy, but I don't think that's really an issue.Superm401 |Talk20:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Artist biographies
• Example Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/nh3n/ a version of theRolling Stones article; and many more
• Disclaimers at the end of the articles state that"This entry is from Wikipedia, the user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you find the biography content factually incorrect, defamatory or highly offensive you can edit this article at Wikipedia" with links to Wikipedia home, the GFDL at gnu.org, and the Wikipedia article.
• Comment at http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/faqs#why_is_the_bbc_using_wikipedia

  We know that many people using our website would like to find out more about artists, and basic biographical information is one of the key things that people expect to find on our pages. We feel that we provide best value to the licence fee payer by concentrating our resources on providing great original content (mainly through broadcast) and making it easy to find that content on the web. Biographies are a standardised type of content that are expected across thousands of artists. Wikipedia offers good quality biographies with very good coverage across artists. There are two good reasons to use this content rather than recreating similar content in-house or sourcing it from a commercial supplier:

  1. It's available under the GNU Free Documentation Licence, which means not only is there no licensing cost to the licence-fee payer for this text, but it is freely available to all our users to use and share in turn.'
  2. It's editable by anyone. This may seem like a mixed blessing, but the entire Wikipedia model is a living demonstration that openness to user contribution and amendment tends to improve content over the long term and not vice versa.

• Site: http://www.bestpest.com.au/pest-control-in-hobart.html
• The bottom section is completely copied fromLocal Government Areas of Tasmania (much of the rest is copied from Lonely Planet).
• No links at all, no mention of Wikipedia or GFDL
• Two copyrights printed on it:
  • Copyright © 2006 Best Pest Control
  • (c) copyright Best Pest Control (NSW) Pty Ltd 2004/05. All Rights Reserved.
• As of 13:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Site no longer hosts above page. However, it hashttp://www.bestpest.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11&Itemid=44, the text of which is mirrored elsewhere often on the internet (though frustratingly, none mention Wikipedia). Does not mirror WP: page may have changed.The Evil Spartan (talk)10:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:http://bibleocean.com/
• Example:[13] ofAlbania
• Article ends with "Original Article from WikiPedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania"
• No mention of GFDL
• Note: looks like it may be mirroring the site by crawling, since it handles section edit links poorly and has specific error pages indexed all over the place where the crawler has tried to follow them wrong (this is a mirror, so of course no actual vehicle for editing).

• Site:Biography Finder
• Contains older versions of Wikipedia articles on various people.
• Has no mention of Wikipedia.
• No link to GFDL.
• Claims copyright.
• Is apparently linked withPhobia Finder.
• Sent standard GFDL e-mail. -Evil saltine 22:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Removed from main page (duplicate)
• Now, at the bottom of each page, it reads:This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article <article name>. Where <article name> is appropriately filled in. It links tohttp://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html and tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, but no link to the actual Wikipedia article. I'm moving this to Medium compliance. -Rholton 03:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Site:www.bird-center.net
• Example:http://www.bird-center.net/articles/Main_Page
• Link to local copy of the GFDL (As ofJesseW20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Link to original Wikipedia article (As ofJesseW20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• State that content is under the GFDL (As ofJesseW20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• State that content is from Wikipedia. (As ofJesseW20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Seems to be HIGH compliance, as far as I can see. Will someone move them to that list, please?JesseW20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Server not found --Rumping16:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:http://www.birminghamuk.com
• VariousBirmingham articles. Example:[18] fromHP Sauce
• Link to local copy of the GFDL
• States content from Wikipedia
• No obvious link to original article
• Half broken link tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/open+content --Henrygb12:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See alsoWikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Def#Discovery_Media

• Site: http://www.bwmasala.com/
• Example: http://www.bwmasala.com/actordata.html?title=User:Eugene-elgato

• Site:bopedia.com
• Example:http://bopedia.com/en/wikipedia/p/pu/public_affairs_1.html

*Link to local copy of the GFDL: yes (As of 2 Nov 2006DES^(talk)). No longer true.Superm401 |Talk06:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to original Wikipedia article: yes (As of 2 Nov 2006DES^(talk))
• State that content is under the GFDL: Yes (As of 2 Nov 2006DES^(talk))
• State that content is from Wikipedia: Yes. (As of 2 Nov 2006DES^(talk))

Seems to be HIGH compliance, as far as I can see.DES^(talk)21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Example fails to produce meaningful content --Rumping16:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples not loading Wikipedia content --Rumping16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site:http://sthweb.bu.edu/shaw/anna-howard-shaw-center/biography?view=mediawiki&article=Main_Page

• States "© This material from Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL (Inserted by aWiki)." at the bottom of each page.
• Accessed 2009-03-02.Jayen46617:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Site:http://sthweb.bu.edu/archives/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=Category:Spy_novels

• Like the section above: mentions Wikipedia and license, but has clearly incorrect info as well, like "It uses material from the Wikipedia article " USA"" More worryingly, this looks to be a live mirror, which is normally not allowed.Fram (talk)09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed. Looks like a problem. I agree on the "live mirror" issue, too: I just made major edits toACT Theatre and when I went to do a Google search for some reference checking,http://sthweb.bu.edu/archives/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=ACT_Theatre was already updated on Google. -Jmabel |Talk22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Site: http://www.bostoncoop.net/~tpryor/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
• Mentions Wikipedia, which leads to this explanation: "This is a static mirror of the wikipedia site. It exists for the purpose of testing experimental interfaces, made for wikipedia. It is my own project. I am using wikipedia content to gather anonymous user navigation behavior as a statistical sample for a centroid cluster based recommendation system" No links to the original article.
• As of 09:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ~tpryor appears to no longer exist --Rumping16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:www.bowise.com
• Seems to combine links to ads and other non-wikipedia content with links to related articles on bopedia, which in turn has proper compliance info. This is the result of a brief look, however.DES^(talk)21:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Research requested.JesseW22:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No longer has any content - just domain parking --Rumping16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Server doesn't seem to exist anymore.This, that and the other_[talk]09:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Registrant: Carl WilkinsonRegistrant type: UK IndividualRegistrant's address: The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.Registrar: GX Networks Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG]  URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk

Looks like a parked domain advertising page at first sight. Filled with ads. No good purpose for existence.This, that and the other_[talk]06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:Brendadderly.com
• A number of articles, such as:http://brendaadderly.com/alternative-medicine.html
  • Not in compliance, no GFDL notice, no links to Wikipedia, no mention of Wikipedia anywhere that I can find. Zoe (216.234.130.13016:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Example appears not to have Wikipedia content --Rumping16:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:www.brian-oshaughnessy.com
• There are ostensible ripoffs directly from Wikipedia in the Resident Evil articles, mostly from past, unmodernized versions of them, while making no mention at all to Wikipedia.
• As of 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Now redirects to www.customflamepainting.com --Rumping16:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:Brough's Books
• link to current version of article
• link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org
• Example:[22]
  • Example seems to have Wikipedia metatags but fails to load bodytext --Rumping16:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears to be bulletin board. Example fails --Rumping16:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site: www.calsky.de
• Example: www.calsky.de/lexikon/en/txt/p/pa/partial_differential_equation.php
• States: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Partial differential equation". In the Wikipedia, a list of the autors/history is available."
• Link to local GFDL
• Links to original article and history

Example:http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/n/ne/new_forest.html

• A link to GFDL from every page.
• A link back to individual wikipedia articles from the top of the page. The text of the link is quite prominent.
• Confirmed. High Compliance. -Rholton 15:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

update - Doesn't seem to be using wikipedia content any longer.\Rexruff

update - I am the owner of campusprogram.com and only removed the wikipedia mirror because I believed I was not in compliance and that it was generally frowned upon. There are 1000's of backlinks that now go to a 404 page which is a shame. Any advice would be appreciated.

• • I've told him by email that he was complying perfectly, and he has expressed interest in setting up the mirror again. I referred him to some information on how to do so.Superm401 |Talk20:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No authors or dates are listed. Medium compliance.Uncle G11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Example failed to load --Rumping17:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:19:47 -0700Subject: re: invalid use of Wikipedia material on your siteFrom: "CanineCrib" <caninecrib(at)caninecrib(dot)com>Apologise for the late reply. Photos were sent to me via the public. I will go through them and take them ones that are from wikipediaregardsChung

• Site:Captain Copyright
• Page:Colouring Book
  • That page is dynamic and displays different versions at random on each load. Three of the versions contain quotes or very close paraphrases from Wikipedia articlesPaper,Book, andISBN. The only credit is "[Source: Wikipedia.com]". No GFDL information, no link, and entire site purports to be covered by a license that seems very much incompatible with GFDL:[26].
    • Example failed to load --Rumping17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:[27]
  • site appears to be taking live Wiki data
• Examples:
  • http://anguilla.caribbean-forum.com/encyclopedia.php?title=Special:Recentchanges
  • http://dominica.caribbean-forum.com/encyclopedia.php?title=Special:Recentchanges
    • has been blocked by adminLarsSanders17:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• http://anguilla.caribbean-forum.com/encyclopedia.php?title=Wikipedia
• Images are hot-linked to Wikipedia servers
• Copyright might be OK, says:Copyleft © 2005 caribbean-forum.com and Wikipedia - Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". Wikipedia content can be freely edited. Sometimes the edit option does not function from this site. In that case, please go to Wikipedia and edit over there in the corresponding section
  • but on start pagehttp://www.caribbean-forum.com/ has same message, this sounds like the site is affiliated with Wikipedia, even though on that page there stand only forums, no Wikipedia content

LarsSanders17:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Examples failed to load. Main page www.caribbean-forum.com said "Lo sentimos, este sitio web está temporalmente cerrado" i.e. "Sorry, this website is temporarily closed" --Rumping17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Now no obvious Wikipedia content in example --Rumping17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:http://www.carluvers.com
• Example:[28] forAlbania
• Each article ends with: " The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy" with link to www.wikipedia.org (using backwards Javascript) and to local copy of GFDL plus link to local description of how to find original article.
• As of 01:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC) --Henrygb

• Site:Casinozone.info
• Site seems to have updated with the wiki copyright
• Mentions Wikipedia and GFDL, however links back to the main page, and not the individual article.
  • Site appears to be down --Rumping17:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SeeWikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#medievalwarfare.info

• Site:Catholic University of Brussels
• Most of main site is inDutch
• Copies the Semantic Web article completely
• Mentions Wikipedia and has a link on the bottom (not clickable)
• No GFDL Link
• Sent standard GFDL email.David Newton 16:36, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• If problem persists, and Dutch translation seems needed, add a message to my talk page. Don't expect a quick response from me, though. --Kasperl 19:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Page is now 404 missing.Diderot 10:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • and still missing so probably dead --Rumping17:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identical website at http://www.chemie.de.

• Site:Chemistry Daily - the chemistry encyclopedia
• Seems to have a pretty much complete copy of the WP database - including non-chemistry articles.[29]
• No reference to GFDL on individual pages. Instead, line at the bottom:

  The contents of this article is licensed from Wikipedia.org

• Potentially confusing copyright line beneath that. No link to wikipedia on individual article's pages.
• Terms of use[30] are pretty good though, including copy of GFDL license, plus reference to wikipedia.
• Annoying popups andJavaScript.

• Site:http://chesnutz.info

Example url:http://mp3player.chesnutz.info/dir11/mp3-player-compact-flash.html

I don't know what the term for this is, but it's basically link spam, they try to attract every search engine match possible to their link pages. That particular page rips off content fromLimb darkening. There are lots more on that group of sites. No wikipedia credit or gfdl mention whatsoever. Actually the several that I looked at all use Sun-related snippets. Weird.

• • Wikipedia content not obvious in example --Rumping17:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:Chessbase.com

(article aboutHoward Staunton)

• link to current version of article, mentions Wikipedia as source
• no link to GFDL (perhaps not needed - very short text)
  • I agree, but we could tell him to put source: wikipedia (under GFDL). wikipedia would link to article, gfdl to license?
  • It's long enough to be copyrighted, so they should probably license the entire thing under the GFDL. Which will be nice, because they have some nice photos we could use.Martin 10:41, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Any more feedback for this? Should we tell them to license the entire article, or just add "(under GFDL)" with a link to the GFDL. The rest of the article is unrelated to the first part about Howard Staunton IMHO, so I don't see how it is even an extension of the Howard Staunton article.dave 18:28, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I suggest completely ignoring it. We're prominent enough that a link to our article with our name is ample notice that people can reuse that text. Chances are that we're better recognised as meaning open content than the initials GFDL are at this point... The picture of Howard Staunton appears to be a simple reproduction of a work made during his life and given his date of death and US law that means it is now in the public domain and can be taken from their site and used in the Wikipedia.Jamesday 21:05, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• I don't believe this site should be listed as Low compliance (as it currently is). It may not be a shining example to hold up, but they sure made it clear where the article came from. Anyone following the link would then become aware of its GFDL status. There are better things than this to worry about. -Rholton 04:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Site:chess.go.ro
• All (?) chess related articles
• Link to GFDL (but not local copy)
• Links to www.wikipedia.org but not to corresponding article

• Site:http://www.choam.info/
• No mention of wikipedia
• No mention of GFDL
  • Front page is a list of topics. Subpages produce errors --Rumping17:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:[31]

• Main page seems to have copieddating, including a vandilism
• No mention of GFDL, lot of other site too, just look for "Dyersburg, Tennessee, illegal for a woman to contact a man by telephone"--Rayc23:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:http://www.citiesamerica.com
• No longer utilizes Wikipedia information

• As of 16:46, 06 Feb 2007 (UTC)

• has a policy that articles that take content from wikipedia should credit but not all do. Situation with images worse. However the site is new so it is to be expected they will take some time to find their feet. No action taken at this time.

Geni01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, they are now widely violating the GFDL and they explicitly intend to do so according to their founder ontheir forums. Last I looked, their plans were not yet finalized but they were bouncing between either taking Wikipedia content and calling it cc-by-nc or calling Wikipedia content GFDL and keeping CZ originated articles as CC-by-nc with the explicit intention of using a non-free-content license to avoid any cooperation with Wikipedia (from whom they take a significant amount of content). Their frequent copying of images from commons, even in approved articles, with zero attribution or license data is especially troubling. --Gmaxwell01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where on their forums do they explicitly say that they intend on violating the GFDL? I checked out this topic onthe GFDL but I couldn't find what you are talking about. I saw something on CC-by-NC-SA: is that the same as CC-by-nc? Even if it is the same, how does CC-by-nc violate the GFDL? I'm only asking because I don't know. Thanks.~a (user •talk •contribs)01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• it is somewhere inhttp://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,607.0/topicseen.htmlGeni11:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am of course not a lawyer, but it does seem re-releasing GFDL under CC-by-nc might require a day in court at some point. But that may be okay. We don't really know what the GFDL means until such a time, nor the interoperability between the GFDL and any CC licenses. A "day in court" could be a considerable societal good.

That's reply #3 in above mentioned thread. The idea is then re-inforced several times in that thread, also by Larry Sanger. But it's only one of many alternatives discussed there.

Pjacobi13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edit Citizendium and I will not link back to Wikipedia or give any credit to Wikipedia when I am the only author of the Wikipedia entry.Andries21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem.Geni20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And are there any such entries? (Tongue in cheek.)Rich Farmbrough,04:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Portuguese_language no attribution.Rich Farmbrough,04:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

SeeWikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#Otherground

• Site:Cleartest.com

This Pot Smoker of the Month is in significant parts a copyvio of Wikipedia's article on Melissa Etheridge

• No obvious Wikipedia content in example --Rumping17:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seesearch.com

• Siteencyclopedia.codeboy.net

Research requested.JesseW22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently in non-workable state, full with "\n" and "font=", etc. I would assume noone with any sense would use it --Msoos13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still non-compliant more than a year later, http://www.comedy-zone.net/standup/comedian/s/smirnoff-yakov.htm does make it appear that inSoviet Russia,copyright violates YOU!! --carlb (talk)17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Site: http://concordchrysler300.com/wiki2.php
• Just raw copy of Simple English Wikipedia.
• The only mention of GFDL and Wikipedia is from the links in the actual Main Page of the Simple English Wikipedia.
• nonworking as of 13 April 2006.Chris Chan.talk.contribs00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • dead - no domain registration --Rumping17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site: http://conk.com/encyclopedia/
• |rating=|compliance=s Wikipedia
• Contains notice: "Data for the CONK! Encyclopedia provided by Wikipedia" with a non-working link toWikipedia:About and no mention ofGFDL.
• Example: http://www.conk.com/search/encyclopedia.cgi?q=Zone_plate Zone plate
• Have sent email. --Laura Scudder |Talk23:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Dead and gone. --WCQuidditch☎✎18:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Still dead (and gone)ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Site doesn't work anymore.This, that and the other10:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:cookery-online.co.uk
• The site uses Wikipedia (and Wikibooks) content about cooking, kitchen appliances, diets, ect (all of their recipes come from Wikibooks). They provide a link to the text of the GFDL at the GNU's site, and to the Wikipedia Main Page, but not to specific articles (and make no reference to Wikibooks at all).
  • I received a reply from Chris Anstey, letting me know that the links have been changed to the relevant articles, and wikibooks content is now properly attributed.Gentgeen 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I think I would call them medium compliance overall, slightly higher compliance with respect to Wikipedia, and slightly lower in respect to Wikibooks.
  • Changing to high compliance, after checking the site.Gentgeen 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Standard letter (modified to include Wikibooks issues) sent on January 5 byGentgeen
  • Received reply January 15, 2005.Gentgeen 02:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• No authors or dates listed. Medium compliance.Uncle G11:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:copernicus.subdomain.de
• The main page is the Wikipedia article onNicolaus Copernicus, but they seem to have copied all of the article namespace but none of the other namespaces.
• They link to the GFDL at GNU.org, and to the respective Wikipedia article, and mention Wikipedia, at the bottom of every page.

However, as of 03:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC), google seems to still pick them up even with "-wikipedia" added. Strange.JesseW 03:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• All namespaces.
• Sample: http://copernicus.subdomain.de/Jimmy_Wales
• No mention of Wikipedia.
• No mention of GFDL.
• As of 13:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • not functioning --Rumping17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Site:http://www.corkipedia.com/wiki/Main_Page
• Copy & paste of Cork-related Wikipedia articles.
• Sample:http://www.corkipedia.com/wiki/Bantry
• No reference to Wikipedia, no reference to the individual authors, no reference to GFDL or CC-BY-SA
• Some of the files are copied as well. Sometimes the attribution is buried in the text (sample:http://www.corkipedia.com/wiki/File:Goleen_Main_Street_2009_09_10.jpg), sometimes not (sample:http://www.corkipedia.com/wiki/File:Goleen_Church_of_Our_Lady,_Star_of_the_Sea,_and_St._Patrick_Nave_2009_09_10.jpg).
• reported byAFBorchert (talk)07:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Site: www.cottagebuddy.com
• Example www.cottagebuddy.com/cottage_resources/en/Mormaerdom_of_Moray
• States:This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license. The source of this article is Wikipedia and a list of the authors can be found here. with broken links failing to reach GFDL at gnu.org, original article and history
• Ends with©2006 CottageBuddy

• Google suggests copy of some articles (e.g. [[38]] should have a copy ofPolyol) but protected behind registration requirement --Henrygb18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Site ont found, as of 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC).Chris Chan.talk.contribs

• Site: http://www.cytaty.servis.pl/haslo/Main_Page
• Sample: http://www.wiedza.servis.pl/haslo/Albinizm
• Uses Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia, and Wikiquote contents.
• Mention of GFDL 1.2, no links to it though. No mention of Wikipedia. --WB08:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • E-mail sent. --WB08:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sample now seems to be: http://www.encyklopedia.servis.pl/wiki/Albinizm 17:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia-related projects