Talk:The Free Dictionary

Mirroring

I'm not moralizing; it's important to note that TheFreeDictionary.com is not simply a mirror for Wikipedia, nor a perfect reflection. There has been controversy in the past regarding the behavior of Wikipedia mirrors, and some of the filtering they apply may look really weird to somebody who has a limited view. Erasing all information about wikis and hiding the existence of other encyclopedias is the essence of doublethink.

It's quite important that this parallel is noted. Hiding the existence of Wikipedia is fairly tame. In the future, there may eventually be encyclopedias which make sweeping changes to every article, presenting the corruptions as original. The most likely group to distort reality in this way is currently the People's Republic of China. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 02:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just state the facts. There is no need to add an "oh, yeah what they're doing just aint right", it simply weakens the neutrality of the article. Removing all instances of wikipedia is ungood and that is something the reader can probably determine simply by reading a factual description. Throwing around loaded phrases like the doublethink really does the article a disservice. Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO 02:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not making a judgment about it; I'm just pointing out that this behavior is much like some form of censorship. Readers should not be assumed to have read 1984. State the obvious. Such links might seem unnecessary to people who are familiar with George Orwell and disinformation, but they are valuable to those who are not.

There may be other reasons for this filtering, but if there are, they are not readily apparent. It is factual to state that the filtering resembles censorship. It would be biased to state that the filtering is censorship, or that the license is wrong for allowing this, and I have not done so. I have tried to present the material as neutrally as possible.

Regarding my statements about the practices of Wikipedia mirrors, there has been considerable controversy regarding them among Wikipedians, along with a large amount of misunderstanding about the GFDL and what is required of our mirrors. From the discussions I've seen, it is common for mirrors to provide as little information about Wikipedia as possible. One side argues this is evil and wrong; the other makes the counterargument that semi-commercial websites naturally place their own interests first. All sides should be accounted for and given notice. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not censorship (see censorship). Just state the facts. It's really simple. Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO 03:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*shrug*

Targeted omission appears much like censorship, and some people like that particular misnomer. Using that term gives context to doublethink, which might otherwise be poorly recognized, being uncommon. I haven't stated the facts incorrectly; it is a fact that TheFreeDictionary.com is a Wikipedia mirror run by Farlex, and it is a fact that the mirror database is being manipulated in a way that mimics doublethink. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 04:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(I have removed the cover from Eequor's posts here. Browsers may want to judge for themselves to what extent Eequor's stance and recommendations here of directness and transparency actually correlate to this user's History at Wikipedia. Wetman 22:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Yes, of course they're my posts. Who else might they belong to? What do you think yourself to be proving by making my involvement in the discussion more obvious? Assume good faith. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 00:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, the idea that terms such as censorship or doublethink inherently introduce bias essentially argues that language shapes the thoughts of those who use it, a central premise of 1984 and the basis for doublethink. This is a very silly premise on which to base an argument for their removal from the article; it more strongly supports the argument that TheFreeDictionary.com is, in fact, practicing doublethink. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 06:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Objectivity

I don't think the article is objective.

1. Implied "ungoodness" about content modifications. Modifications may or may not create additional value, but at least there is an attempt to do something unlike other mirrors that create no visible value at all and I don't really see what justifies their existence;
2. small attribution font - the font size seems the same as for other copyright, disclaimer, etc stuff and the text is clearly readable;
3. Attribution not visible in Lynx - well, anybody knows how many Lynx users are out there?
4. Google rank - I checked the number of backlinks for several random wikipedia pages and it's well over a few dozen for every page and there are probably hundreds more with lower rank that Google does not show but counts anyway. Do we need one more? Even if we do, is it proper for Wikipedia to get involved in the SEO games?
5. I think the reason thefreedictionary.com was moved to medium compliance is not because there are any violations of the GFDL, but simply because the site has become popular. Shouldn't we instead try to figure out what they have done right and see if the same may be applied to Wikipedia? I can clearly see that they have better search, spell checking and some additional navigation features arguably helping the user.

It was more objective when I started it; at that time it presented (briefly) many sides of the issues. Currently it overemphasizes the relevance of the GFDL and completely neglects to state why the GFDL might be perceived as relevant to the preceding paragraph at all. It isn't necessarily an obvious connection, but it's a common misunderstanding about what the license permits.

Regarding the features of TheFreeDictionary.com: the following paragraph is taken from Copies_of_Wikipedia_content. The first two are very useful, and probably should be incorporated into Wikipedia as options somehow.

When pointing at a link, the first part of the linked article pops up (applies for a limited number of links per article); if you double-click on a word, it looks it up in a dictionary; at the bottom of each article is a list of alphabetically preceding and following encyclopedia and dictionary articles; when following an external link it is automatically opened in a new window.

In my opinion, the navigation adds unnecessary clutter (but maybe there are those who like it). It almost appears that they've forgotten websites are not paper, as the navigation is little more than an adaptation of standard dictionary or encyclopedia layouts, which are laid out that way simply because there's no other sensible way to organize entries on paper. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 06:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TheFreeDictionary.com

There's some peculiar behavior going on at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/. They seem to have replaced all references to Wikipedia with Encyclopedia (which, if one refers to Encyclopedia, insinuates they produce their content); also, they seem to have censored every article with wiki in the name. Interestingly, they missed http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Wiktionary. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 01:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the articles I checked, they are complying with the GFDL, so I don't think theres any problem. We don't use invariant sections, so they're allowed to change the text, and elect to remove any articles they want to. —siroχo 01:44, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. It is, however, extremely weird. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 02:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you can call them a verbatim copy, in which case they're not complying with the GFDL (for example, they don't list the authors at all, and certainly not on the title page). As for changing "Wikipedia" to "Encyclopedia", does anyone know if they were accused of trademark infringement? I know there was talk of this with some of the other forks/mirrors. anthony (see warning) 04:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been looking at this -- if you want a real laugh checkout http://www.namweb.com.na/mwk/ and click on the GFDL link!

TheFreeDictionary.com are not in compliance and you can find more about it [here] Davelane 23:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A similar case was with Smartpedia.com who used to replace "Wikipedia" with "Smartpedia" but they stopped when I asked them to. Hopefully TheFreeDictionary will as well. Angela. 03:55, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I've had a nice email back from TheFreeDictionary.com saying they did not mean to misuse our content in this way and that they will happily fix this when they make their next update of the mirror. Angela. 02:19, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like i've created a bit of a storm with this one -- I moved them to Medium compliance because i was being objective and there was confusion about their compliance -- now we have even more pages discussing this :/ this had _nothing_ to do with their popularity. Angela -- i'm pleased they have agreed to fix this. I don't think we need to discuss this further other then maybe outline the changes we require --Davelane 13:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As of November 30, 2004 they appear to be in full compliance with the GFDL, though the reference is in text half the size of the rest of the article's text. They're also working off an old copy. There is also a direct link to the article. Perhaps the article on The Free Dictionary needs an update? EagleFalconn 21:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some facts are missing on TheFreeDictionary

I just had a quick look at some medical subjects I know are controversial. Some of the research reports linked to by Wikipedia are not there on the Free Dictionary. Those research reports are good and I wonder what is going on.

Are they really mirroring Wikipedia? Why are they in that case changing certain things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopedia (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not mirroring WP live, it seems. Got curious and looked today (6.10.2010) at their article "Medicine". It looks like duplicated from a version of Wikipedia article dating back to 8.6.2008. Rather annoyingly they don't seem to include any time/date stamp in the duplicate. --J. Sketter (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Free Library" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Free Library has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11 § The Free Library until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)