....but Lingoz isn't under a free license, is it? On 10/3/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

On 03/10/2007, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm more surprised and pleased that Wiktionary has achieved sufficient prominence that someone thinks competing against it is a business model :-) - d.

David Gerard wrote: "The editorial back-and-forth process that works so well for encyclopedic entries on Wikipedia seems less successful when applied to defining dictionary terms, a process more suited towards voting on multiple versions of a definition." Sadly, this sounds like nonsense from someone that has never considered a dictionary before. He's made the critical error of assuming that a dictionary is something that tells us what to say, and that Wiktionarians are involved in deciding what is Right and what is Wrong (as if NPOV is a concept limited to encyclopedias). In fact, we use citations to verify disputed word meanings, and are only involved in documenting all words in all languages, as they are used, not as only as they are "supposed" to be used. (spam: <http://www.dictionaryevangelist.com/2007/08/request-denied.html>) There are lots of things I would like to see improved about Wiktionary. Lots. But the premise that a wiki is not suitable for a dictionary has no merit. The premise that an unfree, commercial, bloglike one, with no apparent standards, and which I can't even fix being an alternative to Wiktionary is one that I can't even fathom. Meanwhile, an improved Urban Dictionary (of course, another "reference" I can't even fathom using), what this site looks to become, isn't what we need. I'm searching desperately for the "edit" tab to correct the mangled capitalization of "Blog Fog," the term on the "Hot Definition" on the main page, of which 98 people approved (99 now; testing confirms that I can't vote against without logging in, but I can vote for it without an account--further testing shows that even with an account you need 50 "points" for a down vote; I couldn't even do anything about blatant spam except send my comment marking it as a "mistake" off into the ether ). Apparently hotness is judged in terms of popularity, and not accuracy. Oh well, I'm off to go think up the coolest word I make up, and see if I can make it to the main page. :-) Dominic

On 04/10/2007, Przykuta &lt;przykuta(a)o2.pl&gt; wrote: So they can expect the worldbeating success of the Open Directory Project, then. (My usual example of why making your data free content is important.) - d.

2007/10/3, GerardM &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Looking at it, I get the impression that those are not 'associated' words, but words that are similar in spelling. -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

Hoi, It is a red herring. When you add facts to a resource you cannot claim copyright to it in the first place. What is of interest is that you grant perpetual rights to the data. Another question, so you did enter data there .. now how do you get it out again ? Thanks, GerardM On 10/4/07, Brianna Laugher &lt;brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: