Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks#Weird

The usage of this page has changed a lot over the past decade. Nowadays, Wikipedia is so popular that listing every source copying from us with the intent of taking some form of legal task is a fools' errand.

Instead, I think this is more useful as both a resource for documenting mirrors, for editors - as well as for tools like Earwig's copyvio detector, to prevent false positives. This is currently implemented, but due to the inconsistent nature of entries here, performs poorly.

I've created an example of what I'd like to change the page to look like at User:Elli/Mirrorsandforkstest. Notably, the format would change to a sortable table, and each domain name would be an entry, instead of each website. This is to mirror the more spam-blocklist nature this has taken on. Thoughts? I'd be happy to implement this change, but I'd like to get feedback from people who contribute to or use this list before going ahead. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

:Hello Elli,

:I do like your table suggestion and would support it. Even though, the readability of the Notes table is difficult...

:(as a relatively new "editor", I may not know yet the right words here) Villamondial (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This site appears to have copied all wikipedia articles as it is and seems to mix other articles with it 178.248.114.81 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This site appears to have copied a bunch of Wikipedia articles without attribution or the correct copyright license. The site says "© 2004-2023 K12academics.com". For example,

https://www.k12academics.com/education-united-states/elementary-secondary-education appears to have copied from an old version of Education in the United States (before 30 July 2014), and https://www.k12academics.com/education-united-states/education-west-virginia from Education in West Virginia. -- Beland (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see mdwiki.org listed here. Should it be listed here under mirrors and forks, or does the connection to wikimedia make it something other than a fork? Their main page states "This site is growing out of Meta-Wiki and Wikipedia. We have attribution to Wikipedia, where much of the content originates, in the footers. We are working on a full history import. This project is run by a Wikimedia thematic organization and not by the Wikimedia Foundation." The footers for many pages say "This page may contain content developed from Wikipedia or Meta" even when the relevant talk page includes a link showing that the entirety of the page is mirrored from wikipedia. Dialectric (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Are instances of YouTubers making videos that are just reading off Wikipedia articles count towards this list? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 19:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Copying what I said on Wikiproject copyright:

Well this is a new one. While on CopyPatrol, I encountered a paper, DOI and all, that lifted huge sections of text from Enzymes. I've created a new essay to step through the process. ⸺(Random)staplers 09:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I was checking Talk:Gustavo Santaolalla/GA1 GAN with Earwig's Copyvio Detector and the tool reported a violation linked to this site here: [https://pantheon.world/profile/occupation/musician/country/argentina]. The article lede and corresponds to that off-wiki site verbatim. I noticed that off-wiki site has text on Lalo Schifrin (unrelated to the GAN) which corresponds to the lede of Lalo Schifrin article. The GAN nominator does not appear to be the editor of the Lalo Schifrin article which, to me, suggests the off-wiki site lifted ledes of multiple wiki articles. I do not know if this is the correct venue to report, but I thought it would be a good start. Can anyone confrim for this? Thanks! Tomobe03 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:The site appears to be in good-faith compliance with the CC BY-SA license (at least partially) – the text appears clearly copied from Wikipedia, but each page linked from it (like [https://pantheon.world/profile/person/Chris_de_Burgh this one]) links in turn to the Wikipedia article it quotes, and the site as a whole is licensed under BY-SA 4.0. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{tl|Backwards copy}} deals with the basic case when an external website copies material from Wikipedia, especially in violation of the CC BY-SA license - "{{tq|please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source}}." But if they modify or add their own material to the article content, are Wikipedia editors allowed to incorporate that content back into Wikipedia?

Under {{USC|17|103}}, "{{tq|...[copyright] protection for a work employing preexisting material... does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully}}", so it may be at least legally permissible, although editors should first check whether the external website's use of Wikipedia content qualifies as fair use. But this feels unethical, at least when done without crediting the website that published the infringing material. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 00:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)