> The sheer usefulness and viability of Urban Dictionary attests to the fact that most people don't actually care about licenses.
Urban Dictionary is indeed extremely useful, but I think making this out to be evidence that people don't care is oversimplifying things. As useful as it is, it's still pretty clear that the licensing (along with a few other lacks, open moderation, etc.) severely holds it back from being as comprehensive & accurate a source as it could be. It achieves usefulness through sheer volume: the vast majority of entries on it are nonsense, there's just so many that there are diamonds to be found in the rough.
I only claimed that most people don't care (which is indeed borne out by UD's success) as direct evidence contradicting the claim I quoted.
I certainly agree that UD could be even better, including through better licensing.
I agree with you. The thought of licensing won't cross the mind of the vast majority of people.
But yeah better licensing would still be nice.
Is it supposed to be an accurate source?
It’s a bit of an in-joke repository.
It's not supposed to be, but I wish it were. An accurate source of slang & contemporary language would be fantastic.