Wikipedia talk:Sites using MediaWiki

Would it be appropriate for sites in the process of setting up PaediWiki based sites to list themselves (under an appropriate heading?)


 * I can't see why not. But what would be the point? Giving exposure to a non-existent site won't help you much. --Eloquence 01:41 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Move to meta
I will move this page to meta unless there are objections within the next hour. Reason: This is not related specifically to the English Wikipedia, and should be linked from the MediaWiki homepage, where there is currently a separate list.&mdash;Eloquence 8 Aug 2003.


 * I just wanted to move it, but hesitate: there are many links to Wikipedia articles. The links would have to be adapted (not a problem), but also "What links here" would not show this page anymore from those articles. Just copying has also disadvantages: edits would have to be made twice. There are more pages for which this question arises. Any thoughts? - Patrick 09:03, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the links and the translations are the reason I ended up not moving it.&mdash;Eloquence 11:21, Sep 25, 2003 (UTC)

Possible copyvio -- from Wikipedia
Anonymous User:219.95.184.250 added in site trutheism.com, and I noticed there appear to be some duplicates of Wikipedia articles without attribution or notice of rights as required under the GNU Free Documentation License. (See, for example, Vegetarian.) Can anyone tell me where to report this? Also, if this site intends to be an encyclopedic-type work using Wikipedia content, it should probably be listed as a Wikipedia project fork rather than simply a public wiki. Jdavidb 14:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Updated. They've already stated the software gnu at the bottom of screen. =)

What is the difference between public wiki vs project fork?

Mannchina
I removed every single link to http://www.mannchina.com. As I am unable to read Chinese, I am unable to confirm that the site is indeed a wiki and is based off of Mediawiki. I would not remove it for that reason alone except that the site was listed in every category -- including Wikipedia project forks, Official Wikimedia projects, personal public wiki installations, other, and links to internationalized versions of this article in other language Wikipedia editions. Obviously the site belongs in only one of these, or none. It very definitely is not an official Wikipedia project, so it does not belong there. It is also very definitely not a translation of this page in an official other-language edition of Wikipedia, so it does not belong there. I seriously doubt the page is a fork of Wikipedia, but it could be.

Owner of mannchina, if you wish your site to be listed, please confirm that it is a wiki, that it is running Mediawiki software, and choose ONE and only one category to list it in. Jdavidb 14:06, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are private companies required to use GFDL?
I see on the page this discussion relates to that there are several companies using MediaWiki internally. Are the content of these internal Wiki's licensed under the GFDL? If so, doesn't that limit the usefulness of an internal Wiki, since it may prevent the addition of certain information (e.g. company confidential items)? While I agree that the GFDL is entirely appropriate (and desirable) for efforts like Wikibooks, would it make the MediaWiki engine more useful to others if they could choose an alternate license (possibly from a list of acceptable ones)?


 * I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe there's any reason that companies would have to licence under the GFDL, even if they're using MediaWiki. It can still be used for proprietary work created on it (similarly, MS Word is copyrighted, but I can write a story on it and release it under the GFDL or into the public domain). Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:21, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement to use GFDL with MediaWiki. There are, in fact, a lot of public MediaWiki's using other licenses, most commonly the Creative Commons licenses.  The only reason GFDL applies to Wikipedia (not MediaWiki, Wikipedia) is because the people running this wiki (the original one) decided to require that all contributions to the wiki be licensed under GFDL.  If you're running a Wiki, you can decide that for yourself. Jdavidb 15:41, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I thought that was (or should) be the case, but was surprised to find references to the licensing apparently hard-coded into the MediaWiki PHP scripts (at least for version 1.2.6). I guess I need to look at the 1.3.x source to see if it's time to put my coding hat on and tweak things! :-) RichardJFoster 12:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)