Talk:The Free Dictionary

message: I don't think the article is objective.
#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;
#small attribution font - the font size seems the same as for other copyright, disclaimer, etc stuff and the text is clearly readable;
#Attribution not visible in Lynx - well, anybody knows how many Lynx users are out there?
#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?
#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.  --η♀[ υωρ] 06:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some facts are missing on TheFreeDictionary 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:The Free Library]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]