While we're talking about the GFDL, www.4reference.net seems to have a lot of Wikipedia stuff online. Bizarrely, most of it is non-article space stuff like user pages, though some pages are real articles.
Anyway, their pages don't seem to mention the license either. e.g: http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/HTML.html
They do however mention that they got it from us.
There are many such pages. A google search for: site:http://www.4reference.net Wikipedia turns them up. Top hit is Mbecker's white board. :-)
Evercat
a.crossman@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
While we're talking about the GFDL, www.4reference.net seems to have a lot of Wikipedia stuff online. Bizarrely, most of it is non-article space stuff like user pages, though some pages are real articles.
Anyway, their pages don't seem to mention the license either. e.g: http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/HTML.html
They do however mention that they got it from us.
There are many such pages. A google search for: site:http://www.4reference.net Wikipedia turns them up. Top hit is Mbecker's white board. :-)
Evercat
I suspect we'll see more and more of this. Wikipedia is a convenient source of free content for sites hoping to increase traffic so they get ad rates high enough to pay for the bandwidth charges. Perhaps every page should be stamped with an invariant section promoting wikipedia.org as *the* place to get one's encyclopedia articles. 1/2 :-)
4reference.net doesn't seem to include any of the pictures, very lame.
Stan
Bizarre indeed! I wonder what warrants an article being stored on their site. I also wonder why google has rated my white board #1? Maybe it is b/c of the large number of links? Anyhow, it appears that www.4reference.net is a much bigger culprit, than Malaspina.com, as far as not including the GFDL. I think we need to copy http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyRedDice/Abacci_Letter to a generic GFDL letter page, and also create a page to archive all of the sites which have used wikipedia as a source, so that we can one day harvest them for more information (since any article which was contributed to by wikipedia is perpetually required to use the GFDL). Actually, I will create these two pages right now, and list them on the Village Pump. Where do you suppose these 2 pages should be listed in addition?
The 2 new pages: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_as_a_so urce
-- Michael Becker
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of a.crossman@blueyonder.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 6.32 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] More license stuff - www.4reference.net
While we're talking about the GFDL, www.4reference.net seems to have a lot of Wikipedia stuff online. Bizarrely, most of it is non-article space stuff like user pages, though some pages are real articles.
Anyway, their pages don't seem to mention the license either. e.g: http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/HTML.html
They do however mention that they got it from us.
There are many such pages. A google search for: site:http://www.4reference.net Wikipedia turns them up. Top hit is Mbecker's white board. :-)
Evercat
Michael Becker wrote in part:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_as_a_source
These can be used by more than the English Wikipedia. (Accordingly, they should probably be moved to [[meta:]].)
-- Toby