|
Re: Screenshot Captor: A New Definition for Freeware
de Eugene Esterly III 05/19/2006 11:37
Helen wrote:
> Klaatu wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:45:44 GMT, mouser posted to alt.comp.freeware:
> >
> >> in other words my definitions are more inline with the wiki page
> >> posted than your glossary, only to the extent that i would consider
> >> freeware a parent classification, and put something like
> >> donationware as a subcategory. that is, something that is
> >> donationware would also still be considered freeware if it meets the
> >> freeware requirements. that's my view - i don't see them as
> >> exclusive categories and i don't think something stops being
> >> freeware the moment an author mentions being willing to accept
> >> donations.
> >
> > The wiki page defines ...
>
> Wiki can be change very easily. It is not a very reliable source for
> anything but a starting point. Why not use one of the age old dictionaries
> that have an element of respectablity? Wiki recently went through a
> big rigamarow about inaccurate information about a person. Apparently
> there was some concern about damage to the reputation as a result of
> of the inaccurate information that was 'spread around the world' so to
> speak. They are mere mortals and make errors too, but not a site
> (at the present anyway) worth much of anything except as a starting
> place for a subject one is truly and wholly ignorant of.
I agree about Wikipedia. It is a good site but because it is open to
everyone, anyone can change the articles. In fact, Wikipedia had to
lock the article on Jack Thompson (the lawyer who is after violent
videogames) & I'm guessing it's because he complained.