Hello (improved google translation)
A French-speaking site http://www.ebabylone.com/ chose to use us like source of information. The link to our content is accessible from the link "Encyclop�die" at the front of their home page.
When one clicks on "Encyclopedie", here what one can see http://www.ebabylone.com/article.php?sid=7
It is an extraction of our home page. On this page, there are no references of Wikipedia.
At the bottom of the page a comment: All the Logos and trademarks are deposited, the comments are under the responsibility of those which published them, the remainder � 2000 ebabylone.com
When one clicks on the link of the encyclopaedia, one notes that all the articles are here, complete and updated. The totality of the articles is copied in real time. See http://www.ebabylone.com/encyclopreg.php?title=Biology
the article being complete, it remains the mention "an article of Wikip�dia, the free encyclopaedia" at the top of the article
At the bottom of the page, it remains also the mention indicating that the contents are under licence GNU. There is also part of a link (brokent, so non clickable) indicating the source of the page.
There are no links anywhere either towards Wikipedia, nor towards the article on wikipedia. Always at the foot of the page, there remains the mention
"All the Logos and Marks are deposited, the comments are under the responsibility of those which published them, the remainder � 2000 ebabylone.com This site was set up by ebabylone.com"
We are delighted by see fr.wikipedia used as source. Nevertheless, certain questions arise.
Some editors estimate that according to GFDL'S, there should obligatorily be a link to the original article, to preserve the access of the history, to check the authorship of the article. Is this true?
In addition, there is no link towards Wikip�dia on this website, or to any article of Wikipedia. Only, one partially broken and extr�mement discrete link for each article. Is this ok?
It is also normal that figure always in footer the mention of copyright of ebabylone?
What do you think ? -------
Bonjour a tous
Un site francophone http://www.ebabylone.com/ a choisi de nous utiliser comme source d information.
Le lien est accessible depuis Encyclop�die en tete de leur page d accueil.
Lorsque l'on clique sur Encyclopedie, voici ce que l on peut voir
http://www.ebabylone.com/article.php?sid=7
C'est une extraction de notre page d'accueil.
Sur cette page, il n'y a aucune r�f�rence a Wikipedia. Au bas de la page un commentaire : Tous les Logos et Marques sont d�pos�s, les commentaires sont sous la responsabilit� de ceux qui les ont publi�s, le reste � 2000 ebabylone.com
------
Quand on clique sur les liens de l'encyclop�die, on note que tous les articles sont la et complets. La totalit� des articles est copi�e en temps r�el.
Voir http://www.ebabylone.com/encyclopreg.php?title=Biologie
L'article �tant complet, il reste la mention "Un article de Wikip�dia, l'encyclop�die libre"
Au bas de la page, il reste �galement la mention indiquant que le contenu est sous licence GNU. Il y a egalement une partie de lien indiquant la source de la page, mais aucun lien ni vers Wikipedia, ni vers l'article sur wikipedia.
Toujours en bas de page, il reste la mention
Tous les Logos et Marques sont d�pos�s, les commentaires sont sous la responsabilit� de ceux qui les ont publi�s, le reste � 2000 ebabylone.com Ce site a �t� mis en place par ebabylone.com
------
Nous sommes ravis de voir fr.wikipedia utilis�e comme source.
Neanmoins, certaines questions se posent.
Certains �diteurs estiment que selon la GFDL, il devrait obligatoirement y avoir un lien vers l'article originel, pour pr�server l'acc�s a l'historique des auteurs de l'article. Est ce vrai ?
Par ailleurs, il n'y a donc aucun lien vers Wikip�dia elle meme, ou vers aucun article de Wikipedia. Seulement, un lien partiellement cass� et extr�mement discret. Est ce normal ?
Est il egalement normal que figure toujours en pied de page la mention de copyright de ebabylone ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
I see 'Source: http://fr.wikipedia.org' just below the list of topics after clicking the "Encyclopedie" link... and if I click 'Biologie', at the bottom of the article is: "Récupérée de "http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Biologie&search=" Dernière modification de cette page : 8 sep 2003 à 09:45. Tous les textes sont disponibles sous les termes de la Licence de documentation libre GNU . " Neither credit is very prominent, but they're there (now, at least)...
-- Jake
We are delighted by see fr.wikipedia used as source. Nevertheless, certain questions arise.
Some editors estimate that according to GFDL'S, there should obligatorily be a link to the original article, to preserve the access of the history, to check the authorship of the article. Is this true?
In addition, there is no link towards WikipÈdia on this website, or to any article of Wikipedia. Only, one partially broken and extrËmement discrete link for each article. Is this ok?
RÈcupÈrÈe de "http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Droit&search=" DerniËre modification de cette page : 10 sep 2003 ý 20:03. Tous les textes sont disponibles sous les termes de la Licence de documentation libre GNU .
Here's a copy of the link and notice at the bottom of the article on law. In this case the link works. My experience on Internet-Encyclopedia is that is is very easy to make a mistake in the link. You have to always check and correct it or you will have a bunch of broken links. They need notice to be more careful. The language Licence de documentation libre GNU is a link to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Copyright which would seem to serve.
Fred.
It is also normal that figure always in footer the mention of copyright of ebabylone?
What do you think ?
Normal unconscious behavior as it can legitimately refer to only the material on the page other than the Wikipedia article.
Fred
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org