Wikivoyage talk:List of content re-users

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Can anybody explain what's the story behind "The Wikivoyage Mirror" with the ambingously similar address ? It seems to access the original database and makes deep links onto some pages. The ugly difference between the "mirror" and the original is an additional link collection and an advertising banner on each page. --(WT-en) Hansm 15:17, 2004 Jun 5 (EDT)

I don't know what it is, but comparing its content with some of my contributions it is certainly a good month out of date. Obviously we cannot complain about this site's use of wikivoyage content, but I'm personally a bit miffed about the way it is masquarading as a mirror, when clearly it is a very poor mirror, if at all. (WT-en) Chris j wood 19:14, 5 Jun 2004 (EDT)
It looks as if the site's owner tries to make money with confused people that misstype the URL. Follwing the link "My Sites", you are lead to a list of so called "mirrors" that all work the same way: They are a partly outdated copy of free licensed sites, often with some advertising banners added. I think there is at least one point about that we could complain. The "mirror" pretents to be the original and deep links the real wikivoyage when you click on the "edit" item. This is a very dirty way of "mirroring". Of course, in the footer there is a short remark that the pages base on, but that does not seem to be enough. For me, it were all right if it would just mirror the content and make obvious that the "edit", "discussion" etc. faetures are done on the original wikivoyage site. -- (WT-en) Hansm 05:52, 2004 Jun 6 (EDT)
But unlike the other "mirrors" we dealt with before, this one gives proper credit. There's no "thou shalt not make money off the content" clause in the license. Nor is there a clause "you must be up to date". I really don't see any angle from which you could stop this guy. Hell, they even redirect the "Edit" links to, which is the way it should be. Of course I agree what he's doing is immoral - linking to "directories" as "" is as scummy as they come. -- Nils
* It is definitely misleading. On "Wikivoyage is a project ..." and "So far we have 2350 destination" On : "The project was begun in July of 2003 by the two founders, Evan and Maj." Together it is a false claim that, they "" are the project started by Evan and Maj.
* It is not a mirror if they alter it
* They violate the license: "Article text and images licensed under a Creative Commons License.". This must mean that their ads are not under CC.
Anyway, I think we should start calling "wikivoyage" "" instead. E.g. in the logo, and on the main page.
-- (WT-en) elgaard 10:09, 2004 Oct 8 (EDT)

Listings which are not mirrors[edit]

I remoeved the following two listings....

  • Travelgaido. Just put this site up and it is still early days. Having issues with showing pictures and links back to Wikivoyage for editing. Would really have preferred to use a data dump to create the site.
  • Webcam Galore. I have integrated the english and german version. They link back to Wikivoyage for editing and to the original pages. Pages that weren't properly imported are redirected to the original pages at Wikivoyage.

...because I couldn't see any mirror content from wikivoyage on there. I hpresume these used to be mirrors, but now no longer have anything from wikivoyage on there. Another possibility is that they are spam entries sneakily added to this page. But spammers aren't that clever, so it's a unlikely I think. ...or it's possible there is wikivoyage content there, I just didn't see it. -- (WT-en) Harry Wood 04:52, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

Risk of losing all our work?[edit]

Swept in from pub:

I'm really sorry if this is a FAQ but I did look around and found only a few open tech requests on wikivoyage shared...

I see that the wikivoyage site is supported by a company who (as I understand it) make their money publishing printed copies of wikivoyage information. I wholeheartedly applaud the way the site seems to be run in a very open way with the CC-SA licence, even though that means they might lose business. I don't expect them to make it easy for other people to download wikivoyage in its entirely (using their bandwidth), but I do worry that if something happens to them or (no offence, just speculating) they had a change of policy, the site might go down and all this CC-SA content would be lost, without any option for anyone else to take bits or even re-host the whole site. Even though legally all the content is reproducible it's no good if no one can download it. Does anyone know if there are mirrors, covenants about snapshots being available if (say) they go bust or ability for interested people to download a snapshot of the entire site, just as a safeguard?--(WT-en) Zorn 19:24, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Wikivoyage Press doesn't host the site. Internet Brands do, so the risk lies there.
There are some mirrors of sorts - see Project:mirrors, and I imagine some others have private copies of the data, but there is no full database export facility provided. You can download the data in its entirety using their bandwidth, just adhere to the terms of use, and don't overload the site. There are also other sites like Wikivoyage who have previously hinted that they would welcome wikivoyagers, and may be well placed to step in. It is a risk, sure. If the site went off-air tomorrow, and Internet Brands had its assets seized, it is difficult to see where wikivoyagers could regroup, and it would be a real setback for the project. I don't believe the content would be completely lost, however. --(WT-en) inas 20:20, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Triposo, copypasta and site ranking[edit]

Swept in from the pub

In case you haven't noticed (probably this has already been discussed elsewhere), the travel site Triposo uses our content (example). I ran into that example by accident when looking if content in our Neringa article was copypasted from elsewhere (which it by the way was).

Another interesting thing was that the search results I got when googling one sentence from what was in our article was: #1 the WT article, #2 Triposo, #3 a web page stating they're using content from WT, #4 the page from where the text presumably was stolen from. But Wikivoyage did not show up among the search results at all. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Triposo is citing Wikivoyage, and linking to Wikivoyage, which is exactly what we need to increase our ranking in the long term.
They are not "stealing", on the contrary we should be proud that they re-use our content. The goal of Wikimedia is to distribute knowledge, serving web pages is not a goal in itself. If Triposo finds efficient ways to get the content to people, while respecting the license, that's a good thing, I would say :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's a good thing that others are using our content, I just wanted to know if people are aware of Triposo. They are using the cc-by-sa 3.0 license as well, so there's no license conflict. Actually we should have some kind of Hall of Fame for sites using our content. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikivoyage:List of content re-users. Nurg (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New copycat site –[edit]

Swept in from the pub

This is their version of Mungo National Park, which almost exactly duplicates ours. It has some slight modifications, but with no attribution given. Similarly, this is their version of Yosemite National Park, this is their version of Canada and this is their version of Percé. The only changes I can see they've made is that the coordinates have been removed, the map has been moved to the right sidebar with no coordinates on it, and there's a random hotel section just before #Understand and apart from it, they've basically almost copied an entire WMF project. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recommend emailing info@, per m:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are interested in enforcement, then w:en:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process lists the process. You own the copyright to your content. The WMF does not own the copyright, and is not your lawyer (and according to their lawyers, it would be an unethical conflict of interest for them to become any volunteers' lawyers), and therefore the WMF cannot send DMCA takedowns notice on your behalf. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, correct: they represent intellectual property of the non-profit, such as its trademark, which is not being violated here. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware that the WMF does not own the copyright, but in this case, they have copied an entire Wikimedia project. It's not just what I wrote and it's not limited to the English Wikivoyage as well. This is a copy of Lisbon copied off eswikivoyage and there seems to be some other languages as well. I don't really mind the content I added being on a mirror site, to me, I'd just like it to be read but there are some who may not feel the same way. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it funny that they didn't remove the main page nom template from pages like Lisbon Tai123.123 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main page nom template is still on Lisbon. But the site seems to be cache based. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I know, their main page seems from September and they presumably won't feature Lisbon on their main page Tai123.123 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Their Destinations page reads: "Wikivoyage offers 30,962 travel articles, covering destinations around the world. There are numerous ways to browse the site...." Ground Zero (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lol, it gets even more humorous when looking at their main page – without a carousel, but with three stacked banners. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not going to lie, their main page looks rather "interesting"
They even have a little something on Game of Thrones tourism Roovinn (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a few copycat websites floating around the web. I recall coming across a certain "Visual Wikipedia" website back then (that was like almost 10-12 years back) Roovinn (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]