Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia clones

project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

I am sure there are small tweeks and wording changes... but I support the idea of marking this as a guideline. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have made some spelling and grammar corrections I first overlooked. I saw the need for this guideline following various issues that came up recently. One was an AfD that called for the deletion of an article that was created more than 3 years ago on the basis that it was a hoax. It had no references, and the only GHits (there were around 60 in all) were Wikipedia clones, as the nom said, and there were zero hits under Google News, Books or Google Scholar. The creation of the article was the only edit ever made using the account, and the only edits it had since then were made by bots. Those who commented nearly unanonymously supported deletion (I did not comment).

I have also found on snopes.com and other similar sites confirmation that certain urban legends were started on Wikipedia, and though they have been removed from Wikipedia, they still remain on other web sites described as fact, and can still be googled.the plays by willam spake

It is actually quite easy to make a hoax ticed on Wikipedia, and it does not take long for it to spread elsewhere on the web. This issue has been dealt with little under existing policy. That is why I have been drafting essays and guidelines, such as

WP:TRICK, and this one. Sebwite (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Support, as per Blueboar. Jayen466 14:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support It seems obvious, but we might as well state it for the record.--

WP:LOTM

) 16:59, 3 November 2

Would it be worthwhile to introduce a list of known clone sites, just to create a little more awareness among editors? Jayen466 14:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to name a couple, Answers.com and NationMaster. There are many more I have seen. Sebwite (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could think about listing some of the relevant site names and URLs in the guideline. Apart from Nationmaster and answers.com (which at least prominently labels the content as coming from WP), I have seen Wikipedia mirrors on university (.edu) sites. Here is an example. Maintaining a list of such sites might be a bore; on the other hand, it might help with talk page discussions if an editor can point to this guideline and Nationmaster, say, is prominently mentioned. Jayen466 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we already have such a list in Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks. We could just refer to it here. Jayen466 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see the list here, available for easy filtering with the CustomizeGoogle extension in firefox. ←Spidern→ 22:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can be covered by about one line in

Agreed. Not sure we need a standalone guideline to make this point. Fences&Windows 03:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator of this essay, do agree that this can be summarized in a paragraph or two in

WP:RS, while this essay can remain here to describe it in more detail. Sebwite (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I also agree that this does not need to be a guideline. It is a good essay, but the guidance needed for editing is mostly covered in already

WP:RS: "Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of Wikipedia be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose." Some minor additions to reinforce the point would be fine, but a separate guideline is overkill. --RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I also fail to see the point in endless essays, like this or other recent ones, droning on about something that can be – and has been – summed up in one or two sentences. On the other hand I suppose it does no harm. Lampman (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made in the essay, but it probably would be easier to include at RS, perhaps with a link to this essay.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unnecessary to upgrade beyond an essay--it's really obvious. No need to include anywhere--nobody has every supported using such a source when it's been pointed out. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]