At the bottom of this page there is a section named "Former content users" that is used for websites that at one time hosted Wikipedia content, but no longer do. This should be checked periodically.
Also note Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance, which is still the appropriate place to list sites that do not use CC-BY-SA-only content. Remember that the dual licence which applies to all new editor generated text since 15 June 2009 means that a site only has to comply with one of the licences. So check for compliance with either licence and make a note of which licence the site is most compliant with. The exception is text imported from external sources which could be CC-BY-SA licensed only.
Descriptions of the categories:
Undetermined or disputed:
Low/None:
Medium:
High:
Either more research is needed, or it is disputed.
Fails in a very significant way, usually by lacking mention of Wikipedia, the CC-BY-SA, or both.
Makes an effort to comply, usually including mention of Wikipedia and the CC-BY-SA.
Approximates our licence; should mention Wikipedia[1] should link to original article (or stable equivalent)[2], maintain copyright[3], license[4], and warranty[5] (see Wikipedia:General disclaimer) notices and include or link to license.[6]
Undetermined or disputed
______________________________
In this section, please add new entries to the bottom of the list.
WikiNASIOC - Mirror seemingly unchanged since 2008. Does not mention Creative Commons at all, but since the edits are so old, I guess it doesn't have to mention it.
http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=National_Basketball_Association The Hoopedia wiki on nba.com ("All rights reserved") appears to have a lot of identical content as the respective Wikipedia pages (see NBA, similar situation for WNBA vs. WNBA (Hoopedia) and possibly many other pages). For one particular edit, I have been able to find out that the content in question appeared on Wikipedia first (on Dec 28 2010), while the text was inserted into Hoopedia between Jan 27, 2012 and Apr 27, 2012. While there might be legitimate explanations for the duplication, this might be interesting to investigate further given NBA's tough stance on copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hweimer (talk • contribs) 10:01, 11 March 2013
Could you give an example of their "tough stance on copyright"? Have they been in the news for being particularly litigious or quick to send DMCA notices? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
In NBA v. Motorola, they tried to establish copyright on sports games. Some background on their recent activities regarding Youtube videos: [2]. —Hweimer (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)