Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/VWXYZ

vdmg.com
See Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz

Vegetarian Worldwide
--Mig77(t) 10:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Site:
 * Article: Vegetarianism
 * blatant copy of content == /* Recomended reading */
 * blatant copy of content == /* Country specific information */
 * No mention of Wikipedia
 * No link to Wikipedia
 * No mention of GFDL
 * Says "Copyright © - Vegetarian-Worldwide.com, All rights reserved. Vegetarian-Worldwide is part of Worldwide-Infomedia Services"

vestigatio.com

 * Site: encyclopedia.vestigatio.com
 * Huge Link farm based on full wikipedia mirror. Each article has google ads.
 * Articles do not link back to Wikipedia
 * Says "©2006 Vestigatio" at the bottom of each page. Trious 09:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

VisualWikipedia or VisWiki

 * Home: visualwikipedia.com/en/ or viswiki.com/en/
 * Example: visualwikipedia.com/en/Microeconomics or viswiki.com/en/Microeconomics
 * Interesting reformating of articles and related articles
 * Ends with: "The main article content on this page (titled: "Microeconomics") was retrieved on the fly from Wikipedia (i.e., your page access date equals the data retrieval date). All article text on this website (VisualWikipedia.com) derived from Wikipedia, is licenced under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Article images, with the exception of video thumbnails, are entirely from Wikipedia, and their copyrights should follow accordingly. All videos and video thumbnails shown on this site are from YouTube. Other visual/semantic contents are mine. VisualWikipedia is NOT in any way affiliated with Wikimedia Foundation Inc. or any of its associates; in particular, VisualWikipedia.com is a completely separate entity from wikipedia.org with no association with it. VisualWikipedia.com © 2008, 2009 T. Hoshi" with links to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and to GFDL at gnu.org.
 * No obvious link to original article or to history
 * As claimed, seems to be loading in real time

I just found one of my photos on viswiki that was lifted without attribution from Wikipedia. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Psilocybe.ovoideocystidiata.one.jpg

There is no contact link on viswiki, so I can't complain to them. This theft will not be tolerated! Shroomydan (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

VoyageNow.com

 * Site: VoyageNow.com
 * Does not acknowledge wikipedia authorship, links to wikipedia
 * States that the article is licensed under the GNU FDL.
 * Does not link to the relevant wikipedia page (or wikipedia at all)
 * GNU/FDL link does not go to English the text of the GNU/FDL, but to a copy of the Japanese Wikipedia page on the GNU GPL
 * Example: from List of Canadian Ministers of Finance.
 * Contact: securevoyagenow AT voyagenow.com
 * I'm also going after this one, again articles of mine have been copied, leading to particular annoyance. Standard letter sent. David Newton 17:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Second standard letter sent. David Newton 00:34, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Example produces "Page not found" 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Site appears to have removed all Wikipedia material; waiting a little before archiving. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

voyager.in

 * Site: www.voyager.in
 * Site Features wikipedia articles with db hosted on their own server

vsnw.com
See Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz www.popstarfan.com

vvikipedia.fr
http://vvikipedia.fr redirects to the French Wikipedia main page, while the ancient.greek example above returns a 404. Move to archive? --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 04:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Site: vvikipedia.fr
 * Example: vvikipedia.fr/ancient.greek.html
 * In French but apears to be translation of old version of Ancient Greek in English rather than copy of fr:Grec ancien in French. Pages have English names.
 * Titled "Wikipedia" withe faint "fork"
 * Ends with "Cette page est basee sur l'article garanti les droits d'auteur 'Ancient Greek' de Wikipedia qu'il est employe sous le permis de documentation de GNU librement. Vous pouvez le redistribuer, in extenso ou modifie, fournissant que vous vous conformez aux limites du GFDL" with link to English GFDL at gnu.org
 * No obvious link to Wikipedia, original article or history

Wacklepedia.com

 * Site: Wacklepedia.com

The text at the bottom of each article I examined is: "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." (See, for example, James Branch Cabell, a copy of our article as it stood at the end of 2003.)
 * Thus, it mentions the GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it.
 * Each article that I examined does not credit authors, does not link to the Wikipedia article, does not link to the Wikipedia main page, and does not even give the Wikipedia URL in text.
 * An odd feature is that each article has this line near the bottom: "See a correction needed or have another comment? Post it in the Encyclopedia Forum".  That forum invites visitors to report article corrections, add more detail, or post new articles, with the promise "We can also list you as a contributor if you wish."  The forum was set up last week and has no activity thus far
 * Aside from GFDL compliance, does the Foundation want to make an issue of possible confusing similarity between "Wacklepedia" and the Foundation's trademark "Wikipedia"? There would be a case for requiring this site to use a different name.

The site owner previously created the "Bobby Fischer Chess Page" (now moved to ). He was editing Wikipedia articles to add external links to his site -- some appropriate, some not -- but then took to removing other Fischer links and substituting his own. I corresponded with him. He explained that he had misinterpreted the reversions of his initial edits, and promised not to cause any more trouble. Until now he has kept that promise. I'll direct his attention to the compliance requirements he's not meeting. He's edited the external links in a few of our articles to use a "Wacklepedia" URL instead of the "Bobby Fischer Chess Page" one, but I'll leave those links alone for a reasonable time to see whether he brings his site into compliance. JamesMLane 17:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The site owner responded very promptly. He said he could easily make each page link to Wikipedia, presumably meaning the Main Page: "That should be easy as it's common code.  But linking to every article is going to be quite a bit of re-work.  Is there something easier?"  I don't know of anything.  Can someone more knowledgeable about compliance and coding advise me on what to tell him? JamesMLane 19:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Each page now has a javascript end which says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This article is from Wikipedia" with links to local GFDL text and to original wikipedia article. Annoyingly, will still turn up on "-wikipedia" searches. --Henrygb 00:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The javascript might be incompatible with some browsers, with the result that, if viewed in Netscape 7.2 for Mac OS X, it fails to visibly credit Wikipedia. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wanabo

 * Site: wanabo.com
 * Example: http://www.wanabo.com/cities/hillsboro-oregon
 * No mention/link to GFDL
 * No mention of Wikipedia
 * Has copyright notice

Web Hosting Glossary

 * Site: web-hosting-reviewer.com/glossary
 * uses small extracts from a couple dozen technical/Internet related entries
 * link to current version of article
 * link to the GFDL on www.gnu.org

Webster's Online Dictionary- the Rosetta Edition

 * Site: http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org
 * contact point: Editor 
 * Indicates source is Wikipedia
 * link to local GFDL page, as specified in GFDL, in separate window.
 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" present
 * Links to Wikipedia article
 * Does not include a history section listing authors and dates.
 * uses various articles within larger collection
 * the site's general "terms of use" notes the following in several places "Exception: the only terms that apply to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, articles are the ones specified in the GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE." Thus exempting Wikipedia content from the site's restrictions.
 * each article links to the following, with copies of GFDL,etc.,: ""Note: The text referenced in the "source," is exempt from any compilation copyright held by this site or the editor, so users can use the text freely under the copyleft GFDL license established by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which is described in detail below. Any other material having copyright on this page resides with their respective owners."
 * http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/F-/F-15+EAGLE.html


 * A republisher of various internet dictionaries and encyclopedias. It does not mention Wikipedia on the front page but it does include "This article is a copy... GFDL" text at the bottom of articles.  Probably fine. JesseW 05:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NB: This is not the same as websters-online-dictionary.org


 * Links to Wikipedia & GFDL
 * Links back to original article

I think we can move to high --Davelane 09:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GFDL and wikipedia links at bottom of pages depend on Javascript being turned on. They are not in the article source code and so will turn up on Google searches with -wikipedia. --Henrygb 01:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Lack of history means medium compliance. Uncle G 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikicars
http://wikicars.org - Uses many Wikipedia articles without attribution. Site is at least GFDL but is not attributing original authors. --kingboyk (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki.cn
Appears to follow GFDL. Bottom of each page links to. I wonder if this is hosted inside China and if it is censored. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiChiro.org / ChiroWiki.org
The following is the website of a proven sockmaster and subject of another SPI who has been indef banned:


 * Having never done this before, I'm unsure what to do next. This seems like blatant misuse of the hard work of many editors here who have contributed to those articles and kept them NPOV. This is an attempt to create a huge mirror that will be "the premiere site for information about Chiropractic". Since it will be a whitewashed version, it can't be "fair use" by any definition of the term. This obviously deceptive use of material here shouldn't be allowed to occur. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[COMMENT] At Wikichiro. we are not "removing all criticism", only that coming from a specific cabal of people who have invaded and taken over the rules of Wikipedia to slander a profession. This group has been the subject of numerous discussions, and their leader is, according to my sources involved in dozens of self-promoting lawsuits around the country designed to abuse the legal system to squelch free speech and the practice of any alternative to drugs and surgery their fearless leader deems quackery. This band is notorious in all Alt med circles. They have in this way perverted wikipedia's purpose and found very creative means of twisting wiki's rules to accomplish their goals. This may well constitute a violation of a permanent federal injunction in place since the late 70's. They also band together to so completely harass anyone who opposes their prejudices that they force them from editing on Wikipedia. Thus, the necessity of Wikichiro and other sites which sincerely try to provide an objective and less overtly prejudiced view of these fields.

For example: In the article on back pain, I tried to provide a reference to the fact that some major studies were done and Published in the British Medical Journal, in 1990 and 1995 which used Chiropractic adjustments, NOT generic manipulation. I was reverted on the grounds that some study later without Chiropractic involvement (perhaps they used some PT or MD who had a weekend class in manipulation) showed that manipulations had no better result that any other form of therapy. The lame excuse was that I can't use even a landmark published study from 1990 and follow-up from 1995 to modify somthing that uses a newer study. But we are comparing apples and oranges. It's an absurd position. These people have a highly coordinated agenda.

BTW: All articles used from Wikipedia on Wikichiro are fully attributed to Wikipedia. There are other parties who, I also understand,  have taken this cabal to your legal department, and are negotiating to avoid federal lawsuits. Those voices, which most vociferously oppose this conspiracy have already been totally banned from Wikipedia. If the management of Wikipedia would undertake to purge itself of this kind of organized and coordinated bullying of serious editors (WHICH really constitutes the worst meatpuppetry!!!, then expert in these fields, could contribute without the endless harassment that these bullies are creating, to drain their time and energy away from improvement of wikipedia knowledge base, then perhaps the whole encyclopedia could benefit, and the world would be the beneficiary. I know it's a long read to get to the crux of this, but please see the talk page at []  if you are truly interested in improving the climate here, and read this garbage, as well as the harassment over the bio  at Stephen J. Press BTW: we were advised from  a very high level, that we could copy Wikpedia's articles so long as they were properly attributed. Sincerely, 68.239.180.104 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the IP editor above is none other than Stephen J. Press himself, User:Drsjpdc. His conspiracy theory rantings are not only incorrect, they are incorrect because he is siding with and repeating the rantings of an editor who has been indef banned by the Arbitration Committee itself. The rant above constitutes a serious and libelous violation of WP:Battle and WP:BLP. Press is currently the (again, again, again!!) subject of a new SPI (he's already a proven sockmaster) and an ANI thread:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drsjpdc


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Constant_harassment permalink


 * These actions by this editor will be added to the evidence against him there. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I note that Press did a big no no when he edited my original entry by adding the following link. I'm moving it here with an explanation. He added this link http://www.wikichiro.org/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_attribution_to_Wikipedia, and it wasn't on any articles I looked at, and I looked at quite a few. That is a category that must have been very new when I wrote the entry above, if it even existed at the time. I doubt that such a notice qualifies as proper attribution, as it doesn't link directly to the original article where the contribution history is located. That's what counts when it comes to attribution. A generic link back to Wikipedia doesn't qualify. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The category over there was created on 28Dec. The attribution requirements from Wikipedia are very loose, but IANAL and I have no idea whether this qualifies. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A new development: Misuse of the copyrighted term Wikipedia to imply a relationship, and inclusion of WikiChiro links in a copied Wikipedia/Wikimedia template that reinforces that implication:


 * http://www.wikichiro.org/index.php?title=Template:WikipediaSister

Brangifer (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a but confused about what the complaint here is about. If they are complying with the GFDL or the CC, (attribution in particular), for example as outlined at then there's nothing we can do. They have the right to re-use our content, modifying it as they see fit, in accordance with the license that content was released under. And any contributor to wikipedia should hopefully know that, since the licensing terms are made clear whenever you edit a page. (And just to make that clear, if you are contributing to wikipedia, you should be aware that provided they comply with the license, anyone can copy content you have create, modify it and re-use it as they see fit whether you like or agree with their changes and be those changes removing criticism or 'whitewashing'.)
 * If they are not complying with the terms, then someone who made substanial edits to one of their pages they copied may want to pursue them. I doubt you'll get much help from the 'wikimedia legal department', there are unfortunately plenty of violators and the foundation has not yet taken an active interest in pursuing them which given the likely difficulties thereof isn't surprising so expecting them to take care of this is pretty pointless.
 * At the moment, it sounds like they may be willing to cooperate, so I suggest you discuss with them what you expect if you are not happy with how they are currently attributing, no matter how much you may disagree with their views. If you aren't willing to do that, then I don't see much chance for anything happening.
 * If they are improperly implying a relationship with wikipedia, then the foundation may be interested in that however if they copied a template it may be simply they haven't yet properly updated the template and so it's unintentional. While that's still wrong and something they need to fix, that sort of stuff tends to happen when others copy our content so in such a case I also doubt the foundation will be interested in it.
 * Finally if you believe a wikipedian is violating policy here on wikipedia, then that should be handled elsewhere not here.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of this is moot now, since they seem to be making an attempt to attribute things, and the editor involved has been indef banned here. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

wiki.cypee

 * Site: wiki.cypee.com
 * Example: wiki.cypee.com/?title=Talk:Trinity

Wikidumper.org

 * Site: wikidumper.org or wikidumper.blogspot.com
 * Example: wikidumper.blogspot.com/2006/12/mathematics-and-god.html
 * User-submitted editor-selected (Clifford Pickover) Wikipedia articles subject to potential deletion. See for this example Articles_for_deletion/Mathematics_and_God_(third_nomination) etc.
 * Each article ends similarly to example "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Wikipedia article "Mathematics and God". This entry is a fragment of a larger work. Link may die if entry is finally removed or merged." with links to GFDL at gnu.org and to original Wikipedia article (so no history if that was deleted).

wikies.wiki

 * URL: https://wikies.wiki
 * Similar to gaz.wiki (probably the same website). —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 15:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiGadugi

 * Currently (17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)) appears to have no local GFDL (or broken link), and no links to en.wikipedia including nothing to original article.

WikiMobs

 * Site: wikimobs.com
 * Example: wikimobs.com/index.php?title=Mathematics
 * Page ends "(C) 2006-2007 wikimobs.com - v0.9 beta Disclaimer : WikiMobs is not affiliated with Wikipedia Foundation. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."
 * No obvious links to Wikipedia, original article, or text of GFDL
 * Intersesting presentation of sections

WikiNASIOC

 * Site:
 * Example:
 * Contains data from meta:Help:Unified login. I haven't found any problems with Wikipedia content (although the example page from Metawiki seems to be a copyright infringement). I'm not sure if this site should be listed somewhere on Metawiki instead, and if so, where.
 * The site appears not to have been updated since 2008, so Creative Commons licences are irrelevant. GFDL is mentioned, but the Wikimedia source is not mentioned. One revision by User:Bináris was imported and is correctly sourced on the history page. However, this was not the first revision of the Wikipedia page, and earlier revisions are not mentioned at all (as far as I can see). Thus, the history is incomplete (without any link to a complete history), which is why I think that there is a copyright infringement. The second edit on WikiNASIOC (by User:2k2blackwrx) appears to be a local edit; I can't find it on MetaWiki (and the user account is not registered on any Wikimedia project according to Sulutil, although there's a possibility that it might have been renamed in the past few years).
 * Mentions "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." but the link goes to an external copy of GFDL 1.3 (!), i.e. wrong version number. Has "Category:Meta-Wiki" (with a red link) but does not mention Wikimedia in any way. Not sure if the category is enough for crediting Wikimedia.

wikipe.wiki

 * URL: https://www.wikipe.wiki
 * Similar to gaz.wiki (probably the same website). —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 15:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

wikipedia.7val.de

 * Site: http://wikipedia.7val.de/
 * Example: http://wikipedia.7val.de/wiki/Talk:Cadaver

wikipedia.net.pl

 * Site: www.wikipedia.net.pl
 * Example: www.wikipedia.net.pl/en/wiki/Dollar_sign.html (in English)
 * States: Autorem skryptu AdWiki v0.7 (2007) jest husky83 Licencję na skrypt dla strony WIKIPEDIA.NET.PL posiada blf jest zarejestrowanym znakiem towarowym Wikimedia Foundation Wszystkie materia�y pochodz� z Wikipedii, obi�te s� licencj� GNU Free Documentation License with link to local copy of GFDL in English and to pl.wikipedia.org
 * No obvious link to original article
 * Update, March 2010, site no longer hosts Wikipedia content

WikiPilipinas

 * Not found --Rumping (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

wiki.unas.cz

 * Site: wiki.unas.cz
 * Sample article: http://wiki.unas.cz/wikipedia/a/as/astronomie.html
 * No link to original article. No history section.  No local copy of the GFDL.  Low compliance.

wiki.verkata.com

 * Site: http://wiki.verkata.com/
 * Example: http://wiki.verkata.com/en/wiki/Talk:Cigarette

wikiverse.org

 * Site: wikiverse.org
 * Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it. Also references the Copyrights section, which is a verbatim copy of Copyrights (does not mention that wikiverse.org != wikipedia).
 * Articles do not link to Wikipedia, nor acknowledge the article authors.
 * The first page clarifies the site's relationship to Wikipedia: "Wikiverse, an up-to-date high speed static mirror of Wikipedia, a worldwide community of volunteers building an open-content encyclopedia."
 * A person who claims to be responsible for the site has allegedly tried to disrupt the VfD process on a page about Wikiverse, and has responded to some, but not all, concerns about the copyright situation. See and Votes_for_deletion/Wikiverse.
 * Example: Apple Computer

wiki.w2n.net

 * Site: wiki.w2n.net/
 * Example: wiki.w2n.net/pages/User_talk:Eugene-elgato.w2n

Wikiwak

 * Site: http://www.wikiwak.com/
 * Example: http://www.wikiwak.com/wak/Wikipedia

wikizeroo.net

 * Comment: Looks like wikizeroo.net has turned into a generic blog site. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Wn.com

 * See

Wokiwiki
It seems that the site "Wokiwiki" (http://www.zaped.info/) is a "distorted mirror" of Wikipedia. It serves WP articles after arbitrarily replacing a percentage of the words by other vaguely related words, so that the articles look superficially right but are actually nonsense. Since they offer advertising space, my guess is that they are trying to bypass Google filters that eliminate similar pages. See e.g their Iron article. It doesn't seem that WP is being properly attributed on that page. I have been told that this looks like a case of Wikipedia's copyright/license violation (besides potentially damaging WP's reputation). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This site is still up, serving their intentionally and extensively corrupted version of Wikipedia under the name "Wikipedia" — including a corruped copy of Wikipedia's main page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a screenshot just in case. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The URL above now redirects to a site that asks the user to answer a "survey". It looks like a phishing site, and uses javascript in an attempt to prevent the reader from leaving or closing the window, or even exiting the browser.  (I had to disable javascript in order to get out of it.) Since I did not answer the "survey" I cannot tell whether the adulterated Wikipedia contents is still being served.
 * My guess is that they used the adulterated copy of Wikipedia in order to get their site indexed by Google. As a consequence, a Google search under almost any subject will now turn up that site as an alternative hit *distinct from wikipedia*. Now that they have seeded Google's database, they have moved on to their real purpose. (But this is just a layman's guess.)  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a sample of what Google turns up with the search "germanium Wokiwiki"
 * Germanium tetrachloride Wokiwiki
 * Germanium tetrachloride is a colourless aqueous acclimated as an average in the assembly of antiseptic germanium metal. In contempo years, GeCl4 acceptance ...
 * --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

wordIQ

 * Site: wordIQ.com


 * Sample article: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Function_(mathematics)
 * States the GNU FDL license the articles are under.
 * Links to the GNU FDL (on FSF site, not local)
 * Acknowledges wikipedia authorship
 * Links to source wikipedia article
 * Links to the wikipedia history as author listing As of 05:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC), every article's history link is to the history of Wikipedia's Main Page.
 * Medium compliance

workfriendly

 * Site: http://www.workfriendly.net
 * Example: from Albania
 * In XHTML format (seems to include a form with a hidden input field containing a large block of base64-encoded text).
 * Mentions of Mediawiki, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, GFDL, URL of original article (not visible if viewed on a Macintosh)
 * Unclear whether links work
 * As of 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)~ --Henrygb (updated by 69.140.152.55 (talk), 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

World Geography Information

 * Site: www.world-geography-information.com
 * Example: from Country
 * Mentions GNU FDL license and links to a local copy of it
 * Acknowledges Wikipedia authorship.
 * No link to original article

Has copies of about 25,000 Wikipedia articles; the intention is that they will be edited according to their different policy. Obviously, not a verbatim copy.


 * link to current (or sometimes older) version of article
 * link to GFDL


 * Cannot access--Rumping (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Worldheritage.org
Also fraudulently replaces “Wikipedia” with own credits (ex.) in a Nookd fashion.

WorldHistory

 * Site: WorldHistory.com
 * Example: Aleksei Yeliseyev
 * States the GFDL license the articles are under.
 * States that the original article is at wikipedia, gives link to the article on wikipedia
 * Does not have "title page".


 * Example does not work. Wiki may have been removed --Rumping (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

world-knowledge-encyclopedia.com

 * Site: http://www.world-knowledge-encyclopedia.com/default.asp
 * No mention of GFDL.
 * No mention of Wikipedia besides linking the original article.
 * March 23, 2005 is the last main page update.
 * As of 14:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No connection --Rumping (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

World-of-celebrities.com

 * Site: www.world-of-celebrities.com
 * Example: http://www.world-of-celebrities.com/jennifer_lopez
 * Acknowledges that articles include information from Wikipedia
 * Links to source Wikipedia articles
 * Does not mention the GFDL, terms of use states no license granted:

World Public Library

 * Also publishing on Project Gutenberg's self-publishing page. Sample: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Environmental_Investigation_Agency

The copy is crude, with reference link numbers that don't actually link to references and a mess of unresolved metadata at the bottom. But some of the links in the article also point to other "self-published" pages.

At the bottom of the article is:

"Copyright © 2016 World Public Library. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Public Library Association, a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department." -- Morfusmax (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

worldsexexplorer.com

 * Site: worldsexexplorer.com
 * Example: http://www.worldsexexplorer.com/prostitution.html
 * Was not in compliance for a long time, but now links to Wikipedia and the GNU FDL.--Eloquence* 11:02, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * No mention of GFDL. Claims exclusive copyright.  No link to original Wikipedia article.  No history section.   Compliance: None Uncle G 12:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now seems to be linking to the GNU FDL and to the original Wikipedia article again. --Anakin (contribs, complaints) 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

World Visit Guide

 * Site: worldvisitguide.com
 * Example: http://worldvisitguide.com/salle/EP0840.html; http://worldvisitguide.com/oeuvre/O0021144.html
 * Acknowledges copying explicitly or obliquely (the latter has said "from Wikipedia" since its earliest archive; the former "cf. Wikipedia"), but claims full copyright. Unknown if it acknowledges all articles copied. Non-compliant. No action taken. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

World Wide Web Find

 * Site: www.worldwidewebfind.com/encyclopedia/
 * Sample article: Albania - http://www.worldwidewebfind.com/encyclopedia/en/wikipedia/a/al/albania_1.html
 * Links to local copy of GNU FDL.
 * Says, "This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."
 * Also says "Copyright 2004. World Wide Web Find. All rights reserved." immediately under that (probably part of their default skin, but possibly confusing)
 * Links to Wikipedia article & main page.
 * No history section preserving authors and dates.
 * Medium compliance.


 * Example simply produces search engine --Rumping (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

wstuff.com
See Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz

Xasa

 * Site: www.xasa.com/wiki/en/wikipedia
 * Example: http://www.xasa.com/wiki/en/wikipedia/m/ma/main_page.html
 * Sample article - http://www.xasa.com/wiki/en/wikipedia/c/co/copyright.html
 * Links to the GFDL disclaimer
 * No link to Wikipedia, no link to the article

yomi.mobi

 * Site: http://yomi.mobi/
 * Example: http://yomi.mobi/egate/User_talk:Eugene-elgato/

yourencyclopedia.net

 * Site: yourencyclopedia.net


 * I don't know if this web site has already been recorded somewhere in Wikipedia, but I came across an exact copy of a Wikipedia article (although it was an old version, from somewhere down the edit history) as a #1 Google hit. The nasty thing about this site is that our links do work. However, red links are not shown, and if you click on one you are all of a sudden right on a Wikipedia edit page. This is an invitation to vandalize Wikipedia, but I was unable to find an e-mail address.  00:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a mirror of Wikipedia. It mentions the GFDL and Wikipedia once on its main page, but none of the articles have a list of authors or links to the Wikipedia pages. Guanaco 23:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Huh? I just looked at a few articles and they all had this at the bottom of the page, with links: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia - see source."  ←Hob 00:00, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
 * User:Zanimum moved this to medium from low. I'm not exactly sure why, but I assume because it mentions the GFDL and links to Wikipedia. JesseW 22:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The site now has a list of nursing homes. No longer a mirror.--Exarion 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

yourart.com
Example: http://www.yourart.com/research/encyclopedia.cgi?subject=visual%20arts%20and%20design -- clearly dynamically fetched, as it reflected edits made only a few seconds ago -- The Anome 13:15, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Site: yourart.com

yamourdotcom
Still violating and tried to remove this current discussion. Presumed malicious. – Kaihsu 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Low compliance if any. (www.yamour.com/evolution/wikipedia.html) Claiming its own right without any reference to GFDL: "This document was realized for educational purposes. You do not have the right to use or copy any of the images ; but You are free to link to this document. In case you want to link to this document for Educational purposes ,please read the term of service at the end of this page."  Now feeding back as viral advertisement through its own "term of service" [sic]: "Term of service : In case you want to link to this document for educational reasons : you should also link to the main page [http:// www.yamour.com/]".  Reported by Kaihsu 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC).  No action taken yet.
 * Just reverted this link on Wikipedia article and on bg.wiki, see bg:User talk:83.214.15.96. 5ko 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Still trying to vandalize this page and wrongly attributing my comments to 5ko. I suggest the person(s) behind yamourdotcom actually read the GNU Free Documentation License carefully before doing anything else on Wikipedia. – Kaihsu 09:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, at the time that I write the SEO link-spam is back again in the article (removeing it now). As I am not a frequent editor on the English Wikipedia I believe you should report this behaviour to an administrator. Greetings, --5ko 17:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * it's not a dictatorship you can not ban someone if he does not agree with you ,

the link you are talking about does mention the GFDL, and the user 5ko that pretends it's a SEO link apparently is an expert in SEO check this link and you'll see that he is a user in every possible version of wikipedia and have hundreds of links toward his personal site , if this isn't SEO than what is see the link : 5ko many faces i assure you if you ban one more time the user because he simply does not agree with you, both of you will be reported to administration Newww 18:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you start by learning more about Wikipedia. (1) User accounts in different languages are needed to post interwiki links. (2) The page that you try to link is not relevant for wikipedia readers, comparing to http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org or http://web.archive.org, probably where you took the screenshots. (3) Two days ago the note about GFDL was not there, you added it lately, however you still infringe the GFDL by not publishing the list of all co-authors, not even a link to the page itself and to its history. (4) If these screenshots are so important, we can legally add them here, on Wikipedia, which would be easier for everyone. (5) As it is "your" page, you have some difficulty estimating the relevence of your "work" for the encyclopedia readers : please, leave to the Wikipedia editors do that relevence estimation. --5ko 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I just recieved an amusing letter, seo confession, threats that my user page will be vandalized again, and a job offer from this person, and will post it at User:5ko/Yamour (in French language). I work primarily at Bulgarian Wikipedia where I have done more than 17500 edits mostly on articles and help pages, and 6000 pictures (not counting the +64K edits with my bot). Wikipedia editor since February 2003, I am not surprised that Google knows about me... --5ko 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I admire your integrity, 5ko. – Kaihsu 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Case now reported to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. – Kaihsu 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See meta:Talk:Spam blacklist -- yamour.com to be blacklisted. --A. B. (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)