On 10/08/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
computer terminology guide - hence why the [[FOLDOC]] maintainer saw it and promptly wondered whether he should continue with FOLDOC at all.
Did he decide to continue? I have to agree, it does seem kind of pointless: Wikipedia is GFDL as well, contains many of the sources FOLDOC draws upon, has inherently better technical facilities (not just in linking to fuller encyclopedic entries on terms but in general), better articles etc.
Someone wrote to him asking for permission to use his stuff in Wikipedia, and he happily released it all under GFDL just for us :-D
FOLDOC has some careless copyright violations in it - definitions cut'n'pasted from guidebooks and so forth - that I've found when adapting FOLDOC material for Wikipedia. (I can't remember what entries.) It allowed public contributions, so some people were careless. Something to watch for.
It would be an interesting thing to do to recompile FOLDOC from Wikipedia ;-)
But I've always wondered something about FOLDOC; does its name come from the foldr and foldl operators in functional languages?
Free On-Line Dictionary Of Computing.
Shock! Quelle horreur! We don't have [[foldl]] or [[foldr]]!
You know what to do!
- d.