Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Open letter in response to Stallman's return to the FSF

Stallman's recent announcement that he would return to the FSF's board of directors has prompted numerous people to sign an open letter demanding the resignation of the entire board. Many predominant figures in the FOSS community have signed it, and it seems like it may be an important detail to include whether or not it actually leads to resignations. The section on the GNU project includes a note about a similar letter signed by the project's developers. That said, I'd like to air it here first, especially to ensure compliance with WP:RECENTISM. —Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have put it in a citation already, should it be linked on the article itself, in a footnote, or the text copied and pasted? Cynosure-NULL (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice edit Cynosure-NULL! @Daveout: makes a fair point. If this is to be included, it should include a source like this one. The trouble with writing about a lot of this is that the free software community is strongly connected, but often only loosely organized. The letter is about as solid a statement as can be expected from the "free software community at large". I have a modified version of Cynosure-NULL's edit ready, but I'll wait for a response from Daveout. —Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ifandonlyif0: Thanks for pinging me and creating this discussion. I think that a secondary source is needed in this case, per WP:PSTS. The letter is self-published (see WP:RSSELF) and makes a lot of highly opinionated claims. That's why I don't think it is appropriate to use it as the sigle source for a claim in a WP:BLP. - Daveout(talk) 05:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The situation is that someone has started what is essentially a petition referring to the Board of the Free Software Foundation and Stallman. Anyone can add their name to the petition. If that is a significant ("notable") incident, an article on the incident should be created. If a reliable secondary source writes a substantive piece with an analysis of the incident and its possible effects, extracts from the secondary source might be appropriate for inclusion in this article. Petitions requesting certain actions are described in an article about the incident (the petition) or in articles about the petition's organizers or signatories. A petitition cannot be used in a WP:BLP article on the basis that editors think the petition and its (alleged) signatories are significant. Regarding alleged: how is it known that the names given were given by those people? Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

They are added through pull request here. Still, one would need to be able to connect github account with a real person (making a background check on every person) and it looks really easy to assume someone elses identity. Regarding the open letter – we need to wait for reliable secondary sources. – K4rolB (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the discussion folks. Would this suffice as a reliable secondary source? If not, we might want to reconsider the inclusion of the letter from the GNU developers mentioned in the section on the GNU project. The only secondary source for those statements is a blog that appears to be written and edited by one person. —Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be enough. – K4rolB (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you think a bit about who published the letter is needed (for example: An open letter calling for his removal from the FSF by assorted free software advocates and developers. Or would this fall under WP:RECENTISM. The open letter also called for the removal of the rest of the board, should this be included? Cynosure-NULL (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the most important thing about the letter is the fact that so many preeminent members of the free software community signed it. I've added those details, along with the fact that they called for the removal of the entire board. Thanks again! —Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Shortly after, another open letter was made, with hundreds signatures as well, supporting Stollman and defending him from the overzealous internet activist crowd. But ofc this letter was ignored by the majority of internet newsmakers. Can't support the wrong person. --95.174.101.83 (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the link. Currently there are 2336 signatures under original open letter against RMS, and there are 1871 signatures under RMS support letter. I believe that both of them deserves mentioning in the article.Evilgrass (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The number of signatures is irrelevant, since they cannot be reliably matched with actual persons in any meaningful way. Many signatures from the support letter appear to be from accounts that were created solely for the purpose of signing the support letter, which does not inherently indicate a bot, but it does raise suspicions. Further, the proportion of surnames are substantially, if not overwhelmingly, of Eastern European origin. Again, this is not evidence of bots, but it is a curious phenomenon for a figure who is perhaps known worldwide, but is likely most well-known in his country of origin. This is particularly relevant since the FSF is not an eastern European organization, and has little to no presence or influence there. Indeed, despite its claim of a worldwide presence, the FSF can only operate effectively where there are strong intellectual property protections. Separately, the characterization of signatories as "supporters of free software" is unsubstantiated. Finally, the counter-letter doesn't appear to be signed or supported by any OSS organizations, so its significance is questionable at best. In my view, its mention should be considered for deletion, but none of this is really worth hashing out in the article IMO, so I am editing to remove contentious and unverified content as per WP:BLP. 76.182.176.226 (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Stallman Support Letter [Stallman-endorsed!] + ESR

I am opening this section on suggestion of Daveout. This is the paragraph I had tried to add to the "6.1 Return to FSF" subchapter, though it may need some revision by a native speaker

On the other hand, a community-driven open letter supporting Richard Stallman received translations to 31 languages and drew a larger number of individual signatories (passing 6500), among which the notable early participation of OSI co-founder and long-time Free Software Movement "rival" Eric S. Raymond

I think it is essential to counterbalance the Open Letter calling for the removal of Richard Stallman with the Support Letter. Dr. Stallman himself has published a link on his blog to this campaign, specifically linking to a page explaining how to sign this letter without using Github, and then proceeding to explain the circumstances surrounding the situation. Additionally, support from Eric S. Raymond seems to be exceptionally noteworthy, considering the historical background of the two men.

The section in question already mentions the pro-Stallman letter, there's no need to say it a second time. The signature counts for both letters were removed bc they could be signed by just anyone or anything (fake accounts and bots), so their weights could be misleading. We could mention Raymond's signature as some sort of trivia, however, we need to be sure it is him. A secondary source is preferable (almost mandatory) in this case. A primary source could, theoretically, be used if it left no room for doubts. (I don't know if that's really his github profile and I can't verify it). Anyway, this is just my opinion. Let's see what others think. - Daveout(talk) 00:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Minor edit to restore source text of a quotation

This section regards a minor edit: to restore the "her" in a Stallman quotation in Resignation from MIT and FSF which had been edited to the gender-neutral "per". Here's the commented source from the editor making the change:

...can harm per<!-- This is not a typo! It's a gender-neutral pronoun. --> psychologically.

While I support the use of gender-neutral pronouns, I believe it is inappropriate to retroactively change the text of a quote.

Glen Worthey (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Glen Worthey: Ars Technica is the one who actually changed Stallman's words. - Daveout(talk) 01:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Inaccessible citation link

I have found that this link is not accessible. Maybe has to do with the .com.au suffix (because I'm not in Australia?) or maybe the source is dead and I got redirected. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/gnu-programmers-call-for-richard-stallman-to-quit-2019-10 --Nuclear03020704 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed :) – K4rolB (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

MIT as Alma Mater

Hi Daveout. You said in your revert "enrolling seems to be enough to count as an alma mater".

Firstly, please let's be correct about the historical facts. RMS was not "enrolled" at MIT. He was *working* there as a programmer.

Secondly, the concept of an alma mater means an academic institution that "nourishes" you in an intellectual way, in other words, an institution that forms and shapes your intellectual character and academic personality. An alma mater certifies and documents this "shaping process" by awarding you an official degree.

Just enrolling has nothing to do with that. Take me for example. I have degrees from two universities, so those are my alma maters. But I visited two further universities (one as a student and one as a scientist) which didn't award me any degree. So, those two are NOT alma maters of mine. I don't have four alma maters, I have two.

You can think of it also in another way. If enrolling was enough, many people who never finished any academic classes or took any exam or dropped out after one semester would have alma maters. That is obvious nonsense.

So, in total: RMS wasn't enrolled at MIT, but even if he was, he wasn't awarded a degree, so MIT isn't an alma mater. ʘχ (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC) ^{[originally posted here]}

According to the article, Stallman decided to enroll as a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He pursued a doctorate in physics for one year, but left that program to focus on his programming at the MIT AI Laboratory.

And according to Merriam Webster, an alma mater is a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether MIT should be listed as his alma mater or not, maybe we could use the 'education' infobox parameter instead, however Stallman seems to be primarily associated with MIT that's why I restored the status quo, i mean... it makes sense. What do you (ʘx and all other page watchers) think? -Daveout(talk) 13:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"Attendance", in this context, doesn't mean "I was enrolled there" or "I have been there", but I was awarded a degree. If mere enrollment satisfied the concept of "alma mater", this would mean an obvious perversion of the term. For example, you could go on an "enrollment spree" all over the country: you just enroll at 10 universities without visiting any lectures or taking any exam and you would have 10 alma maters, just like that. In other words, the term "alma mater" would immediately become meaningless.

Also, this is not now the term is widely understood. If you personally told people "University X is my alma mater" but in reality you don't have a degree but just were enrolled for a year and then dropped out, you would be called a liar or impostor. ʘχ (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Talking about alma mater, some sources claim it is Harvard:

• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-Stallman
• https://www.stallman.org/biographies.html

Although some reliable sources should be found to claim that.

About MIT – if RMS is no longer working there, then it should not be in the Infobox, even though his connections are strong and long-term. K4rolB (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Self-sourced material and biographies

@Drmies: Looking at your edits [1] [2] [3] [4], it seems like most of those fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB? I'm just starting a thread here to open up a discussion. 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 14:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• SnowyMeadows, thanks, but I don't think SELFPUB is a license for us to beef up (or fluff up) biographies. Like, "Stallman is a world traveler and has visited at least 65 countries"--there really is no way in which this should be in a BLP in the first place, and that it's self-sourced doesn't help. Similar with the other stuff. Opinions are great, but to be encyclopedic a secondary source will have to argue that it is. This biography is huge, and contains, IMO, way too much ... well, it's very peacocky. (BTW I'm having a hard time reading your signature, sorry.) Drmies (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: But the quote you are specifically referencing about Stallman being a world traveler was not from a self-published source [5] It's from Boston magazine. Did you remove that by mistake? 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 15:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, was it? I thought most of them were--then I removed that one because I think it's too fluffy, or see the point of it. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: I do agree "world traveler" is maybe a bit fluffy. But also, the fact that Stallman travels the world as a "free software evangelist" is mentioned in the source, and seems to go towards his notability. I guess we're getting a bit off-topic though. I see you've made subsequent edits that try to give an example, but I guess I'm specifically talking about the diffs above. Not generally. Can you explain the rest of these edits? 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 16:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

[6] are edits that claim grandiosity and board membership, based on the GNU Bulletin, not an independent secondary source, and to his own personal calendar (!); ditto--with a pretty self-explanatory edit summary, since this is in fact common practice; and and these are unused citations, to primary sources and his own calendar. BTW I still can't easily read your signature. Please have a look at WP:SIGAPP, fifth item. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Off topic user discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Drmies: You should make a post to my user talk page about it. I'm honestly happy to make changes based on specific concerns, especially if it's a color contrast issue of some sort. I just don't want to discuss my signature on a BLP talk page. 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 18:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC) You could just change it--you could have done so already. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: Concerning this paragraph specifically [7], maybe we could ascribe notability with the following two secondary sources 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 19:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Richard Matthew Stallman.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Jobs anecdote

When verifying this paragraph:

In 1993, while Jobs was at NeXT, Jobs asked Stallman if he could distribute a modified GCC in two parts, one part under GPL and the other part, an Objective-C preprocessor under a proprietary license. Stallman initially thought this would be legal, but since he also thought it would be "very undesirable for free software", he asked a lawyer for advice. The response he got was that judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward them, and a judge would ask whether it was "really" one program, rather than how the parts were labeled. Therefore, Stallman sent a message back to Jobs which said they believed Jobs' plan was not allowed by the GPL, which resulted in NeXT releasing the Objective-C front end under GPL.

using the cited source I was surprised to find that the source was primary: Stallman bringing up this anecdote himself in an email. We shouldn't use a primary source for such a big self-serving claim. In addition, the date is wrong, the email is from 1993, but the email itself mentions "a long time ago" in 1993, so the anecdote must be well before 1993. Overall, I would suggest to remove the anecdote entirely unless it is covered in reliable secondary sources. I've made a small edit to address the biggest issues. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph has been like this for at least 8 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&diff=prev&oldid=625815748. Anecdote inserted 9 years ago here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&diff=prev&oldid=625688744 AncientWalrus (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

activism -> terminologies

the link "closed source software" redirects to "proprietary software", which is linked a few words before, so i feel like "closed source software" should not be a link - some bored kid at school 20:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)