Wikipedia's Content Ripped Off More Egregiously Than Usual 284
Ultraexactzz writes "Wikipedia's content is licensed under the GFDL, which permits such content to be copied with attribution — and Wikipedia is used to its content being copied and mirrored. However, a new website at e-wikipedia.net appears to have taken this a step further by mirroring the entire English Wikipedia — articles, logos, disclaimers, userpages, and all. Compare Wikipedia's About page with e-wikipedia.net's. The site even adds to Wikipedia's normally ad-free interface by including text ads." Just try logging in or actually editing an article, though, and you'll get the message "The requested URL /w/index.php was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request." If there's credit here, I don't see it — sure looks like it's intentionally misleading readers.
This is perfect! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I just don't understand why anybody would ever cite an encyclopedia. Unless they were studying encyclopedias, of course. It is about as useful as citing a dictionary.
Interlibrary loan latency; standard dictionaries (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interlibrary loan latency; standard dictionarie (Score:2)
It depends on the type of research, if it's a chemistry assignment and the library has access to many online journals, it won't be a problem to get all sources in a day. If it's an assignm
OED (Score:3, Informative)
Eh, I think the OED is the de facto dictionary for non-law research.
I think it depends on which edition, one of the paperback editions like the Essential or American editions or the full 20something volume edition. I got my spelling of time as "tyme" from the full edition.
FalconRe:Interlibrary loan latency; standard dictionarie (Score:4, Informative)
And definitive use in the law, as well. Merriam-Webster is not a particularly accurate, thorough, or disciplined publication. It's fine as a casual reference, but so is Dictionary.com, American Heritage, and Webster's (the REAL Webster's).
The OED is the English language resource, at least in terms of the high water mark for scholarship. It is that disciplined scholarship that leads to its criticism, however. Precise word choice, where it is important, should not be blunted by an overly populist dictionary with demonstrably lower levels of academic scholarship and fidelity.
If the term has become such a point of contention that the precise dictionary definition is required, then OED is the ultimate arbiter. If you're not squabbling over technicalities and just want the basic gist, then any of the other reputable dictionaries, including M-W, are acceptable. Stopping at M-W, on the other hand, is like saying an encyclopedia is a sufficient technical resource. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are by their nature limited. The OED is unquestionably the most detailed English dictionary, and no other resource can make a contrary claim with any real credibility. That's what makes it valuable in academic, technical, and legal research.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is perfect! Next time a teacher or other person in authority says I can't use Wikipedia because it is unreliable I just get the content from this site and I can say that it wasn't Wikipedia!
Crap like this is exactly WHY Wikipedia should not be cited formally as a reference. Even if Wikipedia could be trusted to be 100% correct (which it can't), how do you know you're not looking at some fake shit? Wikipedia is great for personal research. For formal citation, it's garbage. For one thing, the conten
Re:This is perfect! (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Or cite to the items the wikipedia article cites. I find wikipedia to be a nice "springboard", as I can go to the references, and then to the reference's references, and so on. Quick way to get useful and cite-able info.
Re:This is perfect! (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Which is exactly how you should use wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is perfect! (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't you facing the exact same risk whenever you cite any other source, too?
Yes, anything can be misleading or inaccurate. That's not why citation matters. The purpose of citation is so that the reader can refer to the source to see (a) whether the source supports the interpretation you offer; and (b) how the source supports itself.
The second reason (b) is why you should always cite primary sources. The point isn't that primary sources are infallible, but that if they're truly primary sources, they'll support themselves. They'll give examples, evidence, etc. as to why the claims they're making are true, and the reader is then able to evaluate the claims on the basis of the person who originated those claims.
If you cite a secondary source, then you're leading the reader on a trail of citations that might go nowhere. I could cite you, you could cite someone else, that someone else cite yet another person, and off we go. You're essentially setting up a research project for the reader to figure out where the information actually came from.
Also, by the time the information comes through so many people, it can be distorted. It can be like a game of telephone, where what started out as a fact gets interpreted, and the interpretation gets interpreted, and that interpretation gets interpreted, ad nauseam. So by the end, you have no idea how distorted the truth is.
So seriously, if your research paper is relying on certain facts, try to find the original piece of writing that asserted those facts, and read that work for yourself. If you can't do that (in the case of a lost work that no longer exists, but is cited elsewhere), find the source that is as close as possible to the original, and cite that. Always go to the most original point, and always cite the primary work.
Wikipedia is a perfectly good place to start, and luckily they've started to encourage people to cite sources so that you can find the primary source for yourself. So when you want to use a fact from Wikipedia, follow their citation, read the work for yourself, and then you can cite *that* work as your primary source.
Re:This is perfect! (Score:5, Informative)
In MAJOR articles like those on neuroscience, biology, core computer science, mathematics, etc, Wikipedia tends to contain fewer inaccuracies per text unit than Britannica. Britannica is researched by a single person or closed group, leading to a lack of distributed peer review by experts in any field other than scholarly pursuit.
In other words, well-written Wikipedia articles have fewer probable (statistics) factual inaccuracies than your typical formal encyclopedia article. Small, uninteresting, or poorly written Wikipedia articles probably have errors, and are of a quality that wouldn't make it into a formal encyclopedia.
Re:This is perfect! (Score:5, Informative)
It's of course a biosphere, just like the economy and government. It naturally converges on an optimal condition, that being that it contains correct information. Britannica can't (it's micro-managed and thus sub-optimal), and scientific review articles are forcibly peer reviewed once (it's micro-managed and thus sub-optimal, but with a much better starting point). The interesting thing about the latter two is that over time they will "become" wrong, i.e. as new scientific discoveries disprove their content; the former, however, will stay "wrong" for a shorter time period.
None of these are perfect. Wikipedia is possibly better than Britannica, worse initially than a peer-reviewed scientific paper (though the data gets incorporated into Wikipedia quickly, with reference), and far better than the Google results many students use on their research assignments (hosted on free Web sites, etc)... though some of those aren't bad either, see http://www.freewebs.com/valvewizard/ [freewebs.com] (I've even seen Usenet discussions used in FORMAL compsci papers, usually quoting Gutmann).
Re:This is perfect! (Score:4, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A challenge for you: make a change to wikipedia that is blatantly wrong and have it stay for 24 hours. The point being that if you could achieve that for wikipedia then you'd likely be able to get the error into a textbook. The difference is that once it's in a textbook it's wrong until the next edition,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"review" != "peer review". And before you respond:
Let's see what Wikipedia itself has to say [wikipedia.org]:
Of course, peer review is not perfect (and some problems with it are handily documented by Wikipedia), but I don't really understand people
Re:This is perfect! (Score:5, Interesting)
In theory, it won't work, in practice it does.
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia that can't happen in any hard bound book.
Most things are garbage for profession citation...hell most profession citations are garbage.
Re:This is perfect! (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to check those tests carefully. On average, science articles in Wikipedia may be more accurate than those of similar encyclopedias e.g. Brittanica, but they're not better than dedicated scientific texts and journals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, RGB is device-dependent. Monitors have phosphors that are imperfect, much like the inks are. We use ICC profiles (gamma curves) to tie them back to a standard RGB. Apple uses Apple RGB, Microsoft uses sRGB. On top of this, there are hardware adjustments that the manufacturer makes, as well as the consumer, in both hardware and software. So, to (over)simplify, there is no "RGB"...there's things like sRGB
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In theory, it won't work, in practice it does.
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia that can't happen in any hard bound book.
Most things are garbage for profession citation...hell most profession citations are garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to have parts of Wikipedia articles "peer reviewed" by Smart Knowledgeable People. Specific versions/revisions of those articles could be tagged as "reputable slash cite-able slash magic."
Then, it could have all the repute of a "hard bound book" and be updated every ten minutes!
Re:This is perfect! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Every page has a history. It's possible to cite a page at a certain time and guarantee that it will be displayed regardless of what changes are made to the article. This, in addition to a diff system (and discussion), makes it better in some ways than hard print, because it allows the reader to map changes over time and consensus/disagreements over contentious topics.
Re:This is perfect! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, no encyclopedia (Wikipedia or otherwise) should be cited formally. It doesn't matter on how accurate it is, or who can edit it, or anything. An encyclopedia is not a primary source. It's a good starting point to find primary sources (and for those of us who aren't using it formally, a source of information) and general background information to pursue one's research, but that's it. This is most evident in Wikipedia's "No original research" stance - it knows it's not a primary source of information and it shouldn't be.
The fact that Wikipedia is freely editable means one should really go to the original source for information.
Re:This is perfect! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Er, his point was that an encyclopedia is by definition a secondary source [wikipedia.org], and Wikipedia has policies that are meant to enforce this. When it comes to good research, as has been pointed out above and elsewhere in this discussion, primary sources are preferred for a bunch of reasons (creeping mis-/re-interpretation, citation wild goose chases, etc). Frankly, it doesn't matter how good an article on Wiki is, it sho
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dupe (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. On e-slashdot, CowboyNeal has a goatee.
Re:Dupe (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dupe (Score:5, Funny)
What!? (Score:5, Funny)
Google advertising revenue, most probably. (Score:4, Insightful)
2. More hits, more ad revenue.
3. Profit!!
Hopefully, Wikipedia's GFDL license will make possible to have this website banned.
Re:Google advertising revenue, most probably. (Score:4, Insightful)
If this new site doesn't provide anything above-and-beyond what Wikipedia provides, then few people will link to it, and its PageRank will be low. Without ranking high on Google, no one will find the site, and their ad revenue will be pathetic.
So, I don't really understand their business model here. Unless they offer some "value added" over the normal Wikipedia (quicker load times, vetted articles, better search, etc.), then they can't hope to attract eyeballs to their adds.
Forking is fine. A crappy fork, however, won't attract interest, and won't last long.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And live feeds are in fact a service the WMF sells. Because they cost!
It's no sin (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's no sin (Score:5, Informative)
E-wikipedia.net uses the Wikipedia logo, which would require the explicit permission of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're reading is coming from the real Wikipedia.org site. The fake e-wikipedia.net simply passes requests through to the real site and returns the result to the user. Now it's been detected and blocked on the Wikipedia.org side, with this message (including the link to the real Wikipedia) being sent for every request.
(*You may already
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome.
Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)
S[cp]ammer alert? (Score:5, Interesting)
The site is probably just a reverse proxy with a few filters to insert ads, maybe embed malicious content, insert some junk text, white on white, and the site owners probably hope that when people are looking for info using a search engine, that they will mistake the site for the real Wikipedia.
1. Create a Fake-e-pedia site
2. ????
3. Profit!!!
I wonder what their #2 is...
Just my 2cents.
Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Proxy someone else's site
2. Add Ads
3. Slashdot
4. Owners of original site block your IP from theirs.
5. NO Profit!
No ??? needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing I use Adblock
Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (Score:4, Informative)
This request has been identified as coming from a remote-loading website. This is not Wikipedia, please update your bookmarks. Access Wikipedia only through *.wikipedia.org.
A remote loader is a website that loads content from another site on each request. The content is typically filtered, framed with ads, and then displayed to the user.
The remote loader either:
* Pretends to be the source website, perhaps using a deceptive domain name; or
* Converts all instances of the name of the source website to some other name.
We consider remote loading websites to be an unfair drain on our server resources, and so they are systematically blocked, as this one has been.
Curl Script (Score:2)
Wiki* ...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. (Score:2)
Started a new article... (Score:3, Informative)
I was already logged into Wikipedia. I went to e-wiki, and did a search for itself. I decided I'd have some fun and create the article. I clicked to create it, and it brought me over to en.wikipedia.org to create it.
Very interesting. Not even -trying- for original content.
Cry me a river... (Score:2)
Since the site is _dependent_ on wikipedia for the information in the first place, the real "value" is the contributors, not some artificial one, and as a contributor, that is the main thing to me: guaranteeing that the information will stay free for everyone. if i was concerned about someone "ripping" the info
There are hundreds/thousands of such sites (Score:3, Informative)
While I notice it hasn't in this case, google is normally pretty quick to remove them from its indexes as well, so if you use google, you'll mostly not be able to find them.
However, the basic meme of copy content, add ads and publish, particularly for content like wikipedia that is self-referential, is very widely used.
--Q
It appears to be permitted (Score:5, Informative)
"2. Verbatim Copying [] You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License."
The pages do appear to be verbatim copies of the Wikipedia pages, despite the lack of some images (note: verbatim - in precisely the same words used by a writer or speaker). You'll also note that the license does not require attribution (found in other words in Section 4), just a requirement for reproduction. Wikipedia is the one that must resolve its failure to include a copyright notice on the pages, not the mirror.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License [wikipedia.org]. (See Copyrights [wikipedia.org] for details.)
Additionally, all the pages Wikipedia deals with are modified versions of prior GFDL'd documents, so Section 4 of the GFDL (Modifications) and all of its attribution requirements apply. While the GFDL is an awful license to use in a wiki, lack of attribution requirements is not one of those reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that there's a reasonable argument that the requirements of Section 4 of the GFDL do not apply to the mirror. At the very least, if you argue that the mirror has violated the GFDL then you're arguing that Wikipedia has violated the GFDL. If I had to defend the mirror in court, I can virtually guarantee that I would
Re:It appears to be permitted (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My opinion is this: Plagiarism is not copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.
I wrote all of that myself, in case you weren't sure. Honest.
WHOIS information (Score:5, Informative)
Registration Service Provided By: NameCheap.com
Contact: support@NameCheap.com
Visit: http://www.namecheap.com/
Domain name: e-wikipedia.net
Registrant Contact:
-
John Heys (allegro.share2@o2.pl)
+46.0851041152
Fax: +1.5555555555
Virkesvagen 5
Stockholm, n/a 12030
SE
Administrative Contact:
-
John Heys (allegro.share2@o2.pl)
+46.0851041152
Fax: +1.5555555555
Virkesvagen 5
Stockholm, n/a 12030
SE
Technical Contact:
-
John Heys (allegro.share2@o2.pl)
+46.0851041152
Fax: +1.5555555555
Virkesvagen 5
Stockholm, n/a 12030
SE
Status: Locked
Name Servers:
ns1.hostpower.pl
ns2.hostpower.pl
Creation date: 28 Feb 2008 20:23:45
Expiration date: 28 Feb 2009 20:23:45
---
Other domains hosted at that IP:
Strzelecki.info
E-teledyski.org
Giexx.com
Moderowany.net
Songstexts.info
Tibianews.info
Wartibia.com
Wikipedia2009.com
Axeee.com
I'll spare everyone the WHOIS data for all of those domains as well - look it up on your own.
Ripping Off Wikipedia (Score:2)
1. Make counterfeit dimes.
2. Buy SCO shares then sue everyone...eer again
3. Copy Wikipedia
Anonymous coward (Score:5, Funny)
Me: "Did you write this whole thing yourself?"
Her: "Yes, of course!"
Me: "Are you sure"
Her: "Yes, 100%"
Me: "Well, a huge chunk of your report is straight from Wikipedia."
Her: "Um, yeah, well, um I wrote that Wikipedia page."
Re:Anonymous coward (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
- RG>
Re:Anonymous coward (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Anonymous coward (Score:5, Funny)
Me: "Did you write this whole thing yourself?"
Her: "Yes, of course!"
Me: "Are you sure"
Her: "Yes, 100%"
Me: "Well, a huge chunk of your report is straight from Wikipedia."
Her: "Um, yeah, well, um I wrote that Wikipedia page."
We had to write a report on something, I don't recall what, but the teacher felt the submitted work was somewhat above the writing level of that particular student and questioned its originality. When the student defended their authorship then teacher than preceded to inquire about the passage of the report where the student claimed 20 years of research in the field.
Sue for trademark infringement. (Score:2)
Circular Reference (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuked (Score:2)
Re:Nuked (Score:4, Funny)
Remote Loading/Leeching (Score:5, Informative)
Moreover, this is a stupid way to design it, since it's trivial for Wikipedia to detect what you're doing, and serve a custom error page, as they have done. In short, why did these people assume Wikipedia was going to let them continue infringing their trademark and taxing their servers?
Re:Remote Loading/Leeching (Score:5, Insightful)
Short-living business strategies work, if you chain them together.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't even a copy (Score:2, Interesting)
Evil Genius! (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 2) Secure Advertising
Step 3) Submit story on
Step 4) Profit!
-Rick
Not a surprise to me... (Score:2)
Re:Not a surprise to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is not using the information that Wikipedia provides--after all, that's why it is contributed under copyleft. The problem is that someone is essentially hosting a site that routes all the heavy computational, database, and programming work through Wikimedia's servers, usually with the intention of making a quick buck by spamming or selling ads.
Lazy script kiddies (Score:2, Interesting)
Throw in a MediaWiki parser and you have your own lightweight mirror. Every page has a link back to the original Wikipedia entry.
Not so surprisingly a 933Mhz system can't handle Wikipedia. But i
Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I guess we can (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I guess we can (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I guess we can (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't log in.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I tried that, but my bank account details failed the notability criteria..
Aaaand it's over (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only question is.. how long will it do that?
If the site was really a leech site -- the operator may just start using random proxies and anonymizers to load the pages.
Or Tor.
If Wikipedia attempts to block those, they will also be blocking a portion of real Wikipedia readers/editors living in certain countries where they really need to conceal their identities, to protect against prosecution for what they choose to read on Wikipedia.
Re:Aaaand it's over (Score:4, Informative)
Last I checked: they blocked anonymous editing from open proxies. They never blocked reading the Wikipedia from open proxies.
They even potentially allowed edits from open proxies if you had an account (or if you had an account and the username you logged in as was whitelisted).