Huh? -- Ozzel 05:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, it is a direct mirror which is abusing our content by adding links to the bottom which is essentially attempting to trick search engines. We're blocking it now. If you have submitted any sort of personal information through this site please change your password on your Wikia account immediately. We're currently currently checking out logs to see if any accounts have actually logged in through them. More details soon." - JSharp
So, ya, if anyone did submit their personal info, change your password as Jay has suggested. Greyman(Talk) 04:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ooh... so basically, we should all change our passwords? Trak Nar Ramble on 04:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Like JSharp said, I believe it's only if you attempted to create an account through the mirror site, or otherwise attempted to submit personal information directly through the mirror. Greyman(Talk) 04:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah. Then, seeing as how all I did was look at the mirror and then close the window, then methinks I'm safe. XD Trak Nar Ramble on 04:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Hmm, JSharp seems a little robotic, what with using two "currently"s in a row. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
            • heh, just to prove otherwise :P → User:JSharp, on Central Wikia. He's part of the Com-team, along with sannse, Catherine, Angela, etc etc. ;) Greyman(Talk) 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
            • The repeated "currently" is prolly just a simple typo. I've unintentionally repeated words. It happens when you're mid-sentance and decide to reword what you wanna say, only to retype the last word you typed. It's not necessarily a bot trait. It's just a typo. Trak Nar Ramble on 18:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we knock it off with the pointless comments? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure thing Ackbar, guess some one can close this Forum since it's been moved to Wikia and their going to deal with the mirror... RC-1136 Copy 15:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Edit

One of the problems with the GFDL as a free license is that it allows commercial use of your work by others, including in modified or mangled form. Try looking up the concept of a scraper site to make the concept a little clearer. There are plenty of sites which will take your open-content, drop the images or possibly scramble the text to the point of unusability, then add their own ads, and more ads, and did I mention ads? This allows them to trick search engines into returning these spam-laden pages in response to any search terms that should otherwise have led to your original article - worse than useless to the end user, doing none of the authors any great favour either.

That's why many of the Uncyclopedias use a non-commercial license (Creative Commons BY-NC-SA); it appears that Illogicopedia will also need to use non-commercial as its default for new articles as they're now on their own domain ( and Wikia is using their old content and the former domain from when they were here to fork the project. So basically, put *anything* out there under some sort of free commercial-use copyleft, and find after you've moved elsewhere that your content is being used by a fork claiming to be the main project. Wade through a pile of edits from staff removing any text indicating that the original community has moved because they didn't like their content turned into a garish mess of advertising-heavy reskins and that what you're looking at is a fork.

In Illogicopedia's case, Wikia is currently taking sysop flags away from anyone who complains, for instance:

17:36 (User rights log) . . KyleH (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Testostereich from Werewolves to (none) (-sysop)

There are plenty of scraper sites much worse than Wikia, most are unusable archives created just to fool search engines. Often there are no 'edit' capabilities and the servers may be in any number of strange foreign nations. It's difficult enough to enforce author control of text even when it is under a proper non-commercial license, but GFDL is an open invitation for anyone to use your content for any purpose. Post anything GFDL if you must, but don't be surprised when it ends up on some very questionable sites. Your choice. --Carlb 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More commentsEdit

I'd like to give an opposing view of licenses that allow commercial use. I regularly hear that photos I took for Wikipedia are being used in various publications - some of which are then sold. I get a massive kick out of this... my work! in a real book! (The most recent is one of my flower photos, which is going to be used in an embroidery book by one of my favourite artists. She's actually going to send me a signed copy of the book when it's published... can't wait!)

I've had several requests for information on republishing Uncyclopedia articles: from newspapers, from magazines, for books... even for an entire book to be made of Uncyclopedia content. I would love to have my articles published in this way... after all, I wrote them to be read. And a real book of Uncyclopedia articles could only benefit the site as a whole. But, because Uncyclopedia uses a non-commercial license, each editor has to be contacted and agree to give specific permission. Despite my offers to do all I can to help with this, nothing has come of it so far.

Mirrors were a problem for a while with Wikipedia. Google got saturated with copies put up to give content around adverts. But Google changed the way they displayed results, and this isn't the issue it used to be, although it still happens of course (that search is of text from TechCrunch, which is under a NC license).

And there are still sites like the one above - which was more than just a mirror, it framed Wookieepedia to show live changes. But again I don't agree that this is an aspect of having a license that allows commercial use. It's just an aspect of Internet life and there being unscrupulous spammers out there. Any time we find someone stealing bandwidth in this way, we block them - and we have had to do that for wikis on non-commercial licenses as well as on the GDFL.

I believe in the free content movement. And I believe that movement is best served by allowing as much freedom in how content is reused as possible. I want credit for my work, but I also want it to be seen. I believe the more permissive licenses do this more effectively.

For those interested in the wider debate over license types, there is a good page on this at

I've not touched on the dispute with Illogicopedia here, I don't think an archived topic on an unrelated wiki is the right place to discuss that.

-- sannse@fandom (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Illogicopedia isn't the only wiki dealing with problems created by overly-weak copyleft; there's a Transformers wiki (now on after having left Wikia) which is basically dealing with the same issues as Illogicopedia, and there will be more as the communities which Wikia alienated by forcing advertising into the content area as part of last June's forced reskin complete their individual relocation to new hosts. Conversely, GFDL and CC-NC-BY-SA could be used to create an archive (such as of all the discussions of these issues across various wikis - it cuts both ways.
Nonetheless, the implications of free-for-commerical-use licenses reach further. At the beginning of this year, there was the issue of a free user-created image from wikipedia:boy scouts reposted to appear in a similarly-titled article on the Spanking Art Wiki. All allowed under GFDL, but changing the context changes the meaning of the image in a very subtle manner, one which could be rather awkward for a scout troop leader trying to explain the reuse of the image in that one particular context. And then there's the question of the free commercial re-use of autobiographical content - many Wikipedians have plastered their userpages with notices saying in effect "I have no affiliation with (whatever random mirror where you're reading this)". GFDL leaves reuse of these pages wide-open too. And how is a search engine supposed to know that is the main project and the abandoned fork? All it sees are links and pages; it's a robot, after all. --carlb 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even more commentsEdit

Just so you know, Carlb came here for the sole purpose of adding another wiki to his list of so-called "anti-Wikia" wikis. This list can be found at the Complaint Wiki. As seen in his contribution, he only came here to stir up trouble with Wikia. If Wookieepedia even decides to leave Wikia, I hope that decision will be left to the community (those who made constructive edits) rather than outsiders like Carlb who have secret agendas and don't understand Wookieepedia. --Michaeldsuarez Infinite Empire (Activate Holocron) 17:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.