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
On 27/04/07, Jim Karpen jkarpen@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).
On 4/27/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 27/04/07, Jim Karpen jkarpen@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
On 4/27/07, Jim Karpen jkarpen@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.
On 27/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Jim Karpen jkarpen@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.
On 4/29/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@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.
On 4/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@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? ~~~~
On 29/04/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@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.
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@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/04/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/29/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@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
On 4/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@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
On 27/04/07, Jim Karpen jkarpen@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.
On 27/04/07, Jim Karpen jkarpen@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.