Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Archive 2

message: IT seems that all the mirrors seem to be taking my user page...In it's form from june of 2003! There should be a thing that makes them update it at least once a month! Ilyanep 14:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The content is not provided under a temporary licence, where anyone can copy it, but must come back and recopy it otherwise it will expire - that would be more like shareware than free content. That some of the mirrors aren't clever enough to weed out the User: namespace (and, indeed, all non-encyclopedia namespaces) is annoying, but the content is nonetheless all licensed under the GFDL, so there's not a lot we can do about it (I have seen some people put notices like "This content is only meaningful on http://en.wikipedia.org"). If you don't want stuff being copyable under those terms, it shouldn't be on this wiki in the first place.  - IMSoP 15:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  hmmm 

message: Hmm, I'm a little confused about how to use the mirrors & forks page. Is a newly discovered site with questionable compliance supposed to be added under "Preliminary investigations", "First warnings", or Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (undetermined or disputed compliance)? Several users have expressed confusion about where to list things and how to know if anyone else is "on the case". ←Hob 23:56, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
I agree and am going to move all the bottom of this page to the relevent sections (mostly to undetermined/disputed) (done)
--Davelane 19:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't mind me for asking but who is Davelane?  You've been here a week and you're making significant changes to an esoteric section of Wikipedia?  Are you a returning user or long-time anon?  - Tεxτurε 21:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: organization of [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|Mirrors and forks]]

message: I have noticed this point was discussed on the Archive1 page of this talk page, and my opinion seems rather divergent of the consensual one. I think it is not irrelevant to point it there.
I shall begin by quoting the debate on the Archive1 page :
"Total compliance:
* Mentions Wikipedia as well as at least five of the Wikipedia users who created the page. (...)
Get rid of "Total compliance"; We don't ask for that and nobody does it. (...) --mav 19:05, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  A link to the article history page has been placed after the sentence crediting Wikipedia and the licencing info. and it works. Apwoolrich 20:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL compliance and author listing 

message: The mirrors and forks page needs a reorganization.  It's quite difficult to use; we spend a lot of time carefully moving items from one place to another, all of which is unnecssary, and it's genearlly confusing.  I understand the need to divide up the pages somehow, as we have too many mirrors and forks to list them all(including discussion) on one page, but I think an alphabetical system would be much easier to deal with.  We spend considerable time deciding(based on unclear criteria) and then moving items from low to medium, or from unknown to high, or whatever, all of which loses history information and makes it harder to find things as they keep moving around.  This is a mistake.  If we listed things on, say 5 pages that divided the alphabet in fifths(leaving room for further expansion, that way), then pages would not need to be moved(except to alphetize them, and even that wouldn't normally require moving items between pages) and we wouldn't (unless we wanted to) have these "levels", and we could get down to the serious process of getting all our mirrors listed, supportive, and helping Wikipedia to grow and prosper(as they should; we help them a lot). JesseW 10:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your comments.  I realized what the proper answer is.  We should have one page(or set of pages) in alphabetical order for discussing and gathering information about mirrors, and other lists to determine things like which sites totally violate the rules, which ones are complient or even are supportive (like the people who donated, or the static mirror people, or other such). I'll get started on doing this now; you're the main person whose opinion I wanted before I did anything. JesseW 16:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  After about 3 hours of work, I've got the new form set up.  See it on the main page, and if you don't mind, try filling in the other sections of the GFDL Compliance list.  Ask me if you have any questions... JesseW 18:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: It's a much better system; we actually had multiple items for the same website, and there was no easy way to find out.  Now that the whole list is alphabetized it is much easier to see. JesseW 18:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Ok.  It's moved over.  The old pages are now just messages telling people to go to the main page for instructions.  their information is on the alphebetical pages, and the categorizing is on the page GFDL Compliance.  There are a lot of other useful lists we could make, partial copies, forks, hidden by googling "-wikipedia", etc.  JesseW 15:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing Mirrors and Forks 

message: The site http://open-dictionary.com/ (mirror of the English Wiktionary) doesn't follow the GFDL. I sent them a mail. To be check to see if they come back on track. Yann 21:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  open-dictionary.com 

message: intelipedia.com is replicating all pages on Wikipedia (including even  and my user page), as well as hotlinking to all images on Wikipedia off the upload.wikimedia.org server. Does Wikimedia mind them hotlinking to the images? Shouldn't the server configuration be modified to deny hotlinking images except from Wikimedia servers? And is there any way we could get them to stop replicating User:, User_talk:, Talk: and Wikipedia: pages? Somebody in the WWW 10:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to even have Special: pages such as  on it - which seem current. Why does it have Special: pages? Could it be simply retreiving pages from Wikipedia via HTTP for every request and simply stripping out Wikipedia's headers+footers? Or how does it work? Somebody in the WWW 00:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: intelipedia.com

message: Upon a google search with the terms labido wikipedia, The top result was http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Hubie_and_Bertie 
Please see if you can find a link back to en.wikipedia. I did not. CQ 15:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my site and I can tell you with confidence it does not link directly back, it just cites en.wikipedia as the source and clearly states in the disclaimer that the article came from there. I cannot see any way in which the GFDL requires a link back. There are clean links back to wikipedia (i.e. without nofollow) elsewhere in fixedreference.org but I do not believe that there need to be.--BozMo|talk 13:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, proud though I am of what we have done at wikipedia I think we need to get a little perspective on who is doing who a favour. http://FixedReference.org carries no adverts (except a top page to a charity) and makes no income. It delivers half a million pages of Wikipedia to 13000 independent IPs every day almost all of whom I'll wager (as it says so everywhere) know exactly where the content comes from. Why? Because (on Alexa's numbers) it is one of the fastest sites (top 15%) whereas WP is one of the slowest. I put it up so I could browse and I will put a more recent copy up when I've got a bit of time. The French copy was put up in response to a request on the Bistro. All this traffic keeps "read only" visitors away from the en. site which is already barely coping. I am sure many other mirrors are the same--BozMo|talk 08:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: fixedreference.org

message: The guide for contributors on Disinfopedia said that Wikipedia articles could be imported but didn't mention the requirements of GFDL compliance.  I added what I thought was appropriate guidance.  Someone else moved most of my addition to the talk page because he wasn't sure I was right.  Well, I'm not sure I was right either -- but I'm dubious about his suggestion on the talk page that the requirement of author credit is satisfied merely by stating that material came from "Wikipedia", without naming authors or linking to page history (and perhaps without even linking to our article).  Anyone who wants to chime in will find the discussion here. JamesMLane 01:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, the other editor is wrong. --mav 00:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems Disinfopedia have changed name to SourceWatch. So the relavent page/section is now [Contributing#Can_I_add_Wikipedia_articles_to_SourceWatch. Looks OK now doesn't it? and this seems to be the discussion referred to above. Hmmm Think I'll stay out of that one :-)  -- Nojer2 14:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's OK; it's not as carefully spelled out as what I wrote.  Incidentally, does Wikipedia have an "official" position as to whether a link back to our article is sufficient, without a separate link to the page history as a way of identifying the principal authors? JamesMLane 20:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia) 

message: Given the perrenial problems with bandwidth and traffic, I was wondering if anyone thinks it might be a good idea to have a page that presents a short list of several mirrors that are well done and up to date. [Clusty.com] might be a good one, for example. 
This would make it easier for users who were so inclined to use Wikipedia for editing and for up-to-date reading, but mirrors for other reading. Links to the page could be put on relevant pages, like pages mentioning WP's tremendous growth, or Yahoo/Google hosting, or fundraising drives, etc.
Apologies if this has been previously discussed; I couldn't find the idea anywhere else. Zach 02:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Saving Wikimedia's bandwith via mirrors?

message: Is this a violation?  As near as I can tell the bio's of the people (chemists, etc) are copies of the corresponding wikipedia articles from between the June 20, 2004 and July 10th 2004.  Compare the
following:
*Dmitri Mendeleev and   (this version seems to be the closest)
*François Jacob and 
*Amedeo_Avogadro and 
I'm at work so I don't have access to the wayback machine (it's blocked) but it sure looks to me like they copied from wikipedia, and not the other way around.  Can someone else verify? Wikibofh 15:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Looks like it's an unauthorized mirror.  Wayback machine doesn't show this stuff before 2005 (stops at 2005).  I'll move to reports.  Wikibofh 23:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mrscienceguy.com 

message: Sigh: 
the intro sentance from Process theology produces 11 responses from google.  I don't recongize any of the 10 in the first page(the 11th is our old friend wikimirror.com).  Could somebody go through and add these entries? I just finished adding 4 or 5 other ones from other google tests. Thanks. JesseW 07:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A nice collection of 10 mirrors I don't think we have yet

message: I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this before, but wikimirror.com () is listed as having high compliance, even though it doesn't link back to the page, doesn't link to a copy of the GFDL and doesn't mention any of the authors of the content. Also, it either has a _very_ up to date database dump or it's pulling the content directly from our servers? -- Joolz 00:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimirror.com 

message: I was submitting articles on an idealistic basis, and now I find that Wikipedia is mirrored and baked into commercial sites! I am not sure of how to react to this. But immediatelly it doesn't feel good! Can anyone convince me why I shouldn't consider it scam – so I won't lose my inspiration – please?
A mirror example: http://www.nationmaster.com/ with advertisements, or links to sites with commercial content.
Profero 19:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  == <nowiki>http://www.nationmaster.com/ </nowiki>== 

message: I found a mirror of AfD discussions. It immediately redirects to another page, so the url is a Google cache using the page's title as a search. -- Kjkolb 23:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirror of AfD discussions 

message: This site is an exact copy of Wikipedia article on Pakistan Air Force and the owners of the site don't have any GFDL or anything suggesting it is taken from Wikipedia. They are just passing off that content as their own and to top it all, they keep readding the site link to the External links section in the very article. The content is copied from August 16 version so newer changes might not be reflected but it is a shameless copy by the webmaster who has the nerve to spam the very copy here!!! Idleguy 12:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The nerve of this site to spam here 

message: I remove the disclaimer about how the whole "Non-compliance process" section is an "ad-hoc formalization" or whatever.  It's been here forever, and is just as much valid advice as most other pages in the Wikipedia namespace.  In fact, I'd like to declare this page a guideline, if no one objects.  It would help provide some focus to the whole effort, I think. Superm401 | Talk 23:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad-hoc Disclaimer 

message: Found a useful utility for finding plagiarism: Copyscape.  --jonon 09:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyscape 

message: There is a group of mirrors with a distinctive ending:
:The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy
The HTML code says:
:The contents of this article are licensed from <a href="javascript:jumpUrl('gro.aidepikiw.www//:ptth');">Wikipedia.org</a> under the <a href="/copyright.html#gnu">GNU Free Documentation License</a>. How to view <a href="/copyright.html#transparent">transparent copy</a>
I particularly like backward "gro.aidepikiw.www".  Examples include arthistoryclub , bigpedia
, carluvers , gardeningdaily , singaporemoms , and there are many more --Henrygb 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Families of mirrors