Wikipedia for sale for mobile devices - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Wikipedia for sale for mobile devices

Re: [WikiEN-l] Category destruction

deadline extension for...

Jim Karpen

27 Apr 2007 27 Apr '07

6:03 p.m.

This site seems to be selling a version of Wikipedia for $20. It doesn't credit Wikipedia in any way. http://www.soundtells.com/MobileReference/Encyclopedia/index.htm Jim

Reply

Show replies by date

Earle Martin

27 Apr 27 Apr

6:08 p.m.

On 27/04/07, Jim Karpen <jkarpen(a)lisco.com> wrote:

This site seems to be selling a version of Wikipedia for $20. It doesn't credit Wikipedia in any way.

The articles shown in the animated screenshot all say "This article uses material from Wikipedia" (where "Wikipedia" looks to be a hyperlink). -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

Reply

Nick Wilkins

7:25 p.m.

On 4/27/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:

On 27/04/07, Jim Karpen <jkarpen(a)lisco.com> wrote:

This site seems to be selling a version of Wikipedia for $20. It doesn't credit Wikipedia in any way.

The articles shown in the animated screenshot all say "This article uses material from Wikipedia" (where "Wikipedia" looks to be a hyperlink).

In addition, the "product features" list includes the following bullet point: The Encyclopedia is based on Wikipedia, the largest collection of reference work in the history of human knowledge. To keep the file size manageable we have only included the abstracts from each article. Not sure if they're actually in compliance with the GFDL (though, the GFDL being what it is, I somewhat doubt it). But they do credit Wikipedia, for what that's worth. -- Jonel

Reply

geni

7:39 p.m.

On 4/27/07, Jim Karpen <jkarpen(a)lisco.com> wrote:

This site seems to be selling a version of Wikipedia for $20. It doesn't credit Wikipedia in any way.

GFDL requires you to credit the authors. Wikipedia is not the author therefor you are not required to credit it however you are required to credit the people who did the actual writeing and they are the ones who can take you to court if you don't. -- geni

Reply

Earle Martin

29 Apr 29 Apr

5:04 p.m.

On 27/04/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/27/07, Jim Karpen <jkarpen(a)lisco.com> wrote:

This site seems to be selling a version of Wikipedia for $20. It doesn't credit Wikipedia in any way.

GFDL requires you to credit the authors. Wikipedia is not the author therefor you are not required to credit it however you are required to credit the people who did the actual writeing and they are the ones who can take you to court if you don't.

That's interesting. How many of our mirrors, then, are actually in compliance? Even answers.com only says on its copies of our content "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia." No page history (and therefore author names) available. -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

Reply

geni

6:26 p.m.

On 4/29/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:

That's interesting. How many of our mirrors, then, are actually in compliance? Even answers.com only says on its copies of our content "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia." No page history (and therefore author names) available.

Provides a link back to the original article which has a history page. -- geni

Reply

gjzilla＠gmail.com

9:10 p.m.

On 4/29/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/29/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:

That's interesting. How many of our mirrors, then, are actually in compliance? Even answers.com only says on its copies of our content "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia." No page history (and therefore author names) available.

Provides a link back to the original article which has a history page. -- geni

But say the article is then deleted? ~~~~

Reply

David Gerard

9:43 p.m.

On 29/04/07, gjzilla(a)gmail.com <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/29/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/29/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:

> > That's interesting. How many of our mirrors, then, are actually in > > compliance? Even answers.com only says on its copies of our content > > "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed > > encyclopedia." No page history (and therefore author names) available.

> Provides a link back to the original article which has a history page.

But say the article is then deleted? ~~~~

I presume it would be up to the copyright holder, i.e. a substantial contributor to the article, to ask them "um wtf?" in any circumstance. - d.

Reply

Gary Kirk

10:01 p.m.

Doesn't Answers.com (specifically) have some arrangement - whether paid or not I don't know - with the Wikimedia Foundation? Their content is updated seemingly quite quickly - maybe they purchased access to a live feed - so deleted articles would no longer appear...I assume. On 29/04/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 29/04/07, gjzilla(a)gmail.com <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/29/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/29/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:

> > That's interesting. How many of our mirrors, then, are actually in > > compliance? Even answers.com only says on its copies of our content > > "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed > > encyclopedia." No page history (and therefore author names) available.

> Provides a link back to the original article which has a history page.

But say the article is then deleted? ~~~~

I presume it would be up to the copyright holder, i.e. a substantial contributor to the article, to ask them "um wtf?" in any circumstance. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- Gary Kirk

Reply

Anthony

30 Apr 30 Apr

2:13 a.m.

On 4/29/07, gjzilla(a)gmail.com <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/29/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/29/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:

That's interesting. How many of our mirrors, then, are actually in compliance? Even answers.com only says on its copies of our content "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia." No page history (and therefore author names) available.

Provides a link back to the original article which has a history page. -- geni

But say the article is then deleted? ~~~~

They they'd be violating copyright. Arguably, they're violating copyright already, and it's just that no one has cared enough to stop them yet. Take a look at the SEC filings for Answers Corporation sometime. It's filled with warnings about the risks the company faces with regard to copyright infringement lawsuits. Anthony

Reply

Stephen Bain

5:15 a.m.

On 4/30/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:

That's interesting. How many of our mirrors, then, are actually in compliance?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

Reply

Andrew Gray

27 Apr 27 Apr

7:57 p.m.

On 27/04/07, Jim Karpen <jkarpen(a)lisco.com> wrote:

This site seems to be selling a version of Wikipedia for $20. It doesn't credit Wikipedia in any way. http://www.soundtells.com/MobileReference/Encyclopedia/index.htm

It's perfectly legitimate to sell versions of our content without crediting "Wikipedia" -it's the actual authors of that content you need to credit. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Reply

Jim Karpen

8:37 p.m.

Andrew Gray wrote It's perfectly legitimate to sell versions of our content without crediting "Wikipedia" -it's the actual authors of that content you need to credit.

Thanks. Was curious about whether it's legitimate to sell versions of Wikipedia. Jim

Reply

Oldak Quill

28 Apr 28 Apr

7:45 p.m.

On 27/04/07, Jim Karpen <jkarpen(a)lisco.com> wrote:

Andrew Gray wrote It's perfectly legitimate to sell versions of our content without crediting "Wikipedia" -it's the actual authors of that content you need to credit.

Thanks. Was curious about whether it's legitimate to sell versions of Wikipedia. Jim

Yeah, GDFL allows commercial use. Many copylefters are of the opinion that licenses prohibiting commercial use (e.g. CC -ND licenses) are not truly free use. The ability to reuse GFDL conent commerically is a big incentive for Wikimiedia reuse (and so--hopefully--greater diffusion of free conent). This incentive makes Wikimedia content more valuable and more uesful. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

6231

days inactive

6234

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

13 comments

11 participants

tags (0)

participants (11)

Andrew Gray
Anthony
David Gerard
Earle Martin
Gary Kirk
geni
gjzilla＠gmail.com
Jim Karpen
Nick Wilkins
Oldak Quill
Stephen Bain