homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.231.221
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Content, Writing and Copyright
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Content, Writing and Copyright Forum

    
Copying from Wikipedia
Is it allowed?
Rani




msg:921737
 5:26 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi everyone,
Is Wikipedia free to copy from?
I read their copyright rules and i understood that i can copy as long as i don't change anything and provide a link back to Wikipedia.Did i understand right?

Thanks

 

skippy




msg:921738
 5:37 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)

andrea99




msg:921739
 6:40 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

...copied, modified, and redistributed...

hmmmm. I wasn't aware of this this "modified" part. Very interesting...

ccam96




msg:921740
 7:02 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Welcome to the world of "open source" : ) . Try some .gov sites as well since they are public domain. Our government can't balance the budget but they put out lots of useful information to quote for websites!

larryhatch




msg:921741
 7:26 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Don't forget the effects of Duplicate Content.
Many a page has "gone supplemental" i.e. to the boondocks for duplication. -Larry

andrea99




msg:921742
 8:37 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Don't forget the effects of Duplicate Content.

Exactly why I found the "modified" provision interesting. I have avoided using Wikipedia content for that reason. If I can rewrite and paraphrase without infringing this is a wonderful shortcut to new content.

Actually many of the Wikipedia articles need a rewrite.

Rani




msg:921743
 9:22 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Don't forget the effects of Duplicate Content.
Many a page has "gone supplemental" i.e. to the boondocks for duplication. -Larry

larryhatch,can you explain ,please,what this means.

larryhatch




msg:921744
 9:40 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Rani:

Several sites copied text off of my pages. Fortunately I didn't suffer from this.
When I search for snippets of my text, I might find 20 or 30 pages in Google.
Google might show 10 of those immediately, with the bottom ones marked "Supplemental Result"
(read: Copycats, scrapers etc.)

At bottom, Google says "these are the first 10 pages found ..
To see the rest click here .."

I click and the other 20 pages are listed in SERPs, virtually all of them "Supplemental Results".

It amounts to a penalty, one usually well deserved.
- Larry

zCat




msg:921745
 9:42 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

If I can rewrite and paraphrase without infringing this is a wonderful shortcut to new content.

Don't forget the GPL requires that you make your modifications available under the same terms as the original, so anyone would be free to use your content too.

zCat




msg:921746
 9:48 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Regarding the supplemental issue: the Googlebot probably just yawns every time it encounters a Wikipedia copy and consigns the pages to supplemental oblivion, along with all the DMOZ clones. In other words, having Wikipedia copies on your site will probably not bring any particular SEO advantage, and could even be a slight disadvantage.

Rani




msg:921747
 9:54 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Larry,

Google might show 10 of those immediately

Does your original page from your url show up in that search?

I imagine it should rank at #1 if Google is so smart.

larryhatch




msg:921748
 10:26 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Rani: It came in first or second for that odd phrase, this is no surprise.
The page is PR=6 and has been up for years now. -Larry

Rani




msg:921749
 10:49 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

And the other 9 websites on that list?
They copied a snippet of your page and got away with it.

larryhatch




msg:921750
 11:06 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

The other 9 sites, most of them anyway, provided nice
links to my site. They just copied enough to recommend my site.
That doesn't bother me at all. -Larry

andrea99




msg:921751
 4:38 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

If I can rewrite and paraphrase without infringing this is a wonderful shortcut to new content.

Don't forget the GPL requires that you make your modifications available under the same terms as the original, so anyone would be free to use your content too.

Yes, I think it would require the entire GPL boilerplate notice. Actually an infringer of my modified content who didn't then also include the notice and my link would have a beef with not just me but Wikipedia AND GPL, so I'd then be better off than if my original content had just been copied. If it were an egregious enough infringement it might get /., O'Reilly or digg involved...

I have no problem with giving Wikipedia and GPL free ads and links in exchange for content, this seems like a good deal and entirely within the spirit of the GPL.

skippy




msg:921752
 4:49 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

According to Wikipedia the preferred citation with links back is

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "foo"

ccDan




msg:921753
 5:00 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Is copying from Wikipedia a good idea, especially in light of jokesters and Congressional staffers messing around with entries?

Unless you're knowledgeable about the content, you would have to research other sources to make sure what you find in Wikipedia is correct.

If you're knowledgeable about the content, why not write your own original article?

If you have to research the content, why not write your article based on facts found in more reliable sources?

With Wikipedia, I'd worry that the information I pass on to my readers might be incorrect or "tainted." If you're trying to build a reputable site, why take that chance?

zivkovicp




msg:921754
 5:40 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think this is a great way to get some quick info for filler pages.

Building an entire site around it might not be the best idea. While much of the content is quite good, people might recognise it as Wikipedia content and instantly lower their opinion of you and your website.

I imagine it would be a good idea to modify a few wiki articles to better suit your website and add them to your site as "extras" or content that can be shared, with a link back to you ofcourse. :)

andrea99




msg:921755
 5:53 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

ccDan, your point is well taken. But there is a vast gulf between scholarly work and pop websites. Some subject matter is less serious and does not need the depth that more serious things require. Some things are far less prone to tampering and fraud than others. My particular interest in WP material is for teen pop music and other gossipy subjects where having WP listed as a source is an advantage in that this actually protects me (somewhat) against full liability for inaccuracies. Indeed if I were to do additional research I may include my work in the actual WP.

zivkovicp also makes a good point. Wikipedia clone sites will become what ODP clones are, Supplemental.

The bottom line: Add value and you won't be an infringer/spammer.

urlreader




msg:921756
 10:32 pm on Mar 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

no, not all .gov information is in public domain. be careful.

Average

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Content, Writing and Copyright
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved