Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia's Content Ripped Off More Egregiously Than Usual

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the hope-it-saves-wikipedia-some-hosting-fees dept.

The Media 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.

cancel ×

284 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first (0, Offtopic)

Dragoonkain (704719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23864987)

post (maybe?)

Aaaand it's over (5, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865667)

The site now redirects to the wiki article on "Leech (computing)" explaining why you can no longer see any other articles. That was quick.

I guess we can (1)

Inglix the Mad (576601) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865005)

chalk another one up to greed. This doesn't surprise me in the least.

Re:I guess we can (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865141)

This doesn't surprise me in the least.
Not even in the least? Then why didn't you stop it, you monster?!

Re:I guess we can (4, Funny)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865915)

Another fine product from... MAJESTIC STUDIOS!

This is perfect! (4, Funny)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865009)

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!

Re:This is perfect! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865083)

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!
Have you considered using the references that are linked by Wikipedia instead?

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 (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865347)

Have you considered using the references that are linked by Wikipedia instead?
Yes, but an interlibrary loan would take longer than the instructor has given for the project.

It is about as useful as citing a dictionary.
Some fields of study depend on the precise meanings of words and have adopted a set of standard dictionaries. For example, law in the United States uses Black's Law Dictionary [wikipedia.org] , falling back to Merriam-Webster for any other words.

Re:This is perfect! (1, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865167)

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 content can change. This is part of what makes it powerful, but it also makes it useless when cited on paper. You go to the URL and see something totally different from what the author was trying to cite.

Re:This is perfect! (4, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865261)

1. Cite to a specific version of an article.

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! (4, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865873)

1) Fail. Because the if the specific version of the article is false or misleading, you will have used invalid data.

2) Which is exactly how you should use wikipedia.

Re:This is perfect! (2, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865937)

1) Fail. Because the if the specific version of the article is false or misleading, you will have used invalid data.
Aren't you facing the exact same risk whenever you cite any other source, too?

Re:This is perfect! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23866043)

1) Fail. Because the if the specific version of the article is false or misleading, you will have used invalid data.

Aren't you facing the exact same risk whenever you cite any other source, too?
The key words are "exact same" risk. No, the risk is not exactly the same. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and is peer reviewed by none. Compare this to an article in a scientific journal or a textbook. The level of attention to accuracy is not even close. Wikipedia is good for an encyclopedia, but it is leagues away from anyone being able to consider it to be a reliable source.

Re:This is perfect! (5, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865627)

The science articles in wikipedia are better the any other source. Several tests of this have been made.

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.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

rockout (1039072) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865727)

That may be the most original (and somehow, the most insightful) defense of wikipedia I've read yet. I love it.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865891)

Um, no. The reason being that a hard bound book can not be changed for 10 minutes. Wikipedia can.

Re:This is perfect! (5, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865853)

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 content can change. This is part of what makes it powerful, but it also makes it useless when cited on paper. You go to the URL and see something totally different from what the author was trying to cite.


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.

News for nerds, stuff that matters (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865015)

Does anyone remember what Slashdot was like back when, well, back when some no-name doing something stupid on the internet wasn't a front-page headline?

Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865051)

Yeah! Weren't those the days? There were an awful lot of "CmdrTaco wins Nobel Prizes in Medicine, Peace, and Chemistry" posts, though.

Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865077)

No, not really...
Just be glad it hasn't had the same awful fate as digg and reddit....

Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865461)

No.

Sponsored Links (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865021)

You'd think you would re brand the mirror if your trying to pull in ad revenue from the retarded masses ;)

Dupe (5, Funny)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865025)

C'mon people - this story is a dupe. I just saw the exact same discussion on e-slashdot.org [e-slashdot.org] !

Re:Dupe (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865377)

Don't physicists just call these macro examples of parallel universes? There must be some cross over platforms, such as through black holes, or dupe websites. But only pirate space craft can reach the FTL (faster than lawsuit) speed necessary to access the content.

Re:Dupe (1)

squidfood (149212) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865493)

Don't physicists just call these macro examples of parallel universes?

Yes. On e-slashdot, CowboyNeal has a goatee.

Re:Dupe (4, Funny)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865887)

CowboyNeal has a goatee
You spelled that wrong, and forgot the .cx

Re:Dupe (1)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865671)

If I wasn't at e-work and had some time, I'd put up that site with this story.

What!? (5, Funny)

Aussenseiter (1241842) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865047)

You mean... someone is taking information freely available on the internet and claiming it as their own for profit reasons? My word, what a shocking turn of events!

Google advertising revenue, most probably. (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865155)

1. That site will sooner or later be indexed by Google, misleading unwary googlers to the fake site.
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. (3, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865419)

Except that #2 (and therefore #3) is rather unlikely.

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:What!? (5, Insightful)

Titoxd (1116095) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865187)

It's funny, but you have to consider that the site is a live mirror [wikipedia.org] of Wikipedia. So, they are using Wikipedia's content, through Wikipedia's servers, and then serving ads and spam on top of them. These get nuked by the Wikimedia server administrators quickly.

in related news (1, Troll)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865353)

Next up, the /. community discovers that notions like copyright, meaning the right of a work's creator to control how it's copied and distributed, is not such a bad idea after all.

in related news, Quadraginta is an ass (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865583)

Screw you, you smug cuntflap. Point me to where any member of "the /. community" has ever said copyright is bad, or that authors shouldn't have control of their work.

Re:in related news, Quadraginta is an ass (0, Troll)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23866035)

I'm sorry, have you just started coming to this site, or are you willfully ignorant?

Don't log in.. (1)

aephoenix (1122129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865059)

It could be a phishing attempt to.. sucks for the OP. :s

Re:Don't log in.. (5, Funny)

skelly33 (891182) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865169)

Aww now you tell me. There goes all my personal banking information that I normally keep safe and sound on the REAL wikipedia site. :(

It's no sin (3, Informative)

Eco-Mono (978899) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865063)

The sauce is under GFDL. E-Wikipedia is also under GFDL. I don't see the problem.

Re:It's no sin (5, Informative)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865207)

I do not think that the GFDL covers trade marks and trade-dress. A default install of MediaWiki (the open-source engine behind Wikipedia) shows a generic logo with a text description of how to change it to your own.

E-wikipedia.net uses the Wikipedia logo, which would require the explicit permission of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Re:It's no sin (1)

Eco-Mono (978899) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865335)

Whoops, forgot about that [e-wikipedia.net] . Yeah, they're gonna have some problems.

Re:It's no sin (1)

Skylinux (942824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865813)

Still needs some work, when I click on your logo link I get a leecher warning. Problem is the warning still has the original Wikipedia.org link in it .... stupid thieves.

Leech (computing)
Access denied: remote loader detected.

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.

Re:It's no sin (1)

mutube (981006) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865991)

Still needs some work, when I click on your logo link I get a leecher warning. Problem is the warning still has the original Wikipedia.org link in it .... stupid thieves.
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 know this, it just sounded like you didn't. Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick)

Re:It's no sin (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865241)

I doubt its the content, but the passing themselves off as if they are wikipedia.
Thats phishing in my book and very wrong.

Re:It's no sin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865275)

No kidding... this is exactly what "free as in speach" (libre [wikipedia.org] ) means...

I tend to agree. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865655)

So long as it doesn't do horrible things to peoples' computers, I don't see an issue here.

In fact, I think theyre doing the wikimedia foundation a huge favor by providing bandwidth to a comprehensive mirror. (wikimedia doesn't make very much despite the traffic because they have an ideological dislike for ads, no matter how uninvasive).

Let the site live, keep an eye on it, and if it turns out to be spreading malware/used for nefarious purposes, then swat it fast and hard with the trademark bat.

Let me guess... (5, Funny)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865065)

Brought to you by the creators of Limbo of the Lost.

S[cp]ammer alert? (4, Interesting)

Antony T Curtis (89990) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865069)

I noticed when I scrolled down to the bottom of the "e-wikipedia"'s clone of the About page, there was some junk words at the bottom which were not on the original.

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? (1)

StarReaver (1070668) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865143)

Wait for the ad revenues to roll in.

Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (5, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865189)

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.
Yeah, but like the real Wikipedia, can this one survive the Slashdot effect? Let's find out!

Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (3, Insightful)

ELProphet (909179) | more than 6 years ago | (#23866011)

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.
Yeah, but like the real Wikipedia, can this one survive the Slashdot effect? Let's find out!
Nope. Wikipedia already cut their access. This is an awesome new form of slashdotting...

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:S[cp]ammer alert? (1)

skelly33 (891182) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865237)

If they were smart, #2 would be some sort of HTTP proxy that eliminates the need for replicating the content and functions; they could just be a man-in-the-middle and insert ads rather inconspicuously and even rewrite URLS for media assets to go to the original site to control bandwidth costs. I've done similar things as part of a CDN migration process for a set of sites pushing over 700Mb/s and it seems to work well enough.

Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23866001)

This would be really easy to track down, since all the users getting those assets would have the referrer from the malicious site.

Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (1)

PastaAnta (513349) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865299)

I wonder what their #2 is...
2. Get your worthless site mentioned in an article on slashdot containing numerous links ...

Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865811)

More like 2. Don't get sued. 3. PROFIT!

Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865387)

#2. Get posted to Slashdot and Digg...

Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865411)

You took the words out of my mouth!

Good thing I use Adblock :-)

Re:S[cp]ammer alert? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865433)

Access denied: remote loader detected.

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.

p0wnd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865093)

"Just try logging in or actually editing an article, though, and you'll get the message"... thx 4 ur l/p. we pwn ur a$$. ktxhbye

but why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865101)

i don't see a reason for this at all, maybe to make a little bit of cash but all the hardcore wiki people are not gonna click on any of the add's

Curl Script (1)

Shimdaddy (898354) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865107)

I got this: Warning: "curl_error(): 1 is not a valid cURL handle resource in /home/rocky/domains/e-wikipedia.net/public_html/1.php on line 193" when trying to get a random page. Obviously Rocky has a pretty smart business model for keeping his content up to date...

Wiki* ...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. (1)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865115)

So each blatantly duped entry has the following text right below it (or something similar): "...Brought to you by Carl's Jr."?

Sorry but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865161)

1. It's the GFDL, not the Gnu Documentation Free License,

2. This is not a violation of the GFDL, it's a trademark issue. You cannot just claim to be Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About ).

Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865199)

Plagiarising both a source and destination of plagiarism. Oh, bitter irony, how I hate thee!

Started a new article... (2, Informative)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865219)

Interesting.

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.

whoisGuard (0, Offtopic)

jrathe89 (1310829) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865233)

This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below. You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later. To confirm you're not a script,

The most (1)

Kingston (1256054) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865245)

comprehensive and informative link farm on the net.

Cry me a river... (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865273)

I'm getting tired of people bitching about this or that license. Oh noes! Someone is making a buck from shared & public information. What else is new. People will always abuse any principle.

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 off, I wouldn't contribute in the first place.

--
"Wikipedia is proof that that you can take the people out of politics, but you you can't take the politics out of people"

There are hundreds/thousands of such sites (2, Informative)

quarrel (194077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865281)

There are many many many of these sites.

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 (4, Informative)

DRJlaw (946416) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865305)

This does nothing to resolve the trademark problem that the 'mirror' creates, but it is instructive to look at the actual text of the license [wikipedia.org] .

"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:It appears to be permitted (1)

gnarlyhotep (872433) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865699)

Excepting that wikipedia has gotten a rep as playing fast and loose with copyright laws in the first place. Isn't there a provision in the gdfl that requires adequate attribution to the author? When something is deleted/oversighted/otherwise removed completely, and then reinserted later by another author, does that not violate the copyright of the original contributor?

Point being: if wikipedia did include such copyright notices, they'd have to be a lot more careful with their bookwork regarding contributions, especially those of editors banned from the site who lack the ability to look after the contributions themselves. As far as I can tell, they've avoided any such notification for the sole purpose of avoiding any and all legal entanglements.

WHOIS information (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865309)

Archived WHOIS on e-wikipedia.net domain from 2008/04/27 (it's now using a privacy protect WHOIS service):

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 (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865329)

Diary of a blonde super criminal [insert pathetic MUAWAHAHAH here]

1. Make counterfeit dimes.
2. Buy SCO shares then sue everyone...eer again
3. Copy Wikipedia

Anonymous coward (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865337)

I had a high school student turn in a long report that obviously wasn't her work. I googled it and she had cut and pasted about 10 pages of material right from Wikipedia into her report. I brought her in, told her that some of the writing didn't look like she wrote it:

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 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865573)

I can top that, I once had a teacher accuse me of copying from Wikipedia. Only I was able to point to the page history and log into my account to prove that I had in fact written the article

Sue for trademark infringement. (1)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865343)

Just because you can use the content doesn't mean you can use the name. Go after them for trademark infringement and take all their earth moneys.

Circular Reference (2, Funny)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865393)

If someone references e-wikipedia.net in an article on Wikipedia will the internet collapse in on itself?

Re:Circular Reference (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865871)

I just tried, and everything seems +++ NO CARRIER.

WhoisGuard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865403)

whom ever they are there using WhoisGuard and do not want people knowing who they are......what are they hiding, i think there could be something malicious behind this...

Well, they do have attribution (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865423)

It's not like there's any question at all that this material comes from Wikipedia, or that they're trying to hide it this fact.

Seriously though, while what they're doing is pretty worthless and generally poor manners, I'm not going to get too riled up about it. Hopefully it will just cease to exist when the owners realise that nobody wants to visit.

Registrant (0, Redundant)

anthonys_junk (1110393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865445)

Interesting, seems like someone wants to remain anonymous. <br /><br />

Registrant:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 - 732

Westchester CA, 90045 US

Administrative:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 - 732

Westchester CA, 90045 US
Phone: +1.6613102107
Fax: +1.6613102107

Technical:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 - 732

Westchester CA, 90045 US
Phone: +1.6613102107
Fax: +1.6613102107

nameserver:
NS2.TROOL.PL
NS1.TROOL.PL

updated-date: 2008-05-30 15:41:50.000

created-date: 2008-02-28 20:23:45.000

registration-expiration-date: 2009-02-28 20:23:45.000

status:
registrar-lock

domain: e-wikipedia.net

Re:Registrant (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865923)

BayTSP does the same crap. yet they try to track down the anonymous. ironic isn't it?

WhoisGuard (1)

jrathe89 (1310829) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865451)

whom ever they are there useing WhoisGuard and do not want people knowing who they are......what are they hiding. I think there is something malicious behind this...

Clear Trademark Violation. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865519)

This sounds like a clear case for trademark violation.

This is very different than copying/mirroring content, it is intentionally trying to confuse/deceive people as to which is the real site.

I sincerely hope wikimedia files suit.

Nuked (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865533)

A simple notice to a dev/admin [irc] would of taken care of this a long time ago.

Re:Nuked (3, Funny)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865595)

Well that shoulda been: irc://irc.freenode.org/wikimedia-tech

<Splarka> I clicked http://e-wikipedia.net/w/en/Special:Random and it's trying to load [[Leech_(computing)]] but not having much success
<Splarka> > Access denied: remote loader detected.
<Splarka> <3
<brion> sorry folks, i ruined your fun
<OverlordQ> awww

Remote Loading/Leeching (4, Informative)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865547)

If you try and access it now, it displays this:

Leech (computing)

Access denied: remote loader detected. 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.
So, obviously this site was fetching Wikipedia content in real-time, and sticking in ads and whatnot (rather than using their own local copy of the Wikipedia database). This is obviously a silly drain on Wikipedia's servers.

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 (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865797)

Because it took how long until this was noticed? They almost certainly made their domain-registration fee back and then some.

Short-living business strategies work, if you chain them together.

This isn't even a copy (2, Interesting)

RTofPA (984422) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865571)

When I did a search on it, it returned a "leech" message. Obviously,they didn't even bother to copy it, as far as I can tell, they are just returning wikipedia pages. In fact, the page it returned specifically warned me only to use pages from *.wikipedia.org and that this site was leeching off them. If your going to try something like this, you should at least not be a total idiot, to the point where your copy actually points out that it is fake.

Evil Genius! (5, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865577)

Step 1) Duplicate highly successful web site, rip off all content, images, layouts, etc...
Step 2) Secure Advertising
Step 3) Submit story on /. and Digg about rampant abuse of IP
Step 4) Profit!

-Rick

Wikipedia has taken action already. (0, Redundant)

PhilTheRed (1194563) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865597)

This is what I get now from http://e-wikipedia.net/ [e-wikipedia.net]

Leech (computing) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Access denied: remote loader detected.

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.

"Leech" (1)

djlosch (556330) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865663)

it seems that the site is being slashdotted (and probably on the other aggregators too). it's running ridiculously slow.

it also seems that the site rips data in real time from wikipedia, and wikimedia started forwarding all requests to the leech page.

screen: http://img.djlosch.com/ewiki.jpg [djlosch.com]

Access denied: remote loader detected (0, Redundant)

dgreenwood (190540) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865695)

I got the following when I accessed e-wikipedia...

"Leech (computing)
Access denied: remote loader detected.

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."

Cheers

Darrell

you beat me to it. It appears wikipedia fixed it. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865745)

I got the following when I accessed e-wikipedia...

"Leech (computing)
Access denied: remote loader detected.

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."

Cheers

Darrell
yeah, it appears wikipedia figured out what was going on and fixed it.

nothing to see here, move along!

Re:Access denied: remote loader detected (1)

nlmille1 (940351) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865935)

Oh man, e-wikipedia was my favorite site to browse while prorastinating work. Now I guess I'll just spend all my slacking time on my OTHER favorite site, slushdot.org

A little clue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865725)

Since the site is so amazingly broken, we can tell that the offender's username on the server this is hosted on is "rocky," not that I can see that helping much. But when I was going to test the editing being broken on a random page, I found that PHP throws an error and dumps the path, and it shows it in his home folder.

Czech Wikipedia reaches 100,000 articles (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865791)

In more Wikipedia news, the Czech version [wikipedia.org] of Wikipedia now has over 100 articles.

Wikipedia is run by deletionist bastards (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865931)

hacked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865943)

the leech message makes me think the site has been hacked

Fris7 4sot!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23865961)

to survive at aal Raymond in his

Site down? (0, Redundant)

ELProphet (909179) | more than 6 years ago | (#23865971)

Looks like the site's down- no matter where you go, you get

Leech (computing)
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.

Oh, wait... HA! Wikipedia turned off their mirror! This is officially the newest, coolest form of Slashdotting ever!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?