Wikipedia for content?

[markfromslo]

In looking for content sources for a new web site I want to put together (but not write), I took a look at Wikipedia. They seem to have something on everything. I checked with the copyright FAQs on the site and it appears that as long as attribution is given, anyone can feely use their content. In fact, they even give instructions on what to do if you change the content.

Is there any problem with this that perhaps I'm not seeing?

 

[B33R]

Is there any problem with this that perhaps I'm not seeing?

No





(Simple as that)

 

[AmD950]

In looking for content sources for a new web site I want to put together (but not write), I took a look at Wikipedia. They seem to have something on everything. I checked with the copyright FAQs on the site and it appears that as long as attribution is given, anyone can feely use their content. In fact, they even give instructions on what to do if you change the content.

Is there any problem with this that perhaps I'm not seeing?

Acutally I have seen people selling the wikipedia contents as offline media;
burn them on DVDs and sell it; or crop it for pocketpcs.

So far no people were caught or being stopped by wikipedia;
So I don't think there is any problem for ripping information from wikipedia.

 

[FanCube]

As long as you follow the few rules they have such as linking back to Wikipedia are you free to use the content on your own site. Not sure if it can cause any problems with SEO since you are providing duplicated content.

 

[barefoottech]

One Caveat with the use of Wikipedia. It is not 100% accurate information.
As it depends on user supplied and often not verified Content.

 

[Sinfully Wicked]

Aslong as you give a link back to them theres not problem.

Thank you

Sin

 

[kingster]

Copy from one is plagarism, Copy from many is research!

 

[markfromslo]

Well, I just learned something very interesting, while diagnosing a Google listing problem with another web site of mine. It's an important discussion and you should read the Google Sitemap discussion here .

What I've discovered is the concept of "duplicate content" and how search engines penalize you for it. First all, read the article Duplicate Content Filter: What it is and how it works.

Apparently, doing something like copying the text from Wikipedia could get your pages filtered and the result would be that the page will not even be in the search listing. I guess I'm going to find out soon since I've just created a new site called GoldProfits.com in which I had copied and pasted portions of Wikipedia articles word-for-word. That was before I had read this article.

Any comments on this?

 

[dongan]

Copy from one is plagarism, Copy from many is research!

HaHa. very true.

 

[sooty]

The jury is out on dupe content penalty and whether it exists.

Some say it does, others point to the hundreds of copies of syndicated news articles every day as evidence that it does not.

 

[linker]

There are actually lots of news sites out there that allow free distribution of their content as long as credit is given, RSS works even better because all of the work is done for you...

 

[markfromslo]

I wonder if the duplicated content that we see now is just relatively new and not yet filtered...

 

[floatingworld]

using other material from the internet such as wikipedia can be Ok as long as the originator is credited. Using material as your own when it is not is just plain wrong.
If you use the wikipedia link back and credit that will be Ok, if you just rip then that is dishonest.

 

[markfromslo]

I agree. You can see on GoldProfits.com how I've done this.

using other material from the internet such as wikipedia can be Ok as long as the originator is credited. Using material as your own when it is not is just plain wrong.
If you use the wikipedia link back and credit that will be Ok, if you just rip then that is dishonest.

 

[ApeXX]

In looking for content sources for a new web site I want to put together (but not write), I took a look at Wikipedia. They seem to have something on everything. I checked with the copyright FAQs on the site and it appears that as long as attribution is given, anyone can feely use their content. In fact, they even give instructions on what to do if you change the content.

Is there any problem with this that perhaps I'm not seeing?

No. Wikipedia follows similar copyright rules to open source software. As long as the attribution is given, you are free to use the content.

 

[richardevanslee]

What I've discovered is the concept of "duplicate content" and how search engines penalize you for it.

I think the days when webmasters can jus regurgitate DMOZ, Wikipedia are probably over.

If you are just duplicating commonly available content Google will at best leave searches related to your topic into supplemental results. Or ban your domain.

If you want to use common content you have – at the very least – give it some sort of unique twist. And that probably isn’t enough. You have to write or pay for pages that aren’t just cloned from other sites.

Richard

 

[linker]

I am not sure about the Google penalty, look at Google News, that is just news stories from other sites...