Using Wikipedia content is OK!

[shafaki]

When you search Google, you can check the 'definition' of a word or term by clicking at a link [definition] in case of a single word, or on a link with the word itself in case of more than one word.

This links takes you from Google to www.answers.com. This site not only gives dictionary meanings of words, but also gives you articles on just about everything. There are to things to realize about this site (a site that Google itself is linking too, meaning it is an okay site):
1- The content of the articles are all 'stolen' from Wikipedia. (well, stolen is not the word to use, but I'm using it loosely here.)
2- The site has ads.

I've seen many scraper sites 'steal' ALL the wikipedia content in the same way, and put ads on it. I thought that was not something to really fuss about, as we're used to scraper sites (and used to vent our frustration out by talking about them). Yet what triggered me was finding an 'authority' site that Google itself is linking to in that way use the Wikipedia content (its full content!) and put ads on them!

Okay, let's assume it is 'legal' to grab the Wikipedia content, put it on your site, and also put ads on all the pages. Please answer this one for me: What is preventing me from registering for a new site tomorrow and doing just this (pulling off all the Wikipedia content, putting it on my new site and putting ads on them)?

Pleaaase answer this, as my mind is going crazy and I can't find a mental path out of this. Please put an end to my endless loop.

[walkman]

>> What is preventing me from registering for a new site tomorrow and doing just this (pulling off all the Wikipedia content, putting it on my new site and putting ads on them)?

why don't you tell us, what is stopping you?

Oh, and if you think you will rank on Google with a wikipedia dupe, think again

[asp4bunnies]

Sheesh. It is legal to use wikipedia content. It's entirely open source and free for everyone to use. It's not stealing.

[martinibuster]

It's not stealing to use Wikipedia content. Use it.

Answers.com is creating something different with it. If you can figure out how to do something novel with the information then do it too.

There is no comparison with scrapers. This is not stealing.

[Lord Majestic]

For every person visiting a Wikipedia clone site Wikipedia is saving money while still fulfilling their mission.

[viggen]

It's entirely open source and free for everyone to use. It's not stealing.

Thats the problem, because wikipedia itself contains allot of stolen articles...
(this year alone i had to search,find and remove over 50 articles that were copied from my site):(

regards
viggen

[21_blue]

shafaki wrote:
>Okay, let's assume it is 'legal' to grab the Wikipedia content

Wikipedia is, in effect, an open source encyclopedia so you can 'grab content' providing you adhere to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. However, and I'm not sure this is particularly relevant to this forum but rather Google search, you should be aware of the downsides of duplicate content: you get penalised in Google.

To make money, an online publishing business really ought to be built on original or added-value content. There might be tricks that duplicate sites and scrapers can use to generate money in the short term with volumes of duplicate content, but the best foundation on which to build an online publishing business is to be first with something new.

[rfontaine]

There are something like 5000 Wikipedia clone sites with copied content directly from Wikipedia, go ahead and mirror it - good luck!

[maxgoldie]

It is only a matter of time until Google comes down on the sites using wikipedia content in the same way it will have to with all the sites that have content made by "article bots".

[Sobriquet]

hundrds of sites are using wikipedia content . you shall face duplicate content penalty and the chances of natural search gain is almost zero

[dcheney]

Now if you want to be original (hmm, maybe I shouldn't mention this ... oh well) copy wikipedia but translate it into pig-latin or maybe use the original content but all of it backwards...

[AlexMiles]

It occurred to me you could use an online translator to translate it into Chinese, then translate it back. Or not.

Don't worry. I don't have quite that much time on my hands.

I think. :)

[joeduck]

dcheney - great idea! Let's begin:

Elcomeway otay ethay Igpay atinlay ikipediaway omfray
ebmasterworldway

[larryhatch]

Translate copy into German and back. Guaranteed "unique" content.
Worthless of course, but it won't get you banned. -Larry

[webpro00801]

I have to echo what an earlier poster said - there is a lot of copyrighted material on the Wikipedia. I would use it as a source and maybe pick and choose relative things from it, but I wouldn't just scrape it verbatim - sounds like a bad idea overall.

[AusDaddy]

If you want to use content from wikipedia, that is OK. In fact they encourage it. Just don't scrape the content as that wastes bandwidth and makes them grumpy. The proper way to do it is to download a database dump of their content. This is easier for your and cheaper for the Wiki so everyone gains.

[humblebeginnings]

"Using Wikipedia content is OK!"

Maybe...maybe not.
But what is wrong with writing your own stuff?

[Juan_G]

Do not create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.

Google AdSense Program Policies [google.com]

[RonPK]

Viggen: "this year alone i had to search,find and remove over 50 articles that were copied from my site"

rfontaine: "There are something like 5000 Wikipedia clone sites [..]"

Me: if I were in Viggen's shoes, I'd sue all the sites that put ads on pages with my stolen content. Sounds like an easy job for any copyright lawyer (IANAL, for the record).

[kartiksh]

Not clear on this weather google adsense is allowing some or all content. So i am confused.

[kartiksh]

Received an official confirmation from adsense support that publisher can use AdSense ads on a site with Wikipedia content. However site should comply with adsense program policies.

"Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content."

In response to Chitika ads, they replied

Chitika ads may only be displayed on the same page as Google ads on your site if the Chitika contextual targeting is disabled.

For publishers participating in AdSense for search, please note that we do not allow other search services or query-targeted ads to be displayed on
the same site as AdSense for search.

This means chitika search option should be disabled.

This clarification may help others here on ww.

[ogletree]

I did some research. I picked a topic that I know something about. I copied like 12 words from the article. G only brought up 31 sites that matched. Obvisouly there are not that many people that have copied the entire site. Or at least very few have done it and got indexed. It can be done but would take a long time to get indexed. You would have to get some real links to the site. Maybe try some log spam.

[Juan_G]

Received an official confirmation from adsense support that publisher can use AdSense ads on a site with Wikipedia content. However site should comply with adsense program policies.

"Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content."

One thing is a complementary quote, and another different is a duplicate page or site.

[kevinpate]

speaking of translation, why not a Klingon version of Wiki. You'll rule the empire! :)

[Ankhenaton]

Is Klingon a supported adsense language?

[RonPK]

We're getting a bit off topic, but there is a Wikipedia in Klingon. Not very active, though.

[tlh.wikipedia.org...]

[webpublisher]

kartiksh - I think you may have received misinformation from Google on your third point.

If you take a look at [webmasterworld.com...]

and see the first post that says:

"chitika search tab available in eMiniMalls is not an additional web search tool, but a tool to search on specific products. This means that eMiniMall's search tab DOES NOT violate adsense TOS and can be used without any problem."

Maybe Google haven't made up their mind

Off topic but wanted to draw this matter to your attention

[roadhazard]

Thank you, Kartiksh, for the confirmation from Adsense team. I already wrote all the original stuff I could about topics I know... Wikipedia comes in handy sometimes now. I always give the required citation. If there are links I want to use and I know zero about the topic, I do go to Wiki...Nothing on my site violates the TOS. I do not scrape other people's content. Wikipedia is free to use if you give the citation.

[kartiksh]

Webpublisher, agree with you that google might have not made up their mind about eminimall search. But the quote I made is exactly the same from the adsense support. So precisely if you read again it says “search services or query-targeted ads” , which means enimimall search could be classified as query-targeted ads.

[kartiksh]

Roadhazard, I wish all should know what you are doing and how you are doing. I fear this thread may mislead newbie to copy all wiki content and we then have all wiki scraper websites. But let’s hope for best.