Not sure how and where to mention this; a lot of the links to mirror websites are either broken or contents long switched to a different thing. Are they being monitored?
Another thing; there is an interesting mirror to the total wikipedia content at dwikipedia.eth.limo or if you run your swarm node (
https://docs.ethswarm.org/docs/access-the-swarm/host-your-website/#enable-ens-on-your-node), at feed hash of 61a4a1073a19c273ac0cdf663a1d4d83c01ef01bdbb60db596975f2518b28593. The latter is highly recommended. I added this to the list. --
mohseng|talk 22:43 pm, 15 January 2023 (EST)
License language
Some commented on exsudo, "license text in English, not Danish... not sure if this is in agreement on GNU/FDL?". Just to be clear, license text must be in English. Users can translate it themselves if necessary, e.g. with babelfish. However, only the English is legally binding so that must be shown with all copies.
Superm401 -
Talk00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Damn Interesting
Full Disclosure: I am the owner/proprietor of DamnInteresting.com
This page inaccurately states of DamnInteresting.com: "Several articles are close to verbatim copies of Wikipedia articles." In fact, the reverse is the case... some of our text has been taken to be used on Wikipedia-- both by our own writers, and by others without permission-- but we're ok with that because we love Wikipedia. And a large number of our articles link to Wikipedia. I can say with confidence that we have never taken any text straight from here. We have cited facts based on Wikipedia articles (but reworded to be non-encyclopedic), and we occasionally use images from here, but nothing more. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hot pastrami (
talk •
contribs)
I disagree. Looking at the Wikipedia article history for
basal cell carcinoma, it is clear that the text developed there first, gradually. If it was a copyright infringement from Damn Interesting, it would have suddenly appeared. The article's basic structure has been around since 10/04. Also, Damn Interesting is clearly not a true wiki (it isn't editable). Thus, why would pages say "
http://localhost.localdomain/wiki/index.php/Basal_cell_carcinoma" (for example) unless they was generated from a MediaWiki dump? Also, there are still remnants of MediaWiki syntax, like "OMIM }}", that make clear the content is from a wiki.
Superm401 -
Talk08:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
If you find your content copied to Wikipedia, please either release it under the GFDL (by posting a GFDL notice next to the content on your website), remove it, or report it at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems. We can't have material with ambiguous copyright here. If you want (and have permission from all copyright holders), you can put your whole website under the GFDL.
Superm401 -
Talk09:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm not terribly familiar with all of the available licenses... is there one which allows us to grant Wikipedia use of our content, without granting access to the whole world? From what I've seen, the stuff that's been copied to Wikipedia from DamnInteresting is just a phrase or two here and there, nothing too substantial, so I don't think it creates copyright problems either way.
No, it's specifically not possible to do this. Text content must be under the
GFDL, which allows redistribution, modified or unmodified, commercially or non-commercially by anyone. Again, if you think Wikipedia contains copyrightable Damn Interesting material, please remove it yourself, make an entry at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or email info-en-c@wikimedia.org .
I'm curious... if there was only one instance of alleged plagiarism on our site, and it has now been proven inaccurate, why do we remain on the list at all? What must we do to clear our names? As a writer, an accusation of plagiarism is an extremely troubling thing, and I want to resolve it completely.
Hot Pastrami18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Because someone made an entry to begin with, and I've been trying to
assume good faith. Even though the sample was incorrect, your site could still be infringing. However, I've been looking through your site (though not extensively) and it doesn't seem like anything has come from Wikipedia. I'll take you off.
Superm401 -
Talk04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for correcting the error. I'll keep my eyes open for material on Wikipedia that's lifted from our site, and if it occurs in significant amounts which might raise copyright concerns, my writers and I will have to decide how to respond.
Hot Pastrami05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)reply