3 ms·
Just wanted to note that I also disliked that term. And believe me, I couldn't agree with the article more, I was nodding my head vigorously throughout my read
by edanm 13y ago
Just wanted to note that I also disliked that term.
And believe me, I couldn't agree with the article more, I was nodding my head vigorously throughout my reading, I bookmarked the article to Evernote as a reference for anyone I talk to about this in the future (and I talk about this with a lot of people, making exactly your arguments).
So I couldn't be more "pro", but I also immediately thought "freeloader is not a nice term". It could just be my "the internets will hate this" spidey-sense, but in this case I think the internets are right - it really is an offensive term in more places.
- liamgooding 13y agoDoes a unicorn lose it's rainbow if I just go ahead and edit the original article? Never too sure once something has been discussed whether it's cool to revise the original source...
- dspillett 13y agoMake sure you clearly label the edited version as such (perhaps add a "revisions" section at the bottom listing each version and the changes between them like: 2014-04-14 @12:34: Original publication 2014-04-14 @17:00: Spelling and grammar fixes 2014-04-15 @13:00: Updated wording to avoid terms potentially seen as insulting ... ... ... Better yet, include the earlier versions and link to them in that change log. This way you are improving the article yet there is no way (unless you deliberately skip bits in the changelog) people can legitimately accuse you of trying to brush things under the carpet (because everything you edited out to improve things is still there for all to see (and find easily) should they care). Also make sure you add a message indicating "this is an older version of the article, see link for the latest revision" to the old versions so people coming in to the wrong place from a search result know where best to go.
- liamgooding 13y agoThankyou!