Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/ABC
- See also Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks for the main discussion page
Biowiki
[edit]Biowiki is a definite mirror that should probably be contacted. all these sites are copies of wikipedia. I don't get it.
Stealthrabbit127, the RabbiN8r 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Blogspot
[edit]Another example, probably from an unrelated blogspot user, is http://airlines-catalog.blogspot.com/2006/09/belgium-compilation-of-airlines-and.html. This opus contains text suspiciously similar to WP's SN Brussels Airlines, and may just be a concatenation of several WP articles. The page helpfully provides a list of links which show similar use of other WP articles to form a "comprehesive [sic] list of all known airlines". Certes (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here's another example from Blogspot:
| URL | http://texas4free.blogspot.com/ |
|---|---|
| Description | |
| Sample | http://texas4free.blogspot.com/ |
| Rating | None |
| Compliance | A copy-paste of the Poker probability (Texas Hold 'em) article, monetized by CPALead; no mention of Wikipedia or CC-BY-SA |
| Contact info | See main entry at [[1]] |
| Actions | none yet |
Still there and leeching math images at least - e.g. http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/f/3/ef39d2270ff01012b078fa4cee29bee8.png - copyright complaint form is available here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC).
Conservapedia deleted
[edit]I deleted the illiterate entry of Conservapedia on this list. The information is not only incorrect but Christophobic. Conservapedia does not state that they only want Christians. That is disingenuous. Also, the sample link of Flying Spaghetti Monster as a violation of GFDL is wrong. The article entry at Conservapedia is different enough from the Wikipedia article that there is no cause to suggest there is a violation of GFDL. Jtpaladin 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Christophobic? How so? The FSM article was a violation of the GFDL when this section was originally created. I re-added the section with a different example of a GFDL violation here: Al Sarant (conservapedia) vs Al Sarant (wp). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Conservapedia does violate the GFDL http://www.rationalwiki.com keeps tabs on them: here is an example. -Icewedge 16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't know how to add biopedia to the list
[edit]But it needs adding - it's a bad mirror site eg. Wikipedias PCR page is identical to theirs, basically: http://biopedia.org/index.php/Polymerase_Chain_Reaction(PCR) Wadhamite (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Conservapedia
[edit]It is blatantly obvious that CP was added by a member of RationalWiki, a hate site created by people who were blocked from Conservapedia. The fingerpointing and hypocrite cabal between the two sites is resulting in heated debates because both sites hate each other. GFDL violations at RationalWiki were reported here at mirrors and forks and were subsquently fixed when a member of RationalWiki saw it posted here. Similarily, I will cleanup any GFDL violations at Conservapedia brought to my attention. However, I do not find it to be appropriate to link to RationalWiki for examples Conservapedia copy-pasting, just as I wouldn't expect to see a link to the Heritage Foundation as an example of the Democratic Party copy-pasting. Instead, incidents should be linked to directly. Thoughts? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- What are you even talking about? There is no "Conservapedia" listed on this page. Also, what is a "RationalWiki" and what does it have to do with enforcing Wikipedia's copyrights? Huw Powell (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Conservapedia is indeed listed on this project page here. There are also numerous examples of GFDL violations on Conservapedia so if it was added by a member of RationalWiki then it's irrelevant. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed Convervapedia from the list ([2]). The report was bogus: the original author of the article in Wikipedia was the same as the original author of the article at Conservapedia. Wikipedia editors do not grant exclusive rights to the Wikimedia Foundation and they can publish their own work wherever they want. --MarioGom (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Baidu Baike fork
[edit]I think there's a mistake in the listing for Baidu Baike.
Also, it calls itself "Wikipedia", as seen at Google's translation of their homepage, revealing a possibly illegal usage of the trademark.
Baidu Baike doesn't call itself Wikipedia. It's a problem with the Google translator, it translates "百科"(means "encyclopedia" in Chinese) into "Wikipedia" wrongly, so there's no illegal usage of the trademark. The real problem is, Baidu Baike removes author attibutions(i.e. Wikipedia and Wikipedians) from contents copied from Wikipedia and adds a copyright flag "©2012 Baidu" onto every page, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's BY-CC-SA. Wikipedians in Chinese Wikipedia have posted compliants to Baidu, but haven't got any replies. Chinese Wikipedians have created a page for this, please read zh:WP:百度百科對維基百科的侵權 for more infomation.Zhaofeng Li (talk|contrib) 02:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
AllFamousBirthday.com
[edit]Not sure what the protocol is for adding entries to this list, but I suspect this is stealing from our article on Bridget Hustwaite -- Earwig shows a paragraph that is identical about being runner-up in the presenter search. Our article contained that text before the publication date of the AllFamousBirthday page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)