Claims copyright of content Mentions "some content from Wikipedia under GDL" [sic] No link to original articles No link to GFDL
Benjamin Cohen — ben at pinknews dot co dot uk
Standard message sent 24 April 2007. Contact replied stating "Every page has a Wikipedia GDL [sic] license paragraph on it". Second message sent 25 April 2007, further clarifying GFDL's requirements. --Kwekubo 22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up message sent 02 May 2007. --Kwekubo 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Final warning sent 03 June 2007. --Kwekubo 14:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Also Socialite is copied, but without any attribution. Sent notice -- don't know if anyone else has sent them notice before. Not sure, so we'll treat this as first notice. Cleduc 5 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)
Notice resulted in a "Reference" being placed on the page -- so the source is attributed. However, the GFDL notice is not placed on the page, just like the CPR article. I'm going to follow up with the editor/publisher. Cleduc 6 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
So what happened? It still claims the copyright on the article is theirs. 126.96.36.199 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Innumerable low-quality domains, including ebhu.ml, fungoliostored.tk, datascraper.io, rainbowshopper.cf, freeebooksfaezdya.ml, ejakata.cf, rtwo.tk which redirect to old.book-index.ru and kelpmedia.com; possibly also happywestie.de, ebookslibrary.club
Stores "ebooks" scraped from various sources across various domains, adding a paywall. URLs typically purport to serve a PDF file in order to be indexed as such by Google, but in fact contain nothing of the sort.
*Footer "All content from Kiddle encyclopedia articles (including the article images and facts) can be freely used under Attribution-ShareAlike license, unless stated otherwise." Second footer "Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Kiddle encyclopedia articles are based on selected content and facts from Wikipedia, rewritten for children and students. Powered by MediaWiki."
Does not seem to link the original pages or history.
Mirrors and links the file description pages, therefore the authors are attributed.
Seems to correctly exclude unfree images, e.g. from Kylie (album).
Albania example no longer has content: www.kiwipedia.com/canada.html is Canada or Cnaada (article looks deliberately dyslexic) and ends with "This is a static copy of Wikipedia" with link to www.wikipedia.org --Rumping (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of their articles appear to be machine-translated versions of Wikipedia in other languages. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved from main page Davelane 22:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This was deleted by 188.8.131.52 (Removed Klasikoyun.com site has an attribution in the main page)
I've restored this as I beleve they are not in compliance -- if you disagree please move to disputed. --Davelane 16:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Site is down now, I'll delist it soon (feel free to do it if I forget). Rhobite 20:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
It's back up now, and still infringing. Rhobite 21:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a full mirror of Wikipedia, though without image pages. Pages attribute Wikipedia without link and link to offsite GFDL. Also links to Wikipedia's copy of disclaimer. Explicitly claims copyright. Uses dynamic loading (see http://knowledgegiant.com/search/current%20events).
KNOWLEDGEGIANT.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com (private whois), legal AT nac.net (host whois)
Ends with "This content from wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Brought to you by System0." Links only to Wikipedia main page; no direct link to article or inclusion of history.
Knowledgegeek now looks close to compliance, acknowledging Wikipedia as the original source and linking to the GFDL. Do people agree that they are now largely compliant? --Robert Merkel 04:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The site has definitely improved. However, witness all the 'summary' pages one level in from the root page (such as Coffee) still being composed largely of Wikipedia content without any acknowledgement. A sentence or two, lifted directly from Wikipedia is shown in many entries on those 'summary' pages (such as Drip brew, French press, Caffeine, etc. on the Coffee page above) yet you must click through to the full text before a Wikipedia or GFDL reference is made. A reference to Wikipedia and GFDL on all pages with even 'truncated' Wikipedia content (ie, the first few sentences of a bunch of articles) would still seem to be required. Potentially also worth mentioning is that the engine or template system used by KnowledgeGeek is used by StudioReview.com (documented on this page and supported/linked by Mark Coffman of KnowledgeGeek) and as of this writing, StudioReview has a low degree of compliance. I'm not suggesting that the owner/operator of KnowledgeGeek is able to accomplish this, but one wonders if it's possible to add compliance at an engine- or template-level for sites like this which are clearly copying Wikipedia content in huge quantities. Ds13 20:46, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
The remaining problems identified above seem to be addressed now. I would agree that they are largely compliant now. --Ds13 06:50, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
[Homepage of the site has no content of Wikipedia. No disclaimer/copyright information]
No specific DMCA contact found; general "Contact Us" at .
no attribution of Wikipedia; claims copyright at bottom of each page; only one or two mentions of GFDL in a well-hidden page, though with a local copy of the GFDL; not using "any later version" language.
bernard AT knowmore.org
just emailed contact about issues, waiting to hear back, put here in case I don't hear anything back from contact --Phish0202 03:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Mirror/plagiarism of *many* Laker Player biographies without attribution.
info AT lakersplayers.org
Sent two emails in late 2006 informing them of GFDL infringement, neither of which prompted a response. More recently (ending October 2007) sent standard sequence of GFDL violation letters, again receiving no response.
Unsure. The site seems to be such a good copy, it has the disclaimer footer on every page, just like Wikipedia. However, tiny details, such as using a link as a reference, and calling it "What is it with Lardydar Wiki?", when clearly that article has nothing to do with "Lardydar" Wiki. Also, they claim: "Lardydar Wiki® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", but that is because they have included the footer seen on every Wikipedia page, and simply changed "Wikipedia" into "Lardylar Wiki". Even their Contact us page is identical, leading the user to contact Wikimedia, instead. May be a valid mirror, but I could not find links to Wikipedia. Searching for the article 'Wikipedia' Comes up with the article 'Lardylar Wiki' instead, but they pronounce "Lardylar Wiki" /ˌwikiˈpeːdi.ə/, so... What bothers me most is that they have the "Donate to" Link, on the left, exactly as Wikipedia, and it leads to their Paypal account. Perhaps this is completely legal and valid, but it appears that this site takes advantage of the "feel" of Wikipedia to solicit donations that do not go to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Copy of Wikipedia's footer, but name is changed to state owner is Lardylar Wiki, states: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."
Straight copy from recent version of 7 Year Bitch embedded in the one page I looked at. There is a GFDL notice, but the source is only visible on the edit tab.
office AT last.fm
Sent standard letter to office AT last.fm Superm401 - Talk 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Received reply correcting me and noting that there was a GFDL notice, and Wikipedia was attributed on the edit page. Replied that the GFDL must be local, and noting that the notice must visible to readers, not just editors. Superm401 - Talk 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed having sources visible only to editors was weird. Said he would host a local GFDL. Replied thanking him, discussing Wikipedia's use of external GFDL content, and agreeing that the GFDL was harsh (but noting that this is still easier than real compliance). Superm401 - Talk 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The GFDL does not seem to be available anywhere on the site. There are links at the bottom of all pages that purport to explain copyright, disclaimers, and the GFDL, but the links lead to pages that say "(There is currently no text in this page)". Wikipedia is not directly mentioned.
The site has copied various law-related articles from Wikipedia. The example page given above was taken from , a 2005 version of our article Settlement (litigation). Only the then–most recent contributor is listed in the history on LawGuru.
No contact information was found on the Wiki, but the "About Us" page at www.lawguru.com lists the following, which is the same contact given by WHOIS:
73700 Dinah Shore Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92211
No actions have been taken yet. Ardric47 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The current text in the Linda Montano article was mostly added in December 2009, apparently at the request of the subject herself (diff). The "Artist Bio" page at lindamontano.com is apparently a mirror, using (essentially) the same text after 2011, according to archive.org (archived 2011 version).
Linked post copies some text from beverage can—see article talk page section linked below. No relevant mention of Wikipedia, copyright, or licensing anywhere. Linked post is actually a verbatim copy of an earlier post on a private blog, reported here. Poster probably does not know his post includes Wikipedia content, but must know it's not his content.
Now seems to comply, having used the suggested text I sent them through the form letter. Am going to ask them to see if the copyright notice can be clarified, though. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
All is in order now. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No history section. Medium compliance. Uncle G 12:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My guess given that they direct comments to a site with a more generic name is that they've done the same not just for other places in Seattle but for other cities. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Living Lingo: VCE English Language Units 3 and 4
Title: Living Lingo: VCE English Language Units 3 and 4
Compliance: On Page 168, two reasonably large paragraphs from the Cane toad article are printed in the book. The book acknowledges that the article is from Wikipedia, and is in fact listed under the section "The authors and publisher wish to thank the following copyright holders for reproduction of their material". However, there is no mention of CC BY-SA or the GFDL.
Action: I have not taken any action, since as a student, I am not in a position to do so. Would someone unconnected with VCE English Language be able to take action?
We can class this is as 'well behaved' mirror. Phil from logicjungle proactively read the listing here and emailed me. I suggested some improvements to the wording of the article links, to give proper credit to wikipedia, which were quickly implemented.
If any further contact is necessary, it might as well go through me, or a I can provide a copy of the email conversation we had -- Nojer2 10:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)