Jump to content

Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein

This is wrong wording, he is accused for incidents with adolescent (>= 14year) not child! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1398:300:200:0:0:0:10E9 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

14 is still a child in nearly every jurisdiction anywhere... -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that adolescent are referred to as child but ok. Eppstein should be neutrally linked anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:2C8D:C400:F5AD:45CF:FB21:15C2 (talk) 13:21 September 21, 2019 (UTC)

In "Controversy" section, wording w.r.t. reporting is imprecise

It says "Stallman's colleagues reported that he made statements on an internal CSAIL listserv", but the cited articles just generally they were "leaked". Other articles mention that they were leaked by a specific person who says at https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 that "I’m writing this because at 11AM on Wednesday, September 11th 2019, my friend sent me an email that was sent to an MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) mailing list." So the emails were not leaked by colleagues, but by a person on the quite large CSAIL mailing list, to a person not on the mailing list, to the media. The person not on the mailing list is not a colleague of Stallman; she is just affiliated with the same quite large university Stallman had an office at. There is no indication anywhere that they ever worked on a project together, or in fact that they ever met at all. I don't think this fact has any strong bearing on the situation one way or the other - it's just wrong. Djbclark (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, good point, I took that out. Haukur (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
If someone was on CSAIL, they're a colleague, and they leaked it to someone who leaked it to the press, but do you. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That's just not what the word "colleague" means - to make sure I'm not illiterate I just looked up the word in a bunch of dictionaries, and they all have some variant of "Your colleagues are the people you work with, especially in a professional job." Stallman was not employed by MIT, and did not teach there; he was just given an office as an honor for his contributions to computing. Stallman did not work with the person who leaked the emails to the press, and I don't think we know his relationship with the person actually on the list who was first in the leak chain either. Stallman in fact did not really work with anyone at MIT except a few people who were also on the FSF board or volunteered for the FSF. I do not understand what your "but do you" means, so I can not comment on that. Djbclark (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

I wish to provide a citation for the rms's resignation.

Please change:

On September 16th 2019, he stepped down as president of the FSF and left his ‘visiting scientist’ role at MIT.

To

On September 16th 2019, he stepped down as president of the FSF[1] and left his ‘visiting scientist’ role at MIT. jbailey (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Richard M. Stallman resigns". September 16, 2019. Retrieved September 16, 2019.
Better sources:
--Guy Macon (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done Sceptre (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

needlessly malicious sentence structure

"resigned from MIT in 2019 after an email exchange related to Jeffrey Epstein, Marvin Minsky, and sexual assault of minors." easily reads as "Stallman resigned after stuff and sexual assault of minors", which is just not ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:96BF:B663:9D4:11B0:B627:7DCE (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Why, exactly, is your IP range repeatedly posting about this here This is not malicious at all. That's exactly what happened. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not, though. You're implying he sexually assaulted minors, which simply isn't true. The Wikipedia has no place for phrasing that leads to misunderstandings like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.152.147 (talk • contribs) 00:07, April 17, 2020 (UTC)
      • No, it's not. It takes a very specific reading to get that out of the sentence. The email exchange contains discussion of "Jeffrey Epstein, Marvin Minsky, and sexual assault of minors." You have to really be trying hard to turn that into an implication that he sexually assaulted minors. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleting necrophilia?

AVRS, could you explain why you deleted Stallman's 2003 comments? They are available on his blog and documented his idiosyncratic notion of consent was a long-standing position. We can't link to that specific entry because he has multiple entries with the same name/id (and he uses parenthesis in the name) in the HTML but they are there on that page. -Reagle (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's original research, and doing it when there is enough information already (it adds 3 years to 16 and nothing else that is in the other sources) looks like participation in the controversy. --AVRS (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There are a number of reliable sources covering the necrophila etc comments. I propose reverting the edit and adding in new sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Stuartyeates that's fine by me, I think it adds context to the fact that he's long held some idiosyncratic (and offensive to many) beliefs, which then informed the Epstein case. -Reagle (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I added context to it, so maybe it's OK now. --AVRS (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD

@Lazer-kitty: @Daveout: I think it's time the two of you started talking here & explaining your viewpoints, before this turns into more of an edit war. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I have already opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Richard_Stallman. The level of bias in this article is absolutely absurd and frankly unacceptable for something that calls itself an encyclopedia. Lazer-kitty (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2020 (TYPO)

In section 5, “Resignation from MIT and FSF”, there is a quotation that says “she presented herself to him as entirely wilting”. That is actually a typo. It should be “WILLING” instead of “WILTING”. daveout (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. Haukur (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Too many images

This article has too many images, it is best to put all of them (except for the one in the infobox) into a "Gallery" section daveout (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

...based on what? Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
...on common sense and good taste. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ daveout (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah...that's not really how this place works. There are no policies or guidelines suggesting an article can have "too many images" or that it's better to place them in a gallery. Can you explain your reasoning? Lazer-kitty (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Fisrt of all: Stopping acting as if you were some sort of expert on the subject when you clearly are not. Second: We do have policies regarding the use of images (see MOS:IMAGES). And according to those, “Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. […] However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.”. Now, could you explain how exactly a picture of “St. IGNUcius”, a comedic persona, is relevant and helping to improve the understanding of the Activism\Terminologies section? daveout (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
There are not very many images in this article and they are pretty spread out. To suggest that there are too many or that they are distracting per MOS:IMAGES is completely unsubstantiated. And frankly I think it would be for the best if you stepped back from editing this article given your participating in writing one of the most biased articles I have ever seen in my entire human life. I've already seen that in your attempt to "remove images" you also slyly removed bits that you clearly think portray Stallman negatively, even though they are entirely factual. Stop. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who wrote that version, I only reverted YOUR revision that appeared to be, and was proven to be, extremely biased. The paragraph that I removed was chronologically misplaced, It was located in a section dedicated to his early years at MIT, that subject (Stallman resignation) is already covered in depth on its own section (so it's redundant). Stop making false accusations against me, stop pushing your clearly resentful point of view, and start complying with wp:images.daveout (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I also made it clear in the edit summary that I was going to remove images AND make minor changes. So there's nothing "sly" about it.daveout (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the current number, roughly, but would not oppose a few being trimmed or a handful being put in a gallery. I think the St. Ignatius image should be preserved since he is famous for that portrayal. -Reagle (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Resignation section should be restored

The section on "Resignation from MIT and FSF" has gone down hill quickly. We had a carefully written, sourced, and stable consensus version at the start of the month and now it's a mess. Just the first sentence is horrible enough, beginning with a passive construction ("It was learned") and ungrammatical prose (", and wake of this,"). There are also broken references at the end of the article. Rather than protecting this warred/broken version, I recommend the prose be restored to Special:Permalink/970949773. People can then suggest and discuss changes from there. -Reagle (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not inclined to make major edits to the protected page at this time. This will probably have to wait until the protection expires. El_C 20:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Reagle: If you think the linked version of the article was "carefully written and sourced" then I would strongly encourage you to read both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. As WP:NPOV is summarized, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." The version you reference very explicitly takes a side and does so while frequently citing sources (e.g. YouTubers) that are very obviously not reliable. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Lazer-kitty: All those problems were fixed already. And I wouldnt be so quick at pointing fingers if I were you, considering that one of the versions you tried to reinstate claimed that RMS tried to "rationalize" Minsky's behavior (even though no such claim is present in the source), which constitutes WP:NOR and violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV -- Daveout (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree with Reagle. This version (Masen’s version) was supposed to be a starting point (some sort of "draft") for us to improve. But the article was locked before we could do that. One of its biggest flaws is that it claims that Stallman defended Minsky, but the inline citation doesn’t support that claim. The version Reagle prefers also has problems, for example: 1) It uses YouTube and GitHub as sources; 2) It has a conspiracy theory about bill gates in a hidden note. I tried to fix those issues in my version: check it out!. We are discussing these and other issues HERE, please participate.Daveout (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
If that discussion reaches an impasse, there are dispute resolutions requests you can avail yourself of. El_C 20:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Right. Thanks :) Daveout (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Daveout: If this is how you feel then I would strongly encourage you to take this discussion to either dispute resolutions requests per above or WP:BLP. But continuing to edit war after the page has been reported to WP:NPOV and fixed per an administrator there is just not how this works. You can't just roll in after the lock has lifted and instantly revert again. If you want to discuss the page here while leaving the corrected version in place then I would be happy to participate in that discussion. If that's not acceptable to you then please pursue either of the above avenues. If you simply revert again then I'm sorry but I'm just going to go to ANI.
Please do not revert again. Please simply tell me here what specific problems you have with the current version and what specific changes you propose to fix those problems. I am happy to listen, but not if you keep trying to hammer home your version of the page. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The ongoing discussion at NPOV\N has 3 editors supporting the version that I reinstated as a starting point, the version you prefer has support from 2 editors. The current revision should stay until you’re able to form a majority (and please, no socks this time). Yes, Masen proposed an alternative version (and I greatly appreciate his work and effort to solve this dispute), but an administrator's opinion weights as much as any other editor's opinion (see Democracy). Take this discussion wherever you like, but stop edit warring until the majority of ppl agree with you. -- Daveout (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
First off, please stop acting like you have achieved consensus for any specific version of the page. You haven't. Consensus is not simple majority rule, 3 > 2. Is it an actual process and it has not yet happened. Secondly, WP:NPOV is a key wiki policy; have you achieved consensus to overrule it? No, obviously not. And finally, there is no active discussion happening at the WP:NPOV noticeboard and never really was. One administrator ruled against you and corrected the page; that's it.
Stop reverting the page. Please participate in this discussion here, now, and tell me what you'd like to change. We can discuss it in good faith but not if your disruptive behavior continues. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@El C: Please, take a look at this. This user refuses to preserve the status quo and wants to impose their preferred version by brute force. -- Daveout (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a blatant lie and a personal attack. I repeatedly and explicitly told you that I was open to discussion on the article using Masem's version as a starting point. You have repeatedly tried to impose your own version and refuse to take part in those discussions. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I’ll gladly discuss it with you, but the status quo version (which is also the majority’s preferred version) should be preserved in the meantime.-- Daveout (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be possible to mix the versions? Comparing the two versions of 14 December, I don't see much of a difference in point-of-view, both seem to report the events without taking a stance on Stallman's behaviour. But maybe I am shortsighted and there may be subtle differenced in wording which could make one version causing more antipathy or sympathy for Stallman amongst readers than the other version. I suppose both versions have there merits, e.g. Daveout's version of the section seems to be better readable and comprehensible but the other version is more detailed in later paragraphs. Bever (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree This sounds like a good compromise. And since my revision (which is based on the status quo version and has more support) is apparently the most comprehensible one, It should be the base text, and complementary information that is present solely on Lazer-kitty's version should be added to it (e.g. Stallman's apology).
It is also important to notice that Lazer-kitty's version, which is currently in place, has never gained consensus and was arbitrarily enforced.-- Daveout (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You gotta stop acting like this. Your assertion that three people support your version and only two support "mine" is literally irrelevant. It means nothing. That is not how consensus is formed on Wikipedia. This has been explained to you multiple times. I have tried so hard to be patient with you and express that I am willing to work with you and yet over and over again you make these same mistakes.
You were complicit in creating one of the worst and most biased wiki articles I have ever seen in my life. It effectively co-opted this encyclopedia for the purpose of spreading pro-Stallman propaganda. That version was justifiably removed for blatant and egregious NPOV violations. That you claim "my" version was "arbitrarily enforced" suggests you are completely unaware that what you did was wrong. I cannot be clear enough on this: the "status quo" version you hold so dear is absolutely unacceptable as an encyclopedia article.
@Bever: I am aware that the most recent version Daveout is pushing is a significant improvement over where this page was a week or so ago; however, it still has noticeable NPOV issues, and it was still crafted by an editor whose objectivity on this subject is very much in question. I would strongly encourage you to to read the August 3rd version of the page to understand where I am coming from regarding these NPOV concerns.
As I have said before I fully agree that the current version of the page isn't perfect, but in terms of objectivity it is infinitely better than where we were recently. If you see room for improvement then I would strongly encourage you to be bold and implement those improvements. But I would be extremely careful with merging sections from previous versions of the page when those versions had such significant NPOV issues. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Your claim that I am complicit in creating one of the worst and most biased wiki articles is false. I didn’t write a word of the version you are referring to and I only noticed it because of your reversion. In fact, I fixed its sources, hidden notes, and added things like Stallman's words were perceived by some as an attempt to downplay sexual exploitation and minimize Minsky's alleged involvement. and 33 GNU project developers classified Stallman's behavior as being alienating and advocated his departure from the project. That sounds neutral enough to me. Now, that corrected version is what I call “my revision” and I suggest it as a starting point (I do not support older versions). Now let’s see if you’re really committed to making concessions, and reaching consensus. Why don’t you start by restoring the version Bever (and others) considers “better readable and comprehensible” and then making the changes you want to make from there? And by the way, could your for once point out JUST ONE of the so-called “noticeable NPOV issues” that you mention so much?-- Daveout (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
This might come as a surprise to you but I actually do not respond well to people making demands of me. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"Hacker culture"?

there are many misleading sentences about stallman and "hacker culture" such as this: "Stallman's influences on hacker culture include the name POSIX[41] and the Emacs editor." Neither of those are "hacker culture" items, one is literally an IEEE standard, the opposite of hacker culture, and one is just a text editor. Vulcanstar6 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In line with Stallman's own comments on the definition of the word hacker, it goes beyond pentesting and other related activities. So hacker culture includes tinkering with electronics and programming creatively in a general sense beyond the commonly misused definition. Splinemath (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
See also Jargon File#Defense of the term hacker. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2020

This article presents stallman’s life chronologically, but in the ‘’Early life” section, a recent event is mentioned and should be removed (because it’s anachronistic and redundant):

  • "Stallman resigned from MIT in 2019 after an email exchange related to Jeffrey Epstein, and Marvin Minsky's alleged sexual exploitation of a minor."

The same topic is already addressed in depth in a later and more appropriate section. In the “Resignation from MIT and FSF” section, for instance:

 Question: Does anybody object to this change? - Daveout(talk) 09:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive_16&oldid=992594662"