Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Stallman - autism?

Hi, I've just moved the following edit (link) here:

"In late 2012, Stallman was officially diagnosed with severe autism, causing him to have an autism attack on-stage at FGSL 2012. (ref)"

There are a many problems with this: where is the source that he was officially diagnosed with autism? The youtube reference to Stallman being frustrated when after 15 minutes (!!) of addressing an audience in Brazil in English, a guy goes up and tells him that many may not understand him, when in fact he asked in the beginning of the talk if speaking in English is OK... - is not a good reference at all. (Note by the way, that Brazilians speak Portuguese, and not Spanish - which Stallman can speak). If we intend to mention autism at all, this might be better: Free as in Freedom (2.0) - search for "autism". Hnfiurgds (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Users' "rights"

In the lead, the article currently says (wikilinks omitted, bolded for emphasis):

He campaigns for the freedom to use, study, distribute and modify software; software that ensures these freedoms legally (via its license) is termed free software. Stallman opposes proprietary software which takes away a user's rights to exercise these freedoms through restrictive software license agreements, non-disclosure agreements, activation keys, dongles, copy restriction, proprietary formats and binary executables without source code and thus forces its users into a role of dependence on a company that seeks to control and monopolize the users and the market via these restrictions.

The second sentence implies that these freedoms are inherent rights of users. This seems biased to me. Furthermore, the sentence seems like a run-on, and becomes rather negative, seemingly assuming that all companies making proprietary software necessarily do it for nefarious purposes. I propose replacing that long sentence with this:

Stallman opposes proprietary software based on his belief that it necessarily denies these freedoms.

Can I get a second opinion? --NYKevin 01:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the proposed rewording. The current version goes far beyond explaining Stallman's view, pushing it as though it were an uncontroversial truth rather than his opinion. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

“necessarily” implies through “unnecessarily” that it needs to do so. What about “, by definition, denies at least some of these freedoms”? --AVRS (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

“Stallman opposes proprietary software, that is, software which denies those freedoms through software license agreements, non-disclosure agreements, DRM, copy restriction, proprietary formats or binary executables without source code and thus forces its users into a role of dependence on its supplier.”

--AVRS (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done since I don't think we need further consensus. If someone disagrees, feel free to revert or use one of the other proposals. --NYKevin 23:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve Jobs eulogy

Given that the article is already quite long, is the complete eulogy still worth to have included? In context of WP:RECENTISM, the whole event feels quite small and trivia. Any objects to remove it? Belorn (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the eulogy and briefly provided Stallman's judgement on Jobs.--180.183.243.201 (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Privacy advocacy

Stallman is also an advocate of privacy. If you listen to any of the public talks he has given over the past ten years, this becomes clear. I have started a section to this effect.--180.183.243.201 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Trading convenience for freedom

I added the sentence "He advocates trading convenience for freedom." I am hoping we can, if needed, further elaborate on where the trade-offs are for Stallman. Would he buy a different microwave oven if its embedded device uses open source? Would he go to a different dentist if the dentists office more fully embrace the policies of the FSF in their equipment? How about airlines, etc.?Practical things like that.

The article also has a comment by Torvald's that Stallman's thinking was "black-and-white". I qualified the scope of that statement but it got me thinking. I noticed this web article

Non-free "blobs" in the Linux kernel?

which suggests that FSF should assign A-to-F grades for popular Linux distros rather than simply have a short list of perfectly free ones. What kind of person is Stallman? Would he approve of such a scheme?--213.111.192.30 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

B-Class

Is it time to upgrade this article to Rated B-CLass? The overall outline of the article has improved, with lots of stray sentences now in their correct place, improvide coherency.--213.111.192.30 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I invite others to enumerate what they find to be contentious in the current article so that its quality can be improved.--213.111.192.30 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal Ad

Stallman has a personal ad on his website describing an interest in meeting a woman with varied interest. I assert that his arch-enemies mostly do not have such. I have added reference to such in the article. I think that such is more accurate than the "crushing loneliness" referred to in his "Free as in Freedom" biography.--213.111.192.30 (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

See my comment higher above... All comments apply here as well, regarding notability, etc.

Note that only Stallman's former personal ad is available. I don't really think it's notable for mentioning. Regarding the fact that he does not want children (it is mentioned in the article), a better source than a former personal ad is this. StewBragStone (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That is more tabloid than encyclopedic, unless some secondary source created an article discussing the ad itself. Even then, really not for an encyclopedia, and certainly not for an article trying to get a class B or GA. And Slashdot (one of my favorite sites) is NOT a reliable source, btw. Nor is blogspot. Even Linus' blogspot account is thin, but acceptable for some stuff as it is a known account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of the slashdot cites was improper. Unlike most articles, this article has the cites gathered at the end of the article and what is embedded in the text are short singletons. There were red warnings in the ref section after your edits and a bot restored them. I removed them properly.--222.124.214.116 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding them wasn't proper, and I was expecting the bot to fix them properly, but bots are bots. Thank you for saving me the trouble of hand editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I removed the newmedia-mcm.blogspot.com source, as it fails WP:RS, but left in the fact as I've heard that 100x myself and confident that a source exists, we just need one from a mainstream, reliable source. I think Linus has even said as much before, but again, need a reliable source so I've tagged it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Stallman Eats Something From His Foot

I added a reference to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ . I think that mentioning it briefly is fair.--183.89.146.93 (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because I think it runs afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY and no original research. I'll reserve judgement on its appropriateness for the article, but using a reliable secondary source is the absolute minimum before we proceed.— James Estevez (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added to the article a reference to mild trichophagia. Hair, toenails, sole callouses, scabs, pimples, snot or even just scratching whatever itches regardless of who is watching. It is all the same stuff to a nail-biter. It is just simple, mild asocial preening, but this Stallman and he does it on-stage and when the camera is rolling. His arch-enemies mostly do not do it. Well, what can we day? Living saints are allowed such leeway. I expect that history will be rather kind to Stallman.--213.111.192.30 (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen some of your recent edits and don't know what to think. Some edits you made are factual and notable (thus worth mentioning), other things are really not notable, and this here is one example! I'm suspicious of your motives, in particular when you write such absurb things such as "His arch-enemies mostly do not do it.". What's that supposed to mean? (You've written about his arch-enemies below as well). Who are Stallman's arch-enemies? Do you count yourself amongst them? Are you actually trying to improve the article? Please take note of Wikipedia:Notability and, don't write about your own conclusions (e.g. regarding trichophagia, etc.) StewBragStone (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you would read the "Shaggy God" article, you would realize that his arch-enemies are anyone he bothers to give the finger (gesture) to.--187.51.57.213 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Large portion of edits on this page is using open proxies

Recently, a majority of edits has originated from open proxies, many which has been nonconstructive or libel. A few of those has been blocked, and hopefully all nonconstructive or libel edits has been reverted. To give everyone some breathing space, I have requested a semi-protection for the article at request for page protection. Belorn (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the sentences about Torvalds' "black-and-white" blog post contain opinion information that is not in the post. And there are two such sentences. --AVRS (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source that says his fetching pages by e-mail is much about privacy? --AVRS (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2013

Remove "Stallman is a supporter of WikiLeaks" or add citation. 72.198.40.125 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, citation provided. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 12:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Free software in developing countries

Thumperward removed the section header "Free software in developing countries" from the rest of Stallman's "Software freedom" activism. His explanation was: ‎"Software freedom: this doesn't need its own subsection, and should be integrated with the rest of the section". I think it should be put back in.--Thunktuny (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to have an extra "Free software in developing countries" section. There is nothing inherently different about Stallman's views towards free software in developing countries and his views towards free software in "developed" countries. The paragraphs from that section are more about his travels to/advocacy within these countries than anything to do with country specific views on free software.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a strong pattern: which countries are willing to honor him with an audience with their head of state? It is not just what Stallman might say: we are supposed to describe the whole situation and the subsection helps to organize the information into a formate that is easy to understand quickly. You know, it might be a consequence of his attitude about not wearing a tie and his acceptance speech when he won the Torvalds award and stuff like that. I mean really: do you think that Obama wants site through some speech from Stallman where he cannot help from saying the word "freedom" 20 times in five minutes?--117.6.72.38 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, Stallman doesn't have views on free software that are specific to developing countries, a section header that implies such views would be inaccurate. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! Wait a second... Is the Wikimedia Foundation's purpose to be a soapbox for the shaggy gods of this world or to describe the NPOV reality? WAKE UP and please re-read WP:NOTTRUTHand WP:NOTSOAPBOX together and integrate the two policies in your mind, rather than the way that Stallman FAILED to integrate the subsystems Hurd.--117.6.72.38 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose this marks the end of the discussion. --AVRS (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If it weren't heading to a natural end, that both the recent IPs have been blocked as open proxies suggests that it would have ended anyway. I've removed some further critical commentary along the same lines, as this isn't supposed to be a general discussion forum. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Influenced by....

It is too presumptuous to add to the infobox that he was influenced by Immanual Kant? The GNU Manifesto says "The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule." Stallman has clearly remained true to the manifesto he authored but he as yet to publish a single-volume "Stallman Manifesto" his activism of the past 20 years which goes beyond merely software. He does not mention Kant a lot, but he seems very consistent with Kantian ethics and I suppose he avoids mentioning the categorical imperative would put a lot of his tu[oca; audience to sleep. I think it would save the reader some time to have that hint in the infobox.--222.124.214.116 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't about being presumptuous, although it is, it is about violating WP:OR. You might conclude this is the case, but unless a reliable source says that he is an influence, then it isn't allowed. You might also want to read WP:SYNTH. This is clearly not allowed here, in any way. In short, you don't get to connect the dots as an editor, that is the job of the reliable source. Our job in writing an encyclopedia is solely to publish what others have already clearly said, but in summary form. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Uh-huh.--222.124.214.116 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the footnote with the implied influence suggested. The now blocked proxy IP user suggestion is original research, as the above mentioning of kant is limited to a specific context and scope. Without a source that explicit paint Immanual Kant as an influence source, we can not use it in the article. Belorn (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Context or analysis?

Stallman has a lot of stuff under his "Activism" section now and it is better organized than it was a month ago. For such a large section, I think that it seems to go straight into line-items with little context. Thumperward removed the following, claiming it was "analysis". I think that some of it should be restored as context, in order to order to provide a more proper introduction to such a large section.

Stallman extends his philosophy to political issues and the largest part of his personal web site amounts to a daily political blog. The GNU Manifesto lays down an outline based on the ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant and Stallman strives to maintain consistent with it in his own behavior in order to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy. The GNU Manifesto and the Open Letter to Hobbyists help to define the spectrum of the dialog where Stallman is at one end, acting as an anchorman. He often mentions political issues as asides in his public speaking.

--180.183.153.128 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's context spun from thin air. This isn't an essay. We need to present Stallman as he is presented by third-party sources, rather than simply picking random factoids about him and weaving them into a narrative, which is precisely what the above section does. The overemphasis on Kant was discussed previously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Matter resolved.--203.159.63.19 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a lot of work lost

User:Alison just came in and blew away about a month's worth of progress on the article. An entire month's world of effort by many people because one highly-privileged person says so. What is the project coming to? I would think it is tie for an RfC on this Alison.--203.159.63.19 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

For reference/undoing/picking-through-the-edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&curid=3434143&diff=549283775&oldid=549283144 --AVRS (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The policy is quite clear in this case: WP:EVASION tells us to revert and only keep obviously helpful changes. Since the edits are done by a sockpuppet user, using proxies to evade blocks, its worth taking a extra hard look through the edits. Belorn (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Then there's this - just so you know where this is goin - Alison ^❤ 15:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I unrelatedly rejigged the intro

I wouldn't usually leave a note, but having seen the above comment, I thought I should explain that my edit has nothing to do with whatever's been happening over the past days/weeks.

The rationale for my change is that the previous intro started with a paragraph containing a list of dongles, eulas, non-disclosure agreements, binaries, source code, etc. Such a list doesn't define Stallman, so it's not the best way to fill the first paragraph.

I think I kept all the words that were there, but I moved things around and grouped sentences into paragraphs that I think are more coherent.

Here's my wonderful edit: [1].

(update: actually, I made the following substantial changes

• removed GNU core utils - he wrote some bits but it's not what he's famous for
• removed bit about licences being contracts - that's true in continental Europe but not in Anglo-Saxon systems (where "consideration" (some form of ~payment) is required)
• I added that he's gotten 14 honorary doctorates for his work - confirms notability)

Gronky (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's cool because I now realize that it had been written in an unencyclopedic way, due to original research. Now it says it from his position, and I assume/hope it's sourced.Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope my version of the text shows a neutral position. I changed the content only slightly. Some parts are sourced - seven references are given. Some things have no source because they're obvious. An example is the end of the first paragraph, where it says he's famous for GNU, FSF, GCC, Emacs, and the GPL (maybe "copyleft" should be added). This could be sourced if necessary, just find a few links to speaker bios that conferences publish about him. But it's too obvious and non-controversial to need a reference, IMO. Other things lack sources because they're explained and sourced later in the article, an example is the sentence about him having 14 honorary doctorates (the WP rules allow this for intro paragraphs, but off the top of my head I don't know which rule). Gronky (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)