Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Archive 3

message: As mentioned on Wikipedia_talk:Citing_Wikipedia#What_do_we_do_about_people_plagarizing_Wikipedia.3F What to do with them? There's a service called AskMeNow that only exists as a for-profit mobile service; customers SMS or call in their questions, and the service SMS/emails back an answer. The problem is that the answer is typically (not always) an excerpt from Wikipedia made without attribution. - quanta 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They still have a web and email presence (contact page at ) so you can use modified standard violation letter. Superm401 | Talk 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violations by non-web entities 

message: Few questions. If the e-mail address left in WHOIS is invalid, and you have no other ways of contacting the owner, do we move on straight to the ISP?
Also, the meta is rather inactive, and even here is rather inactive. Anything we can do about this? -- WB 08:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going to the ISP seems reasonable.  If the first tries don't work, you could even try a DMCA takedown notice. Superm401 | Talk 11:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the IP points to 85.214.18.28, a German address. abuse@strato.de seems like the way to go. Any knowledge of how DMCA would work internationally? -- WB 11:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: E-mails sent. Of course, I do not know yet, but what if even the ISP/host do not reply? -- WB 11:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but even if it's technically legally appliable, I think it would be difficult to enforce. Superm401 - Talk 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-contact, etc. 

message: |-
!URL
|<URL> (wrapped in nowiki to prevent search engines from visiting)
|-
!Violations
|
*a list
|-
!Contact info
|<contact info>
|-
!Status
|
|}
:::::-- WB 11:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <some site>

message: It should probably be Template:Mirror. Superm401 | Talk 11:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: A standard DMCA requires the following. Maybe we can write something common in there to make it easier to send these:
#an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the trademark or other intellectual property interest;
#a description of the trademarked work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed;
#a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the site;
#your address, telephone number, and email address;
#a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright or intellectual property owner, its agent, or the law;
#a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the trademark or intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the trademark or intellectual property owner's behalf.
-- WB 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start a public domain letter at Wikipedia:DMCA takedown notice.  I strongly recommend you don't link it yet from the main page.  We need to carefully consider when to use these.  Superm401 - Talk 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. -- WB 01:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I realize there's no specific laws on adults, but I don't think minors should be sending these "legal messages". -- WB 02:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not a specific legal problem, why shouldn't we? Superm401 - Talk 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was discussing about that here. -- WB 01:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a minor (for a while).  It's kind of funny if you think about it.  All the users most interested in the legal matters are below or at the age of majority. Anyway, I apologize for being harsh.  Superm401 - Talk 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Make sure you  tell them the terms under which they can duplicate content. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You see what I mean; anther minor.  Ilyanep, we do tell them the terms.  See Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. Superm401 - Talk 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't on Wikipedia:DMCA takedown notice. And heh about how minors are watching this. Maybe we should get an adult to do these though. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it should.  First, by this point the site has shown they're not willing to cooperate with the GFDL; we might as well get down to business.  Also, we're not sending the DMCA takedowns to the sites themselves (though they might be forwarded them).  We're sending them to hosts and maybe Google.  Neither of those organizations can (or at least should) edit pages to make them comply with the GFDL.  They only have the power to block access, and that's what we're asking for at that point. Superm401 - Talk 10:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So where do we look for adult Wikipedians willing to help us with these? Out of past four people I've been talking to, 3 are minors, and one is Jimbo... -- WB 06:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Another possible priority for a DMCA takedown would be Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Mno#otherground.  Superm401 - Talk 10:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already posted. No replies... -- WB 08:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMCA 

message: Do we want to eliminate this section now that we have the archive? Superm401 - Talk 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, I still can't reach http://informationblast.com directly.  I just tried through a proxy and lo and behold it's there.  I don't know why I can't access it, but I'm not that surprised.  I'll have to remember to try from two IPs somehow or other before I archive more sites. Superm401 - Talk 10:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/GFDL_Compliance#Former_content_users|Former content users]] 

message: What if a site cited wikipedia (correctly I think) but they even used links throughout the site, in the fashion of wikipedia, linking to other wikipedia cited sites?(sorry for the tongue twister, that was unintentional)
What if the site owner's e-mail is non-responsive, and so is the ISP. It seems to be the case for many the e-mails I sent... Also, some of the Chinese websites like firebird.cn's ISP cannot be found, even through the use of WHOIS, ping, etc. -- WB 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, we would need to use a traceroute.  I use DNSStuff.  It has pretty much every lookup you could want for an IP or domain.  For firebird.cn, I did a whois.  I saw that the administrative emails and nameservers are both at hichina.com.  Then, I tried another whois for hichina.com but that didn't lead anywhere because their nameservers are on that domain. Then, I did a NS lookup for hichina.com (upper right) and found the same nameservers with their IPs.  Doing a whois on the first IP gave me bjnic@bjtelecom.net .  We should try contacting them next. Superm401 - Talk 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: They would have to comply with the GFDL --Henrygb 13:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if... 

message: A day ago or so, I warned Superm about Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl#localcolorart.com and his millions of domain-parking. And only a soon later, 69.19.14.33, 66.82.9.64, 69.19.14.26, 69.19.14.19 have been diligently adding various domains served by that person? Anyway, I think take down of that domain and that ISP is in the priority (image resource wasting, search wasting, etc.) -- WB 09:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are my IPs, but they're close, which of course means nothing as I have a static IP.  Superm401 - Talk 10:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently someone named "Kathy's Daddy" thinks contacting the ISP is a personal attack. There may have been a mistake but "vicious lies"? I've been only following what other developers were saying. -- WB 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some comments posted here. -- WB 08:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you satisfied with this guy's compliance?  It seems fine to me at the moment. Superm401 - Talk 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine right now. But we still need to keep a watch on the sites, only because of the sheer size of it (almost 100). He's avoiding my comments about his domain parking though. He says he works to promote Wikipedia, but I think it's more like getting Google hits on over 100 copies of outdated Wikipedia... Whatever, there are more sites to care about. -- WB 01:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange? 

message: Unless we can get someone in Wikipedia to write DMCA for us, we cannot proceed in many cases. Many hosting companies are not accepting anything other than DMCA. -- WB 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Sj posted something over at juriwiki mailing list. We should be hearing something soon. -- WB 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked him for an update. Superm401 - Talk 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No word back from anyone yet, unfortunately.  I'll ping User:Michael Snow directly next I  have the chance.  I would guess a reasonable answer is 'use language that hints at the DMCA clauses, and ISPs will take notice'.  The DMCA clause basically says "If someone complains about infringing content, you have to take it down; then if the person who posted the content challenges the complaint, you can put it back up [and wait for more formal complaint/action]." But I'd like to hear one of our resident lawyers weigh in on the matter.  +sj + 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we might have to consider looking for people to send e-mails again. -- WB 07:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that we are already stating clearly that the sites are copyright infringements.  Unfortunately, the DMCA isn't as flexible as you say.  Takedowns have to be in a precise format; the issue is that nobody here feels comfortable sending notices in that format (which should include address and phone number), and ISPs won't pay attention to anything else. Superm401 - Talk 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why we need someone comfortable releasing them. There are a few of people releasing their real names in their user namespace, maybe we should look on contacting them about helping us. -- WB 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Someone above the age of majority who has already publicly connected their real name to their Wikipedia user name would be ideal.  I'm a minor and not too inclined to publicize my name given Brandt's hit list (the current name and address for me is wrong). Superm401 - Talk 01:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, it would suck to get on that list. As I said earlier, Jimbo is probably the most public name out here, but he's not helping, so someone else. -- WB 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really that bad.  Like I said, the info is wrong.  But, I wonder if it constitutes a non-compliant mirror... Superm401 - Talk 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:BD2412 can be a great help. His information is publicly available, AND he's into law. I contacted him at User talk:BD2412. My writing might not be the best, so if you can improve on it, go ahead. -- WB 02:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up the note a little. Superm401 - Talk 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. -- WB 07:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It says "Working on a reply" according to his status display. I really hope it's our case. -- WB 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to his reply on my talk page, he's getting ready for a major trial, but is interested in helping us, which is a good news. A bit more wait I guess. -- WB 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm trying to be less out there at the moment... bd2412 T 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desperate? 

message: I'd like to suggest that we don't blank the action section when a website comes into compliance.  They may soon start violating the license again, and even if they don't it's good to have a record of the communications and effort expended. Superm401 - Talk 03:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can make note of the past violations, but the whole list of actions may be a bit too big. -- WB 06:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the major actions, then? Superm401 - Talk 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Like e-mails, DMCA (still no progress there), etc. -- WB 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action Section 

message: Why should JS only sites be allowed? Some sites are going as far as to encrypting their links for some reason to avoid it. Even if GFDL does not specify it, say, someone hid it inside the HTML code... How's JS GFDL better than hiding it inside the code, some people can see it and some people can't? I think it should be apparent in text without things like JS. edit: looking back at this, GFDL should be in "all copies". Which means that, it would not be reproduced in people who have disallowed JS. -- WB 04:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A GFDL notice must be included in all copies of the document.  Everytime a user views a page (JS or not) a copy is being made.  That means every user viewing a page must see a license notice (Section 2 or 4#F).  If they don't see it, the page isn't compliance.  Thus, showing the page to people without JS but not the license notice is a violation. How it is shown to them is irrelevant, as Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason points out.  However, it must must be shown to every user, which is currently not true. Superm401 - Talk 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- WB 07:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Shall we add it back in then? -- WB 01:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Go ahead. Superm401 - Talk 03:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- WB 10:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JavaScript 

message: Quadell has begun a revision of Wikipedia:Copyrights at Wikipedia:Copyrights/draft.  I urge everyone who is concerned about mirror compliance (probably those reading this) to pay attention there.  Wikipedia:Copyrights and WP:MF are inextricably linked. Superm401 - Talk 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] 

message: New Wikipedia database dumps now contain explanations of the dumps. Which means that we can avoid those userpage mirrors. Also, Wikipedia:Database download needs some links and mentioning of the copyrights. A person just looking at that page would have no idea about the terms, etc. -- WB 10:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an explicit mention of the copyright details to the beginning, along with a basic introduction to the page. Do you have other changes in mind? Superm401 - Talk 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not right now. Well done. -- WB 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Database dumps

message: I've been involved with this page before, and I'd be happy to help out again.  I just came across TutorGig, and I'm not exactly sure what to do about them - comments appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for coming around. We seriously need as much help as possible. As fas as I can see, that mirror is OK. It does have all the requirements: a link to Wikipedia – and the source article –, WP as a source, and a link to GFDL. It could be better, so maybe contacting the admin of that site? Anyways. -- WB 07:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me too. 

message: (I just created a new section since the one up there is getting somewhat long and harder to notice. Feel free to merge as you please however). I just contacted few people listed on legal department (User:Michael Snow and User:Alex756). This project although seemingly revived for the few weeks in January, but is, again, at a deadlock due for our inability to send out any DMCA requests. It seems like Wikipedia itself removed content due to DMCA from other people. Anyways, just an update. -- WB 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do accept DMCA takedown requests.  Check out foundation:Designated_agent. Superm401 - Talk 03:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: Should we go from A to Z for every mirrors listed to check whether they are active or not? Perhaps we could have an organized process. Frustration for the lack of DMCA writings... -- WB 08:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been mostly going down the Low compliance list, templatifying sections.  Along the way, I contact the site if it hasn't been contacted recently and make sure the compliance status is still accurate; I archive sites to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Archive as needed.  This probably the best preparation for the DMCA takedown notices, because they will start in the Low column. Superm401 - Talk 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should tell you that when I add sites to MF, I rarely add one to the list sorted by compliance. I only add one to the alphabetical list. I contacted several ISPs (after admins were non-responsive), but the ISPs were non-responsive as well. What should we do when the ISPs do not respond. There were two DMCA notice sent by User:Tawker last week, but as far as I know, neither came back with a reply. -- WB 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really shouldn't skip the compliance section.  Like I said, it's much easier for people later if they can rely on the compliance sorting. If ISPs are unresponsive, we'll need to go upstream somehow.  What sites did Tawker send notices to? Superm401 - Talk 08:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#dic.blogopt.com. I believe the second one was cancelled because e-mail notice wasn't sent before sending the DMCA. Note that we can send DMCAs for Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#zdnet.co.za because I sent e-mail to the admin about 2-3 times (over a month now), and they were without a reply. It wasn't for zdnet.co.za though. It was for lookitup.co.za, but I haven't made an entry for that one yet. -- WB 20:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that sites should always be warned at least once before we send DMCA takedowns to their ISPs (that's one reason I'm going down the Low/None list).  It appears blogopt didn't get a warning before-hand either.  If the ISP ignores this notice (as you said they seem to be doing), we should wait a couple weeks then send one to legal@nlayer.net (it seems Tawker sent a DMCA to abuse@nlayer.net, which would be less effective).  We should wait on the co.za's (which do have a common owner).  There are still many in the Low/None list which have no mention of either Wikipedia or the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My last contact with Mr. Russell W Mckay <rmckay@hotmail.com> was in January 25, 2006 (which is a month and a day or two ago), I told him what we were and what we wanted him to do, but I haven't got a reply since. I sent an e-mail to the ISP <abuse@pwebtech.com> in February 6 inquiring the status, and one on February 22 (actually about copyrights infringement), but I never got a message back. That said, I don't think any further e-mails to Mr. Mckay, owner of the co.za mirrors, would work either. I think we should contact BAbramson (sp?) about DMCA again since it's been a while. -- WB 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a DMCA takedown is warranted here, but there are worse sites to deal with first. Superm401 - Talk 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, but while we are on it, we might as finish it. It is also easy to deal with quick response ISPs like Yahoo! -- WB 05:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a to z clean up 

message: We need to work on the #Non-compliance_process section.  It's drastically out of step with reality.  Superm401 - Talk 01:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest rewriting instead of revising the current one. That way, we result in a much more fluid instructions etc. I think we should also cut the waiting period to a month or at most month and a half. If there's no reply by then, chances are that the owner is ignoring, bad e-mail, etc. Maybe we can create a draft? (added at 02:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten it from scratch to make it faster while still giving the webmaster fair warning. What do you think? Feel free to make changes to proposed steps. Superm401 - Talk 20:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, I don't what more to add, but I'll do that when I can think of one. -- WB 05:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google agreed to throw away all the cached copies from a former content user: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Apseudodoxia.flawlesslogic.com&btnG=Google+Search. -- WB 02:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you get them to do that?  Did someone send a DMCA takedown order? Superm401 - Talk 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An e-mail to Google. Keep in mind that was easy because it was within a specific domain. They will refuse to do ones that are confusingly placed calling them "manual requests." The site was already down before Google did anything though, if that's what you are wondering about. -- WB 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-compliance process 

message: You can do a Google search on a subject in order to find more information about it to add to the article on WP, and the majority of the search results will be mirror of the WP article itself.  I'm not sure why Google fails to filter those out.  The only way I can think of to counter it is to include a -"sentence from the WP article"...? Esquizombi 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've set up a Firefox keyword that performs a google search, omitting results that contain the word wikipedia. Create a bookmark with the address http://www.google.com/search?q=%20-wikipedia+%s, give it a keyword (I use gnw), and then use the address bar to search: gnw "search phrase here". An additional benefit of this is that any website that replicates WP content that shows up in this search is not compliant with the GFDL (usually). Mindmatrix 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or see meta:Mirror filter for another approach. -- Jeronim 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mirrors are irritating

message: I've recently come across a few sites that are essentially mirrors of Wikipedia, except they don't actually display any content. These sites seem to be propping up their own Google rank, and it seems generate AdSense revenue. Take a look at this example Toronto, Ontario page at skintoy.com. If you look at the source, you'll note that it contains a list of all wikilinks from the wikipedia Toronto page. What's more, it seems to update the list in real-time as a user accesses the page (I accessed it shortly after this edit, yet the skintoy page contained the new link I introduced in that edit not more than ten minutes earlier.
Others which are clearly part of the same network include  and . Any thoughts about this? Mindmatrix 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another one, using the same image, but in a different network, and using a different design. Mindmatrix 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: One more, different from the others: . Mindmatrix 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam referral and spamlinking mirrors

message: There are a number of companies that recycle Wikipedia content to create print on demand books such as VDM Publishing, Books LLC and Hephaestus Books. They've been discussed at the village pump in the past and some are listed here. Do we have a list of republishers anywhere (something like Wikipedia:Spam blacklist)? Gobonobo T C 20:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use each page for its intended purpose.  Wikipedia:Spam blacklist is for when people are repeatedly (so the problem can't be dealt with manually) adding inappropriate links to an article.  This set of pages (Mirrors and forks) is for keeping track of license compliance.  All republishers can be listed here using the normal template, but unless there's a spam issue they should not be listed at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. I don't see a need right now for a new page. Superm401 - Talk 03:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republishers 

message: It seems that Chairman of Vikas WSP Limited has used in his message to shareholders large parts of copied/closely paraphrased text from Hydraulic fracturing and Shale gas articles without properly referring to it. Don't knew where it should be report. Beagel (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More pages: , . Beagel (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vikas WSP Limited 

message: I was sniffing for a suspected copyvio in an article and hit www.imarksweb.net/book/amphibia+hearts+a/ which set off an Avast malware warning.  Because of that I haven't viewed the page properly; if it is a mirror, it should be added ... and if somehow can inject a virus, that should be noted.  And maybe there's something WP could do about that?  Anyway, I'm not sure how to pursue this myself, so I'll drop this here and see if someone comes up with a plan. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malicious mirror? 

message: This doesn't really need a section in the page, but it was hilarious:  Ikea prints faux books for use in their showrooms using WP content: https://plus.google.com/u/0/104867148520425189911/posts/Wm4ebSLFEaj   --j⚛e deckertalk 03:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ikea 

message: thumbnail  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.125.74 (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  chadricka 

message: An editor attempted to use  	
this page as a reference. It looks like a part of goo. Is this a mirror?--Auric  talk 10:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  goo? 

message: While trying to enter http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/, I am getting the following notice:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /onlinesp/list/ on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Please help,
Thanks in advance,
(Schwiki 14:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to enter the site http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/ 

message: I have just changed the beginning of the project page that read [my italics]:
I've amended this to read Copyright status of mirrors and forks...Republication is not a breach of copyright. The problem with the original broad statement is that a court might deem republication to be illegal or actionable for reasons other than copyright, and it is not in our best interests to offer an open-ended guarantee of legality. In particular, the exemption in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may not apply where a third party intentionally copies material from Wikipedia. If someone is defamed in a Wikipedia article, WMF is apparently protected by §230. If a third party who copied the article accepts liability, it would be undesirable to let them sue us because we have assured them that "republication is legal". I'm not a lawyer, so please undo this if you feel like taking the risk.... - Pointillist (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Forbes recently published an op-ed on how this might apply in the UK. Their article (UK's New Defamation Law May Accelerate The Death Of Anonymous User-Generated Content Internationally) seems to be saying that publishers are only protected to the extent that they know who their users are. As I see it, any UK republisher of Wikipedia content can have little idea of who is behind most of our contributor's usernames and IP addresses. Anyway, if the republisher has deliberately copied the material from Wikipedia, can the republisher successfully claim it is "user-generated content"? The anonymous individuals who generated it weren't users of the republisher's service. - Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality 

message: Hello! In case of websites that comply with our policy, do we still list them in the alphabetical list for the purpose? I have come across this site http://www.razorrobotics.com which i think complies with our licenses. Sample is http://www.razorrobotics.com/knowledge/?title=Category:Dams_completed_in_1966.  §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they should be listed under High (note, that short list probably isn't complete).  This can be seen as both a "thank you" and a good example to other sites. Superm401 - Talk 03:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complying websites 

message: Please see http://www.zeably.com/. jonkerz ♠talk 13:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeably - Unattributed mirror 

message: 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.
Step 3 in particular may seem like overkill, but if you asked a technical writer I think that's what they would suggest. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section for simply viewing the list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wiki2 mirror questions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Google books 

message: The issue of the large supply of circular refs raised by @ could be addressed by a bot that output reports such as  does.
Some restructuring of the alphabetical list pages, possibly including retrospective application of the mirror template to older entries, might help. @ pointed out last year that the list is a bit confusing to use.
Indeed EranBot uses a  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)
thread_title:  Some automation to reduce circular refs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/ 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Medialibrary.org 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added a description field 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should I report something this minor? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Wiki.ng

message: Hello,
I'm an admin on w:mr. We are trying to enforce "no copyvio" policy there and use WMF lab's CopyVio tool (https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ ) extensively. We come across text that's been copied from w:mr onto blog sites and the like. Often, we're able to identify it as such (Wikipedia --> blog). Sometimes, we cannot find the date of publishing on the blog and cannot determine if the copy was (W --> blog) or (blog --> W).
I'm sure many of you have come across this situation. What did you do?
I read a bit here and searched for this info but couldn't find anything. Your help is much appreciated.
Thank you.
अभय नातू (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for help with copyvio tool 

message: Can someone create a copyright violation detection tool which excludes sites which copy Wikipedia article info to them? This can help reduce false positives in copyright violation readings and come in handy if someone is doing a copyright violation investigation about older cases.   JC7V (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: The www.wiki2.com entry Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/VWXYZ#WIKI 2 repeats the clone “Says it complies with CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License”. However, I can't see a listing of contents authors at wiki2, although the license terms require 'appropriate credit', which is explained at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ in a pop-up hint as “If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties”. This seems an a non-compliance with the license. Should we just repeat the site's claims, or rather inform about actual non/compliance status? --CiaPan (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKI 2 - license compliant? 

message: I'll be checking whether the ancient mirrors are online, and if they're still dead after a week or two, I'll archive them if no one objects. Sunmist (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving ancient dead mirrors 

message: A discussion of interest to this project is taking place at the Noticeboard for India-related topics. See WT:INB#The Hindu copying misinformation from WP. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of interest at WT:INB 

message: Here's a quote from WP's P. V. Sindhu (dated 2 September 2019):
And here's a quote from a Mint's article (dated 25 September 2019):
So careless was the copy-paste by the Mint that they even forgot to complete the sentence after "2016". BTW, If this is not the proper forum for reporting/listing mirrors, then I apologise in advance. Thanks.- NitinMlk (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mint (newspaper)]] mirroring WP 

message: Here is an example of Hindustan Times mirroring nearly 80% of its article's content from WP's unsourced content – copyvio report.
This is our unsourced version as of 14 July 2012 (the sole sourced line of the following content was actually supported by this unreliable UGC):
And this is copy-pasted version published by the Hindustan Times on 25 October 2012:
I have seen many more mirrors from Indian and Pakistani newspapers, but I never kept record of them. Anyway, I will report them here in the future. Pinging , as they had shown interest in a similar report. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , good catch, both here, and at the section above about "Mint".  In response to your comment in the previous section, I believe that this page is not the best venue for these concerns.  With your permission, I will move this discussion to the Reliable sources noticeboard; or you may do so yourself.  If you decide to do it, I would recommend raising two separate discussions there (just as you did here),  terminate each of the conversations on this page using the template , and start each of the two conversations at RSN using . Just ping me here, and let me know which you prefer.  Thanks again for your vigilance, Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

text: On second thought, maybe they should be in both places. Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , please move them to WP:RSN. In fact, feel free to move/edit my WP:MIRROR-related posts in the future as well. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hindustan Times]] mirroring WP 

message: Hello everybody,
the site is a complete mirror of Wikipedia and apparently in several language versions: 
German Wikipedia
English Wikipedia
Wikipedia
If I have seen correctly this one is still missing in the list --Starkiller3010 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiplanet.click 

message: Rationale:
# The listing claimed  I have removed this (). This was very likely the result of faulty machine translation. If you want to claim that Baidu Baike advertises itself as "Wikipedia", please, provide some solid proof.
# The listing is based on a single page which, as of 15 April 2020, does not look like a mirror or copyvio.
# The claim that Baidu Baike with +16 million articles is a mirror or fork of the Chinese Wikipedia with +1 million articles is disingenuous.
# Baidu Baike terms of use forbid copyright violations.
# As a user-generated content platform, copyvios do happen. I would like to remind you that this is also true for Wikipedia.
There might be some copyvio cases in Baidu Baike, but to call it a "mirror or fork" or suggesting that a significant portion of its +16 million articles is copyvio of our +1 million Chinese articles is not acceptable. --MarioGom (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Without prejudice of the rationale stated above, I offer the detection of one copyvio on Wikipedia (copied from Baidu Baike) for each copyvio on Baidu Baike (copied from Wikipedia) you can find. --MarioGom (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baidu Baike should be delisted 

message: Check the rationale here: . --MarioGom (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservapedia removed 

message: Can anyone please do something about this website? For many years this site has been stealing Wikipedia articles left and right, and the whole website is in fact nothing more than an advertisement pool. Many contents on their pages also seem to be quite outdated in comparison to Wikipedia, as if they were deliberately taken from the old revision pages.
The worst part is not only this website verbatim copy-paste contents from Wikipedia, but there are also many random and irrelevant images and videos attached on every page which are, again, stolen from all over the internet without permission from the original authors. Which contribute nothing to the topics themselves but instead propagate false and misleading information to anyone who reads their website.
Many pages also convey straightly incorrect, biased, or vandalized contents from their respective original Wikipedia articles. Fortunately this website seems to be extremely obscure, so not many people are exposed to it. --Margrave1230 (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently they have notices at the bottom of the articles about the origin and license. So it would be compliant with our license. --MarioGom (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take action on Alchetron.com 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Archived. --MarioGom (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  protectedplanet.net 

message: Removed Aaronlanguage.com. Proof of claims was never provided, the report was dubious, and it seems nobody even checked if it was not copyvio by Wikipedia. Another editor noted this on 2007, and there seems to be no further action since then. The linked page is no longer online. --MarioGom (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaronlanguage.com 

message: Apple TV+ launched on November 1, 2019. I just realized that the app takes the profiles of actors and actress directly from Wikipedia without attribution. See screenshot here (I can delete this screenshot if it is a problem). I think this is a big enough problem to make a ruckus about. I have looked all over the app and on their website and I don't see any attribution to en.wiki anywhere. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did anyone followup? I think the WMF should be able to have a friendly conversation with Apple about this. --MarioGom (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I emailed Wikimedia legal. They wrote back: "Thank you for bringing this to our attention! We are looking into it." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple TV is violating our copyright 

message: Acquired by EOS.IO, is now on a blockchain of some sort. Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/DEF#Everipedia
More importantly though, here's snippet from their Terms of Service: "Everipedia's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." (note the lack of Share-Alike)
Given that their content is mostly from Wikipedia (uncredited, too)... yeah. Sobsz (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everipedia 

message: I found this site that looks exactly like Wikipedia online: joe-biden.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.234.120 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They're just using a redirect, no issues there. It looks like Wikipedia because that's where it goes. Sunmist (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Copy Site  

message: titleModern primat (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE TO TURKISH 

message: We should remove the reference to it --PeterTrompeter (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenFacts has been offline since 2012 

message: The website https://www.zh-tw.w3ki.com appears to copy and then automatically translate some articles, such as https://www.zh-tw.w3ki.com/wiki/Transcaucasian_Republic. Does this count as a mirror? CMD (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  w3ki 

message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-09-26/News and notes mentioned a "hard fork" of Chinese Wikipedia, making a distinction which this article doesn't mention. Ought the term be defined here, with examples distinguishing it from other kinds of Wikipedia forks? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard and soft