Listener--I take it you're planning to write the relevant articles? (nice work, btw)PFoster 21:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- You caught me in the middle of fixing the red links (I knew there was an article about Open Source, but got the capitalization wrong in the wikilink). I have now removed all the red links to articles I do not intend to write. ListenerXTalkerX 22:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Richard Stallman did NOT produce the linux operating system. Is this a joke? Alecwh 01:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- If you are referring to the first sentence of the article, I was making that statement with regard to the Free Software movement, not Mr. Stallman. I have reworded that sentence to make this more clear.
- ListenerXTalkerX 01:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)
What the fuck is this crap?
Why is RationalWiki trolling Richard, one of the greatest Atheists of our times?
I don't see it as trolling. It seems like to me it's all done in good fun. It's no secret that he displays quite some strange mannerisms, but he's a brilliant mind and I'm glad that he's around. This page on the other hand, is outright trolling. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The link provided as the source for the quote never actually confirms which "Richard" wrote this. Find a better link or it stays OUT. 03:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Stallman no longer leader of FSF
Correcting/expanding on BLP issues in lead
Specifically, as it stands right now, the lead claims that "[Stallman] is a defender of pedophilia and persons who have organized pedophile-sex rings.". This specifically reductivizes a much more complicated issue that as a result has caused Stallman to resign from his position at the FSF and to be fired from MIT. Ideally this should be in it's own paragraph, as the entire situation warrants more than just a mere mention in the lead and certainly could use a better source. The email exchange that put Stallman is under fire can be found here. The currently linked article is relying on a specific spin of the situation that is inaccurate.
What occured is that Stallman took slight with the language used in a planned protest by MIT (MIT had gotten tangled up in the Epstein incident since Epstein was one of the biggest donators to MIT). Specifically, Stallman took issue with the term sexual assault. What is important to understand (and yes, this is Crank material since Stallman has a habit of redefining words) is that Stallman defined sexual assault as purely involving violence. Stallman took slight with this definition being applied to his friend and colleague, the late Marvin Minsky (who should be mentioned was the voucher for Stallman getting an office at CSAIL), who was accused in the Epstein case (also this should be clear: Stallman does not defend that Minsky sexually assaulted a girl under our sane definition, he takes issue with his own definition) and went on to claim that he thought the victim would have been instructed by Epstein to present herself as willing.
This sequence of events was eventually posted on Medium by someone who was not involved with CSAIL but got it forwarded to them and subsequently picked up by The Verge who did the initial reductivizing of Stallmans statement.
There is a difference in words here, and whilst it doesn't absolve Stallman of any of the other crankery apparent in his statement and behavior, he does explicitly not defend Minsky and never defended Epsteins behavior in the slightest.
And to make one thing clear here myself: No, I'm not defending Stallman either. For a lot of his other comments and behavior (a number of which include his comments on pedophilia that people dug up as a result of this publicizing, although he has since retracted these views), his resignation is something that should have happened a while ago, but as it stands, the lead uses a poorly defined source for an issue that needs more explanation (probably in it's own paragraph) than just a line in the lead that uses a source that violates Articles on Living People.
All I'm saying is that this issue needs to be expanded upon, and as a new editor here, I do not feel confident to do this myself (particularly because I don't hold a lot of faith in being able to write this from an SPOV).The Crow (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason why this needs mentioned in the article lede - some recent edits look like someone with a grudge going too far to smear Stallman. The full case could be discussed later in the article, with appropriate explanations and clarifications, and the above explanation isn't a bad starting point. --Annanoon (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- I do believe it bears mention in the lede (although I don't think it should be worded as it is right now considering what I mentioned just before), considering it is what caused Stallman to be booted from the Free Software Foundation, which for all intents and purposes is the political end of his end goal.— Unsigned, by: The Crow / talk / contribs
- I mean, in the end he got the boot either way, but yeah, this was the droplet that overflowed the metaphorical bucket of "shitty RMS behavior". That doesn't mean that the current way that is explained in the article is remotely comprehensive or correctly sourced, which should be changed (I might start a draft on it if someone doesn't beat me to it). The Crow (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have a source of that? I have found no source that suggests that is correct. Given the timing and the overwhelming bad press (with demonstrably false titles) I would say it is more likely TheCrow is correct. If you were correct, then it is more likely he would have been voted out at next election. Samvittighed (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)