Example: engdic.daum.net/dicen/search.do?m=all&q=agreement%20concerning using Wikipedia as a text corpus. Phrases include extracts from (sometimes old versions)
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/ is the root, though http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/AEmain.html and http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/ETEmain.html are the main home index pages.
Some (not all) pages are verbatim copies of old Wikipedia articles. No mention that the content is under the GFDL, no mention of or links to Wikipedia. "All original content, including text, code, page design, graphics, and sound, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Science, which is part of The Worlds of David Darling web site, is protected by copyright." Please see conversation at Talk:David_Darling_(astronomer)
Has "Global and Unified Access to Knowledge Graphs" directly on its front page in huge text; further information is at https://www.dbpedia.org/about
Sample
https://dbpedia.org/page/Hirokichi_Nadao
Rating
High or Medium.
Compliance
"This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" at the bottom of pages.
Contact info
Has a write an email button on the top right on at least the about page.
Adds own copyright notice, no mention of wikipedia, source
Contact info
DCULT.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com (private whois), abuse AT domainsbyproxy.com, abuse AT godaddy.com (registrar/host), http://domainsbyproxy.com/LegalAgreement.aspx?prog_id= (post only)
admin = Richard Vaughton (richard AT torquay.com, +44.1803211116); hosted at 213.171.219.1 = Fasthosts Internet Limited (abuse AT fasthosts.co.uk, +44 1452 541251)
Actions
Owner contacted. Has promised to address the situation in the next couple of days (as of 2007/11/30)
Each page gives correct (sortof) license at the bottom, but the link to further information on the license (the link "copyright") does not lead to a functioning page. No proper explaining of the GFDL, and no backlinks to Wikipedia.
References to Wikipedia are not explicit, even though Wikimedia is mentioned.
A bottom link pointing to About:DictionPedia leads to a page about Wikipedia.
The site is heavily filled with Google AdSense Ad's etc.
What's worse, the site's main page which is simply a search field, claims that content is (C) DictionPedia.
The page title still has "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"!
Contact info
Unknown - tried to find one, but miserably failed. Hopefully someone will be able to do dig deeper
Happy to comply private registration through DomainsByProxy Inc, Contact is DICTIONPEDIA.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com - Abuse contacts abuse AT domainsbyproxy.com (hidden omain registration) and abuse AT godaddy.com (registrar) mail those if you have no luck with the above MttJocy (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.dirpedia.com/hobbies.html Compare with Hobby
Rating
"Medium"
Compliance
Fairly poor site that credits Wikipedia and the GFDL without linking to the articles in question, except in their silly "edit this page" links at top. Discovered it because the site spammed a good deal of Europe recently (Email dated May 5, 2006)
No mention of copyright, authors or license. Links back to the original English Wikipedia article with a confusing "read more". No links or attribution whatsoever for images. Direct hotlinking of images.
DMCA request sent via CloudFlare for personal non-free non-Wikipedia site that is also mirrored by dir.md, as an even more obvious case of copyright violation. Awaiting response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this site copies entire Wikipedia articles or only parts of articles. I don't know how much the site has copied in total. This requires further research.
Contact info
Ian Langtree, who lives in Chateauguay, Quebec, Canada. The site owner provides an "email us" form, but doesn't list his phone number on the site. The site owner's email address and phone number are available via whois. "If required we will send you a reply via email as soon as possible usually within 24 - 48 hours. Our general office hours are 8:00 to 6:00 Monday - Saturday, New York time (USA EDT) or UTC/GMT -5 hours."[3]
Will complete later, most pages copy the lead, the contents page and any categories
Rating
Medium, I think.
Compliance
Links to article page in miniscule text, stating "Some data may have been obtained" when some definitely has. States at bottom of page "Copyright 2010, Discovery Media"
Contact info
E-mail, phone number of admin and ISP. To be completed
Actions
Actions taken (if any) to attempt to make the website comply. None yet as at 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
States that content is from Wikipedia (with link to article at www.wikipedia.org), no mention found of license, no history link. Adds obnoxious adverts.
States that content is from Wikipedia (with link to www.wikipedia.org) and licensed under the GFDL, which it links to a local copy of. Also includes medical disclaimer. Does not include history section or link to original article. Superm401 - Talk16:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate Dog Breeds Information Guide and Reference
URL
https://dogedaos.com/
|name=Dogedaos
|sample=https://dogedaos.com/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh.html from [[Vincent van Gogh]]
|rating=Low
|compliance=Full [[IPFS]] copy of Wikipedia
|contact
|action
}}
===dogluvers.com===
{{Wikipedia mirror
|url=<nowiki>http://www.dogluvers.com/
Uses popular mirror template. Includes "The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy" with local link to GFDL and instructions to get to original article.
Contact info
Actions
Requested that they mention Wikipedia on every page, as well as briefly describig the GFDL and changing the "Terms of Use" text to "GFDL License". Awaiting response. Superm401 - Talk06:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uses Wikipedia's Logo and default MediaWiki color scheme, might confuse people into thinking they're reading or editing wikipedia. Not a fork per se, but I didn't know where else to put this.
Contact info
none listed
Actions
Left note on the wiki's main talk page, and also suggested content might make a good wikibook. [4]
Not a verbatim copy: embedding failure - text inserted between title ("Cold War") and start of Wikipedia text ("The Cold War (September 2, 1945 - December 25, 1991) was"). Either needs the inserted text placed above the header (to make it a verbatim copy) or it needs to comply with the stricter rules on derivative works.
The French Wars of Religion article is a combination of two Wikipedia articles. There are rules on how you can do this, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.
Medium. While the DFW is a fanon wiki, it has dozens of links to both the English and Portuguese Wikipedias, with most of the English links coming from one template. The site also steals a lot of content from both Wikipedia articles and templates.
Wikipedia mirror site operated by the "Consulting Center for Study in China in Ho Chi Minh City". Some of them are even copies of sandboxes and userpages.
Mention that the article is from Wikipedia but without link to Wikipedia, GFDL, or the individual aritcle. Claims that the page presents copyrighted material under fair use doctorine of the U.S. copyright law. The publisher seems to be a Dutch. Fair use for an entire article is quite dubious. The extent of their use is not investigated. It may be just one article.
Contact info
Leendert Geerts: webmaster AT GEERTS.COM (admin whois), abuse AT 4rweb.com (host)
Some Wikipedia-scraped listings give GFDL notice with local copy of the GFDL (actors, eg. http://listing-index.ebay.com/actors/Pat_Renella.html), others do not (games, eg. http://listing-index.ebay.com/games/The_Bloodstone_Wars.html). Includes link to original article. No authors or dates listed.
Contact info
No general contact address. Web form about "Reporting Intellectual Property Infringements (VeRO)" (http://cgi1.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=InlineSelfHelpWebform&wftype=2024&rcode=VE%25V00024&subject=Reporting%20Intellectual%20Property%20Infringements%20(VeRO)&bcrumb=+Home+%3E+Help+%3E%A0Transaction+Problems+and+Protections%A0%3E%A0What+eBay+Can+Do%A0%3E%A0Reporting+Intellectual+Property+Infringements+%28VeRO%29&instruction=&expirationDate=). registeredagent AT ebay.com (DMCA).
Still badly non-compliant; www.economicexpert.com/a/WPBS.html returns the text of the original 2004 version of this page "New York broadcaster WPBS-TV is one of two PBS flagship stations, the other being KPBS in California...". Content is mangled in such a way as to insert random bits from the California-related articles being wikilinked, before resuming with the description of the New York station. No attribution to author and no GFDL notice on page. (I'm running NoScript under Firefox; any search engine retrieving this page would also see the no-JS version) Not much correlation to the real WPBS-DT article here as is mangled, unattributed and five years out of date. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<office AT economy-point.org>:
213.17.224.150 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Giving up on 213.17.224.150.
Willy on Wheels (confirmed via dialogue on another editthis) plagiarized Wikipedia's Adolf Hitler page word for word. Also, vandal and admin templates were plagiarized. Finally (obviously), the logo was used
footers show all rights reserved mark although the sample is a carbon copy to the photos (leads to upload.wikimedia.org) Even has a "Recent Changes" page.
Confusingly lists Wikimedia Foundation as the author, though the republisher is not affiliated. Lists names of Wikipedia editors who contributed to the articles.
Listed at Scholarly Open Access: "repackager of online content and wikipedia entries. Seems to specialize in study guides for professional certifications and celebrity biography. Often have 'what you need to know' or '20 most asked questions about' in the title. Over 3000 titles by this publisher are listed via Amazon". Example linked above seems to involve word-switching, which mangles the grammar of the original Wikipedia articles. Other samples: [8][9].
In at least one item, the cover provides no information about the publisher, author or sources, but the first page mentions GFDL (although the last page actually includes only a link to CC-BY-SA in very small font) and all the individual authors for all Wikipedia articles are listed at the end. The format is identical to PediaPress mwlib and preserves both tables and infoboxes (centred at the beginning of each article). There is no attribution for images, although all of them are listed with their authors at the end.
Was probably downscaled in 2016 after negative reviews [10][11][12], as with earlier complaints. As of 2018, about 100 books are listed on Amazon.com, largely marked as unavailable.
Links to original article at top. Links to offsite GFDL with notice "This article is from Wikimedia Commons. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." with boilerplate copyright notice at bottom.
Contact info
ssamoylov AT gmail.com, team AT allaboutall.info, domains AT superkate.net (whois), abuse AT blacklotus.net (emycontent host)
Received reply from ssamoylov AT gmail.com, noting that there is a link to the original article. Replied back asking for local link to the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Material says "Copyright � 2005 Par Web Solutions All Rights reserved.". Is that a valid copyright claim, alongside the GFDL link and the link to Wikipedia? Corvus cornixtalk22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt is an e-book published by MobileReference for use on mobile devices. The URL links to Google books' incomplete copy. A complete copy has to be purchased from a commercial supplier.
Medium, judging from the Google books copy. Precise degree of compliance is difficult to evaluate without buying a commercial copy
Compliance
The licensing information provided on the "back cover" acknowledges that material from Wikipedia has been used, and that this material is licensed under the GFDL, although it also wrongly implies that this material is also "public domain". However, it also asserts "all rights reserved" over the work as a whole, whereas the GFDL requires that the whole of any modification of a work licensed under it—which is what this is—must also be licensed under the same licence or a substantially similar version.
A copy of the GFDL licence doesn't appear to be included anywhere in the publication, as required by the terms of that licence, although a link to an on-line copy of the licence appears to be provided with the licensing information. The licensing information includes an apology for not listing all the authors of the Wikipedia material, and asserts that these can be seen "by following the hyperlink at the bottom of each article". As far as is possible to tell from the Google books copy, such links do appear regularly throughout the the publication, but it doesn't appear to be possible to use the Google books copy to check that these links work and do in fact point to the proper articles.
Article ends with "This article is provided by contributions of Wikimedia Foundation. All text is available under the GNU free documentation license. View live article. Copyright & Disclaimer ". Links to local GFDL and original article. No authors or dates listed.
Contact info
Ali Ocalir: Gmail address his first, then last name lowercase with no punctuation. See whois.
Actions
Sent letter to address above asking that notice links be underlined. Superm401 -
Received reply from address above saying it would be done. It looks line some CSS was changed, but it still doesn't quite work in Firefox so I suggested a fix. Superm401 - Talk23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example: www.encyclopediefrancaise.com/Conférence_de_Berlin.html appears to be a translation of en:Berlin Conference (1884) rather than a copy of fr:Conférence de Berlin and similarly with other pages
No obvious mention of Wikipedia, GFDL, source, history or copyright.
Nearly every article is a complete copy of a Wikipedia article on wine with many images uses. There is a vague and generic disclaimer on their license page saying that some material is from Wikipedia but there is no link from individual articles or images to their original Wikipedia source.
Contact info
webmaster AT encyclowine.org, Dixie Maquet
Actions
12/26/2007 sent email with links to Wikipedia's GFDL compliance page and requesting attribution on all articles and links using Wikipedia content. AgneCheese/Wine17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EncycloZine is organized into subsites which include: Artzia.com, Eluzions.comDiXionary.comKosmoi.com and possibly others, all very liberally plastered with links to books available on Amazon.
Not always link to current version of article
Not always link to GFDL
Contact info
kosmoi AT btinternet.com (whois)
Actions
Sent standard letter. There is no webmaster email address posted, so I posted it on the forum. Vacuumc 21:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
The "Named Colors" section was at least partially scraped from Wikipedia due to containing several colors that used to be on the Wikipedia list, but were later deleted due to being poorly sourced or made up by a Wikipedia editor. Examples include zinnwaldite, AuroMetalSaurus, medium candy apple red, awesome, and Cal Poly Pomona Green. No indication of CC-BY-SA license anywhere on the site.
Says to edit user submissions, but clearly does not care about copyright: example is a copy-paste of Thermal diffusivity, this page is the table of contents of a likely copyvio of [13], etc.
Wikipedia text is copied with no attribution at all which is in violation of the GFD license. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin which was copied at or after 03:33, October 27, 2007.
Contact info
Registrant:
ePier Inc.
1503 North Regal
Spokane, WA 99207
US
Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :
Kim, James
jkim@epier.com
1503 N REGAL ST
SPOKANE, WA 99207-5361
US
Phone: 509-534-0334
Fax: 509-534-0334
Content copied from wikipedia articles, even including clean up tags in some cases ([14]), but otherwise no mention of wikipedia or gfdl anywhere to be seen.
Contact info
EQUITYEDU.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com (proxy whois), abuse AT godaddy.com (host whois)
Overall site contains links to smaller domains such as sample URL. Text and photos from outdated version of article, no attribution to Wikipedia or mention of GFDL.
Appears to be primarily focused on biographies, with no notability requirements whatsoever. The unnamed creator of the site appears to have started the site off with a database dump of a number of wikis, including Wikipedia, and, based on the poor spelling and grammar throughout the site's interface, is probably not a native speaker of English. Site includes copies of deleted mainspace articles. Also copies from draftspace can be found.
Entire wiki is listed as under CC-BY-SA. They apparently at some point imported around 45k BLPs from enwiki, but provide full attribution and links back to Wikipedia on each imported page.
Is now hosted on a blockchain, with a focus on cryptocurrency. A lot of the content is copied from Wikipedia.
Claims to include every wikipedia article. Claims to allow creation of articles on any topic that can be sourced, without regard to notability requirements. Claims to encourage verified celebrities to edit their own pages. Claims to be an improvement on Wikipedia.
Articles aren't credited to Wikipedia. Terms of Service claims that the content is licensed under CC-BY 4.0 (note the lack of SA), which is definitely a violation.
Main page and FAQ say everything is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Individual pages have an Everipedia CC symbol but no direct CC link. Links back to source Wikipedia article, and to other cited sources. Explicitly says article is based on a Wikipedia article. Terms of service page say everything is under CC-BT-SA-4.0, and are linked to from each article
DCMI takedown sent for Great_American_Lesbian_Art_Show (DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)) Response that said everything is under CC-BY-SA, and pointed out (small) CC symbol which I had mistaken for a copyright symbol. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Seems to have dropped the links back to Wikipedia, which would provide the required attribution. I've send another e-mail to see if I'm just missing this or it's been hidden (like with World Heritage). Kuru(talk)22:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Update: Site owner identified this as a bug; seems to have been corrected now.[reply]
Has thorough GFDL notice with links to www.wikipedia.org, original article, and local copy of the GFDL. States, "Just like any written work the authors or contributors of the article own the copyright but by contributing their work to Wikipedia they are licensing it under the terms of the GNU FDL This license means that you are free to print and share the articles with anyone you wish, provided that you comply with the GNU FDL. If you share them please let recipients know they are free to continue sharing the article under the same terms." No authors or dates listed.
Contact info
support AT everythingpreschool.com, m.gutting AT comcast.net (whois), abuse AT pair.com (host)
Actions
Standard email sent. -Rholton 02:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Received reply from support AT everythingpreschool.com (correct address) noting that the GFDL was reuploaded and the disclaimer improved. I replied thanking them but noting that part was cut off. I also brought up some wording problems. Superm401 - Talk22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Received another reply from support AT everythingpreschool.com . Notice was improved to note copyright and GFDL requirements, and is less cut off now. I replied suggesting using SSI instead of an iframe. Superm401 - Talk03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
States: "Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Notation and examples", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki"
ls_services_eire AT yahoo.ie,info AT explanation-guide.info, feedback-1607 AT explanation-guide.info
Actions
Follow up. Since explanation-guide (EG) did not give attribution for the image at Gbe languages which I created and released under CC-by-2.0, I thought I'd send an email. Below I paste the contents of my first mail, the answer of mr. Lawrence Smith of EG, and my response. I sent my mail to feedback-1607 AT explanation-guide.info and to info AT explanation-guide.info and I got an answer from info AT explanation-guide.info. I will be posting further results soon. - Mark Dingemanse(talk) 21:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The images are released under the Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0). Explanation-Guide, unlike Wikipedia, does not give the required attribution, thereby violating the license.
I trust that you resolve this issue soon, either by not using the images or by giving proper attribution to the creator.
Thank you,
Mark Dingemanse
Dear Mr. Dingemanse,
Please accept my apologies: I was not aware that the images are licensed separately to the texts. Thankyou for pointing this out.
As a short-term solution we have linked each image to an information page which links to the relevant page at Wikipedia. I hope this established attribution. We will try and add a more user-friendly and informative solution in the near future.
Yours sincerely
Lawrence Smith
Dear Mr. Smith,
thank you for your quick response. However, the short-term solution you propose does not work at present for the images I mentioned. The problem is that the respective Wikipedia articles contain scaled down versions of the original images. In the Wikipedia articles, this scaled down version is linked to the original image and to the attribution information, thereby fulfilling the license requirements. On explanation-guide, this link is lost, the scaled down version is copied, and the information page instead refers to a non-existent page on Wikipedia. Which leaves the issue unresolved.
I do trust that you will find a solution soon.
Thank you,
Mark Dingemanse
Dear Mr. Dingemanse,
Once again my apologies. The links now take into account scaling issues and link to the correct Wikipedia page.
Attempted to view website, domain servers at 8.8.8.8 & 8.8.4.4 (Google) were unable to resolve the domain name. Annotated status of this entry to reflect this using the description property. 0x6949441116:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without images, links to original article and local GFDL with text "This page and the Original Article used for this page are available for download under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."; no mention of Wikipedia. There is an image that says "From Wikipedai, the free encyclopedia" beneath the title.
Contact info
EZRESULT.COM AT domainsbyproxy.com, abuse AT ev1servers.net (host whois)
Actions
First email sent with a proposal for improvement. Andre Engels 00:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Reaction: "We will take up your suggestion during our next database/site update." Andre Engels 10:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This has been updated. (ezresult webmaster) 10:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
essentialresults: No substantial content at examples; site is domain parked
Links to www.wikipedia.org and local copy of the GFDL.
states: "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." but ends with "copyright ? 2004 FactsAbout.com"
Keeps "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Links to original Wikipedia article. Uses Wikipedia's GFDL notice ("All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.") but links to GFDL article, not actual license. That version of the article does link to the license very early. Pages say "modified by Geona".
Links to www.wikipedia.org and local copy of the GFDL. Has donated $2500 to Wikimedia. Notes this as "Fact-index.com financially supports the Wikimedia Foundation."
Forum rules prohibit posting of copyrighted materials. Unattributed text from Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray) has been copied verbatim and posted on the forums. Forum moderator both fails to acknowledge a copyright breach has occured and asserts no obligation to remove copyrighted material from the site. Attempts to communicate with Icarus directly have resulted in no response.
Sent a letter using contact form asking for link to original article, proper GFDL notice (without bogus copyright claim), and local copy of the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Received an email in reply from Mark Ayres. Email states: "Thanks for your email and your comments regarding GFDL compliance at www.famouspeople.co.uk. I have no record and don't recall receiving the earlier email that you refer too. However, we've reviewed the licence [again] to try and clarify your comments, and we stand corrected on a few points. Personally I don't find this licence a very straightforward one to interpret, but I agree that some changes are needed. As such we've added a locally hosted copy of the licence rather than the remote one at FSI, and this page is linked to by the text "GNU Free Documentation License" on every page on the site. The "Copyright 2007Splashweb, all rights reserved" statement was actually changed some weeks ago to "Copyright Statement. FamousPeople.co.uk is published by Splashweb".The "Copyright Statement" link leads to an updated Copyright Statement page with a link, in context, through to the copy of the licence. Many thanks for highlighting these points, not only to help ensure that compliance, but also these changes will make the copyright issue clearer to our visitors.". Site seems to be in 'medium' compliance from now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has notice, "This content from Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article Samantha Mumba" with link to www.wikipedia.org, original article, and offsite GFDL. Also lists Wikipedia as a "friend". :)
Includes text "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
You may copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
To view or edit this article at Wikipedia, follow this link." "Follow this link" leads directly to the Wikipedia article copied. However, the GFDL link is to their copy of GFDL, not the actual license. That page links to Wikipedia:Text of the GFDL, which they include in the mirror.
Received response stating they would ignore copyright complaints that were not in the form of a DMCA takedown notice. [::Example redirects to computer-science.brainsip.com/ with no obvious Wikipedia content; www.fastload.org has links to Wikipedia but no substantial content --Rumping (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now seems that the site has fallen into disrepair. 16:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Complete copies of WikiPedia and simple at fixed moments in time. Link to wikipedia.org and local copy of GFDL, as well as disclaimer. No link to original article. Done by BozMo and others: so people can see the project development and cite a fixed text with certainty.
Direct copies, for sale, of scores of Wikipedia biographical articles. Published with a GDFL license, and copyrighted to Filiquarian Publishing, LLC. There are 48 such titles listed at Google Books.[16]
Contact info
Joshua Linsk 2020 Highland Pkwy St. Paul, S 55116
,
United States
+1.9523744322 Fax -- +1.6516980554
"High", "Medium", or "Low/None" compliance with CC-BY-SA (matches Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance) (compare against GFDL if they choose that license).
Compliance
Footer: "This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article: Electronic trading. Articles is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply."
Uses text from country / city articles to pad out car-hire listings for respective locations. No mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL. Apparently used to have links to Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:Copyrights, and possibly GFDL.
* Copies most of article (with minor rewording). Could not find the terms "wiki", "FDL", or "doc" on the page. Standard letter sent. --Astronouth7303 00:01, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fleetwoodmac.org appears to function as a live web scraper (as an anecdotal test, compare any page from Special:Recentchanges with the corresponding page at the Fleetwoodmac.org domain). At the bottom, the source (Wikipedia) is credited, but nowhere is the copyright status indicated.
Update: Uncle_Sam_(diamond) example has same content as frontpage , the three paragraph intro of Fleetwood Mac, and no obvious mention of Wikipedia. Some group related info also comes from Wikipedia, e.g from Mick Fleetwood, without mentioning source or GFDL. Not obviously scraping. 23:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Contact info
A WHOIS search indicates that the domain is owned by "Mesa Verde Enterprises"; contact information is admin AT mesaverdeenterprises.com
Response received by email 13 December, now uses attribution text from Wikipedia:Copyrights#Example notice (links to GFDL at gnu.org and to source article at Wikipedia.) Apparently the non-compliance was accidental, in an email to me they say: "We are ready to fully comply with the requirements. It just dropped through bug detection. :(" -- AJR - Talk17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Direct cut and paste of sections from nearly every football club article and also notable players. Falsely claims copyright. GFDL is not mentioned at all. No mention of Wikipedia or link to original article.
Contact info
Jonathan Kahn (via http://footballyears.net/contactus.htm) and janetzar AT aol.com (via domain whois)
This is a multi-lingual mirror. No mention of Wikipedia or the GFDL on article pages. There's an "About this article" link in bold at the bottom of the page, which acknowledges GFDL, links to the current version of the article, to the discussion page and to the version history. There is little to indicate the importance of this link. It's also always in English, even for mirrored versions of other language Wikipedias. Mentions Wikipedia on http://www.freeglossary.com/h.php?c=about . Appears to be a mirror of all articles.
Site now appears to be non-existent or broken, unable to http, tracrt or ping to it. I will try again in a few days and if not available I think we can presume it is now defunct. Sjc09:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contact info
webmaster AT freeglossary.com, bauer AT valuenetmedia.com (whois)
Actions
Violation letter sent October 21 2004 Sjc 09:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems to use dynamic loading. All pages link to original article, local copy of the GFDL, and Wikipedia's copy of the page history. Has its own disclaimer (http://en.freepedia.org/Disclaimer.html), which seems to present the work as its own authorship.
The standard CC-BY-SA-3.0 message was copied along with the rest of the content, but there is no link back to Wikipedia and the page history links are broken.
outlook.com
