I think nowadays most of the people prefer the online references, which are easy, and can get different viewpoints.

Traditional books just cannot do that. Ofcourse, there is use for traditional books as well.

As for RMS, I think he has done his part and others are carrying it forward, be it FSF, OSI, EFF etc. Not that you can get all of them to agree, but the basic premise is there. There is a lot to be said about reforming intellectual property laws.

meekaaku,

Don't you wonder about the credibility of articles on websites with little backing (including my own blog)? And have you inquired as to why some content is free and others aren't? Especially when it comes to well-established businesses?

Take www.merriam-webster.com for instance, which has an unabridged edition for which one has to pay. If you buy a desktop edition of their unabridged dictionary you will usually get a free subscription. It's the same with the Oxford online dictionary as well.

Consider Google, the organization with one of the biggest portfolios of useful free online services. Even they don't provide unabridged free sources when it comes to well-researched, credible information. For instance, most books on their books.google.com website are available for a limited preview only (some pages are hidden). The authors would obviously not have it any other way, as they would have spent precious time and money on backing their written word with research and/or experience.

As for wikipedia, very few (none that I know of) universities accept it as a credible reference source. One of the reasons for this is the lack of credibility and the inability to guarantee the author's credentials.

Yes journals won't necessarily accept accept wikipedia as reference.

But for day to day use, online sources are good enough. Being available online is just a medium. Credibility depends on from where it is coming. Especially for controversial topics, no single source is sufficient (whether free or paid), and internet enables arguments and counter-arguments to be checked easily.

Ofcourse some content will be free, while others not. This may be due to many reasons such as copyright etc.

you paid money to have an additional meaning to a word which actually translates into "beheading" for your own amusement. and no one else in this world knows. or atleast the majority gets by very well with decapitation assigned to heads alone (and not to hands or other body parts)

and you money does not make this book any more reliable at all. lets all come up with new meanings to all the big words out there - and we'll be the only people who know the new meanings. hehehe!

this is utterly hilarious. u are one sorry sob. LOL!

regards

rafeeq

Still won't go and take a look at a real dictionary, my friend? Who's really being stubborn here?