Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 6

Semi-protection
Because of the recent spate of edit warring over Stallman's pedophilia comments, and the related digg.com article, I have semi-protected the article. It would behoove us to discuss whether those comments merit inclusion here on the talk page. Nandesuka 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not include - The article's title and intent is obvious spin. The blog entry reads:
 * Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization.


 * I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
 * To conclude from this that the man supports pedophilia is ridiculous. 1) He is stating fact (that a pro-pedophilia party was formed in Holland) - this does not mean he supports it any more than Wikipedia having an article on pedophilia means that we support it. 2) He says he is skeptical of the claim that voluntarily (sic) pedophilia harms children. This does not mean he supports pedophilia (voluntary or otherwise) any more than him saying I am skeptical of the Iraqi's claim that the Bush forces have ordered troops to kill lots of Iraqis no matter who they are. means that he supports Bush (in fact he is widely known for opposing Bush). I could say, for example, that I am skeptical of the claim that nuclear weapons cause pain; this does not mean I am pro-nuclear weapons. Capi 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actully biased URLS can can be added to the external links section. Wikipedia should state the fact that he has said "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing", the reader can then interpret his words themselves, Wikipedia does not need to censor it. Progressivenazism 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * His blog is full of statements and opinions, political, economical and social, controversial and otherwise. Why single this one out? What makes it notable? Where is this "controversy" and who are these "many people"? If you want to report fact (that he said what he said) that is one thing, but speculation on how people supposedly interpret it/should interpret it has no place in the article. And still, I would say again: why single out this particular quote, out of all the other ones in his blog? Is it perhaps because it is a loaded subject, which can easily be twisted with weasel words? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If anything, there should be a mention that he has a blog, that he posts his opinions there, that some of them can be considered controversial, and link to it. Capi 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything to stay about the debate over external linking, but this statement is not supported and doesn't belong:


 * This caused some controversy [sic] because many people interpret Stallman's words as indication that he supports voluntary pedophilia.

And if the best people can author is that its stirred up "some controversy [sic]", then perhaps its not notable to mention. In my experience, Wikipedia is the only notable source of the controversy, and that puts Wikipedia in a position to motivate POV. I don't think we can cite the Wikipedia talk page as a source, either. If in 1 month or a year this does last as a "controversy" then we can put it back, but until then we should wait it out.

Wikipedia is not a personal blog. --69.54.29.23 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If this were to stay, it should be in an objective, descriptive form - state fact (what he said and when), leave the interpretations out of it. The section's title, "Pedophilia Controversy" should also be changed to something non-loaded. Personally I still think this should not be included; it's cherry picking (there are countless opinions expressed on his blog, many more openly controversial than this one), plus it's not relevant to his notability (see WP:BLP). Capi 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, there's no interpretation in the text at all, just facts. Second, it's notable because it has been reported on major news sites such as Digg, so no, wikipedia talk page is not the only source of controversy.  http://digg.com/linux_unix/Richard_Stallman_supports_voluntary_pedophilia
 * Anarchopedia 05:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I edited that paragraph before I saw there was a discussion here about it. Gronky 09:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing worth keeping in mind while think about this is that, at a quick scan, the majority of comments on digg are criticising the digg article, or defending Stallman's comment. Gronky


 * From my drive-by perspective, perhaps writing a short section about Stallman's interest in political & social issues, where this blog entry is one of several examples of controversial or provocative statements, would be better. Having one comment singled out tends to focus the attention on it, which, in itself, could give the impression of POV.  By broadening the section, this comment could be covered, but not in such a focused way.--Ssbohio 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, that would better by far than how it currently is. Capi 14:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Parent is right. The comments/blog citations section should be expanded and that particular comment should be included. Richie is a smart guy in my opinion and I like it when he comes out with first class trolls like that one. Did I mention Snape kills Dumbledore? -- Femmina 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Date on Pedophilia Blog
I just visited the blog and the date the post was made appears to be June 5th, while the article quotes July 10th.

Time to remove it
The "controversy" never materialised. Maybe some were hoping or predicting it would snowball because it was related to a sensitive issue, but it didn't.

He made a comment, an Internet user submitted it to a widely-read user-submission site where it received a low number of votes (86 is not much on digg), where more than half of the comments were criticising the user-submission or defending Stallman's comment, and it quickly disappeared. Another Internet user then submits it to Wikipedia on the basis that it is a notable "controversy" in Stallman's life. Clearly it wasn't.

One positive outcome is that it has brought forward the idea of making a section on his political notes. This would indeed be a good idea. The topics which he talks about a lot should be mentioned. Those include Isreal, climate change, Bush, Iraq, "Bliar", Afganistan, species depletion, and police corruption. Gronky 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, remove section. There must be thousands of comments, posts, articles, blog entries and Slashdot flame festivals about Stallman throughout the Internet. What makes this 3-line piece noteworthy? The fact it addresses one comment he made out of countless others, in his blog which is already full of much more controversial things than that? Or is it the fact that it's a loaded topic that can easily be used to poison a person's public image? Will we include every single Slashdot thread over whether or not Stallman prefers dogs over cats? And give it its own section? A passing comment on a blog about a lateral issue that has nothing to do with the subject's work, life or career is not notable for inclusion in a biography. And it certainly does not deserve a full section for itself. It is nothing but cherry picking spin. Capi 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. It's annoying to have something like this instantly escalate in to a section of its own.  Mob rule.  Let's get rid of it.Rufus Sarsaparilla 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All the top result of a google search of "voluntary pedophilia" returns link to this story, so it's pretty noteworthy. 128.100.31.172 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Argumentum ad Google. Whichever way Google chooses to sort its results is irrelevant to whether or not this is a noteworthy inclusion in a biography on Richard Stallman. So there was a flamefest on digg about the topic du jour, big deal. 2 days after that there was probably another flamefest about whether or not the aliens are really green. Will we include every Slashdot flamefest now too? Or will we just include the ones that are ridiculously slanted and making deliberate misrepresentations of what they are quoting? Will we add every irrelevant random comment made by Joe Sixpack regarding him too? Might as well turn this into Google then. The fact remains, this is one insignificant remark out of a pool of thousands of remarks the man has made (many of which are much more relevant and can be truly called controversial, for better or for worse). It is not related to his life, career or work. It is not notable in any way other than some people seem bent on using loaded terms to misrepresent what he truly said, and that a few randoms on some digg thread argued for a little while about it. Capi 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You neglected to mention that a search for that term only returns 22 hits. All you've discovered is that that term has almost never been used before on the www. Gronky 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for researching this, Gronky. It doesn't really belong. --69.54.29.23 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actully Google returns 103,000 results for "voluntary pedophilia", and stallman's comment is the #1 result, so it should stay. I mean if Series of tubes can have it's own article, there's no reason why stallman's comment can't. 70.48.249.56 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, argumentum ad Google; irrelevant. And even if it weren't so, Google most certainly does not return anywhere near 103 results for "voluntary pedophilia", let alone 103,000 (quotes, people, quotes - don't search loose words). Arguing over Google hits is besides the point. Randoms trying to capitalize on one comment which they chose to interpret in a way that defies logic do not change the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The guy said he's skeptic that Bush's forces have ordered troops to kill lots of Iraqis; will we add a whole section saying he's a Bush supporter, too? Yeah, that would make lots of sense - about as much as these supposed pedophilia comments. I'm sure there must be some Slashdot flamewar out there arguing over whether his beard is black or brown; will we mention that too? Stallman's blog has hundreds of entries, will we make a section for each of them? Or just the ones that we can twist to label him with loaded words? Wikipedia is not Google. This is not notable, it has been debated for 2 weeks or more, and the ratio of remove to not-remove comments in the above above 2 sections is like 12-to-1. I'm taking it out again. Capi 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Timely Photograph
I believe we should include a more timely photograph of RMS at the top of the article. Unless I am mistaken, the current one is not very timely, as I'm guessing he's somewhere in his thirties in that photograph, and at this time of writing he's actually 52. Dkrogers 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Maybe you can upload a new one? :)
 * Done. Dkrogers 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents positioning
Is there a reason for the non-standard positioning of the contents? It is quite hard to find and, to my mind, not very aesthetic. However, I refrain from making any changes; maybe there actually is a reason for this. VladDogaru T C 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In my eyes, having the Table of Contents (ToC) on the right is much more aesthetic. It gets rid of the horrible blob of white space. Shortens more of the lines in the article making them easier to read. Doesn't require one to page over the TOC, to get back to reading the text, yet leaves it visible for those who want to use it. Gives both types of users something. And puts all the blocks of non-article on one side. And as someone with RSI, (Repetive Strain Injury) whose wrists hurt, I appreciate not having to use another keystroke to get past the white blob of useless screen waste. Are you sure the issue is you just aren't use to the alternative? Perhaps it really belongs on the left hand side under the Wikipedia menus (more wasted screen space), but that would have to be a WP wide decision. - Lentower 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for that discussion. TOCright needs to be used in specific cases. You're welcome to use a custom CSS style sheet for your RSI condition. It would apply to *all* articles you visit on Wikipedia, avoid adding TOCright to every one of your favorite articles, thus decreasing the chance of afflicting your RSI condition. Also, you don't need to type to convert the entire Wikipedia to use it. --71.169.129.244 00:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your solution for those of us who have RSI is to use more painful keystrokes to research and then write a custom CSS style sheet? I'm glad you have never had to deal with pain in your life. But that does not leave you in a position to tell me to endure more of it for your solution. It you can provide some URL links to exisiting style sheets and instructions on how to install them for use with Firefox or Internet Explorer, that would show some compassion. You have also not address the other reasons I listed. - Lentower 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was being compassionate by telling you about custom stylesheets. I also assumed you'd know to type "custom OR client stylesheet 'internet explorer' OR firefox" in your nearest search engine, rather than write another paragraph about it. --71.169.129.244 03:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Überhacker & Richard Stallman
The Überhacker article only talks about his name and that name isn't notable enough to have a stand-alone article. I even doubt it is notable enough to be on this page either but we'll see later. Lincher 13:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

His father
"Stallman was born in Manhattan, New York, to Alice Lippman."... Who was his father? --Lhademmor 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

gcc from Pastel to C
Please note that Len Tower's article is currently listed for deletion for the second time in a row. Please weigh in. LossIsNotMore 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets go for Featured Article
Thanks to years of heavy editing, with useful contributions from tens or hundreds of supporters and detractors, I now think we have this article in a really good state. I'd like to nominate it for Featured Article status, so in the next few days, if anyone wants to help, please read a section that you haven't read in a while, or read the whole article, and make clean-ups. IMO, small clean-ups are what are needed, not large rewrites, and smaller clean-ups will also keep the article more stable during these days while others are also tweaking this article. So lets go for Featured Article status. Gronky 11:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are the criteria for a Featured Article: What is a featured article?
 * I suggest we do our own review for 3 or 4 days, then nominate the article for Peer review, and then make it a Featured Article candidate. Gronky 11:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this article qualifies for FA status, especially given the way that the criticisms section has, over time, been bowlderized (the missing Zawinski criticisms, for example, are shameful). A hagiography shouldn't be a FA; specifically, this article still fails tests 1(d) and 1(e).   Let's correct that before applying for FA. Nandesuka


 * Ok. I think the article stability is sufficient to pass the 1(e) review, but we'll just have to accept the decision of the FA reviewer on that.  For 1(d), I think most people agreed that it was fine to include links to the accusations of Zawinski and Drepper .  As long as neither event is blown out of proportion, they're fine links.  I think the consensus on the Critisisms section was similar to that of the Trivia section: integrate it into the article.  You're right that this article isn't fit to pass FA criteria today, but so much work has gone into it and there is so much information there, it's worth some review and to make it FA worthy. Gronky 12:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, actually the "shameful" omission of zawinski criticism is false. It's there in the 4th paragraph of the Lifestlye section, along with criticisms from Drepper and ESR. Gronky 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out; I searched for it earlier and didn't find it.  I know at one point someone affiliated with the FSF was reverting it out of the articles hard and long.  I assumed that that was still the case.   It seems odd for me for professional criticisms of RMS to be in the "Lifestyle" section, incidentally. Nandesuka 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, I think all the section headings in the "biography" section are in need of updating, but I can't think of handles that fit. Gronky 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This biography is far from the quality of a "Featured Article". I'm not sure it evens meets "Good Article".


 * Checklist moved to  To Do box at top of page - Lentower 20:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

By myself, getting this page to "Featured Article" quality would be about 40 hours of work over a few weeks. (Good writing and editing for me needs breaks for the sub-conscious to find solutions.) In the WP environment, where one usually has to spend more time building consensus, then in writing, it could be months to a year. And I have a life filled with higher priorities.

I'll make a few changes tonight that, IMHO, moves the article in the right direction.

best - Lentower 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this checklist. The answer to most or all of the "Has anyone..." questions is: No, that's what we're about to do.  Don't worry about how long it will take.  I'm confident that it can be done in vastly shorter time, and we can all maintain our higher priority activies. Gronky 10:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more: - Lentower 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * rms may have done a third ground breaking paper at the MIT AI Lab. Should be chased down.
 * categories should be created for the Takeda Award and the Yuri Rubinsky Memorial Award
 * perhaps templates for both of those as well as the MacArthur and Hopper Awards.


 * Possibly the Lisp machine manual? That was pretty important, but I can't think of anything else. --Gwern (contribs) 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember rms having more notable acheivements then anyone else on the timeline in LCS's 25th anniversary book, and I think there was a third paper there. I either have to find my copy or drop by the CSAIL reading room and check. - Lentower 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are enough candidates for categories on the Takeda or Rubinsky awards to make them worthwhile - and both awards are finished now, so they won't even grow into a useful size. I have made a category for recipients of the EFF Pioneer Award though. Gronky 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hidden Agenda???
Someone just posted that RMS has a hidden agenda. This claim is unsupported and if left on the page, needs to be supported with facts. I really don't think that there is a hidden agenda. RMS is pretty straight forward about what his intentions are. --lile 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted that a while ago. --Gwern (contribs) 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hacker" label removed
RMS is also a hacker if there ever was one! So that should be added back in the page. -lile 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Its in the first paragraph. I haven't check the page history to see when/if it disappeared/got reverted back.  - Lentower 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New Section Titles
The current layout of the page isn't great, and I think it's mostly a simple matter of more logical title positions and names. To think out loud, here are roughly the most notable things Richard has done, roughly in order:


 * 1) Birth, youth, early teens
 * 2) Discovered programming
 * 3) MIT Hacker lab
 * 4) emacs
 * 5) Symbolics
 * GNU
 * gcc
 * FSF
 * gdb
 * 1) copyleft
 * 2) GPLv1,2
 * 3) LfPF
 * 4) "GNU/Linux"
 * 5) "free" not "open source"
 * 6) DMCA
 * 7) "IP" terminology
 * 8) Software patents in Europe
 * 9) GPLv3 process, LGPL, FDL, SFDL processes
 * DRM

Now, how can that be split into something more readable than a timeline... Maybe:


 * 1) Biography (early years and lifestyle)
 * 2) First discovering a computer, until pre-MIT-AI-lab
 * 3) MIT AI lab, Emacs introduced, including symbolics
 * 4) GNU project (including copyleft)
 * 5) Software: GNU Emacs, GCC, GDB, etc.
 * 6) Awareness, "GNU/Linux", then "free software" (vs "O.S."), public speaking
 * 7) Political work: LfPF, DMCA, software patents in the EU, w3c patent policy, etc. "IP"
 * 8) Recent work: DRM, GPLv3 (and LGPL, FDL, SFDL)

Gronky 5:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The common thread in rms' life is to build communities that produce and support free software. that be a good theme to structure his bio around.
 * "symbolics" is better conceptualized as the formation and breakdown of the Lisp Machine Group inside the MIT AI Lab. A great hacker commumnity that built itself and then was destroyed by the desire of some, that succeeded, to make free software non-free.
 * Most of Lifestyle's content is best understood after you have read the rest of the bio stuff. Move it to the end of your list?
 * - Lentower 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WP is not a bibliography
I have read that Wikipedia is not a bibliography and concur with it as part of making WP an encyclopedia. Yet, in this article we have Richard_Stallman and Richard_Stallman sections with over a dozen listed in each section. And those lists are likely to keep on growing. Which adds to article size. And doesn't help the reader of the article to know which are most important to read.

Move them to two "List of" articles? And/Or link to lists of these off WP? (Assuming that the FSF and/or someone else has such lists?

Pick two or three of the most notable, and preface each in-article list with a phrase something like "Here are just a few of the most notable X"?

Or ... ??

- Lentower 20:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Speeches and interviews are now at Wikiquote. --69.54.29.23 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Extra links to WikiQuote for Speeches and Interviews
Casual readers of Wikipedia will not realize that the WikiQuote article also has speeches and interviews. These extra links clues them into this.- Lentower 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is an encyclopedia and not a link directory. I've moved the links to interviews and speeches to Wikiquote.  Perhaps, we could start making it a custom to have such links at Wikiquote, so people know to look there.  Regardless, the long list of links--though flattering--were unsightly and made the page quite larger. --71.161.217.80 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good solution. I made the S+I move clear in the "External Links" section. Let's hope that WQ is a link directory! Templates like Template:Gutenberg would be useful for both Speeches and Interviews, particularly if you want to make this a WP practice. ;-} - Lentower 02:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the link to Gutenberg is very useful, since it only contains a link to Right to Read.


 * It might have more in time. Is Right to Read linked to where it's mentioned?  - Lentower 22:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should duplicate the links to Wikiquote, one link is enough. I don't see it done elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's obvious enough that Stallman quotables are at Wikiquote. --71.161.219.24 04:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point of these links are that links to "Speeches" and "Interviews" are kept in the Wikiquote article, both so reader know to look there, and new editors know to put them there. If you can find a way to do that with fewer words, perhaps a specialized version of the WQ template? - Lentower 22:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The complete list of talks should be on Wikiquote, but since he only has 4, it would be practical and useful to link to one of each. Gronky 03:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My comments:
 * The current description of RMS's four usual topics to talk on in the Activism section is OK. If he adds too many usual topics, it be best to highlight just a few of the most notable ones.
 * It's OK to have a speech as " {{cite"s, where that supports a statement in the article. Even then, it's better to have a link to clear text, as many WP readers, don't have audio/video players, or won't take the time to download a audio/video file.
 * Otherwise, having a list of speeches in the article is neither practical nor useful:
 * It increases article size of this overlong article, with info of little usefulness to most readers.
 * It just encourages the list of speeches to grow without bound.
 * And any one who is that deeply interested in RMS, will find and follow the links to Wikiquote. There is no need to save readers the effort of clicking that additional link. Lentower 17:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Richard only has 4 speeches, after 23 years. A list with 4 entries is not impractical, and those four speeches some up most of his digital-era freedom philosophy.  There is probably nothing more informative that the article could link to. Gronky 17:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * RMS has given countless speeches on countless topics. He use to often speak on topics that he no longer speaks on. It's true that right now, he most often speaks on one of these four topics.  But you're right, that the list of topics he most often speaks on, is unlikely to get to large to enumerate in the article. Lentower 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary?
I know there are a lot of things that need to be done, but one glaring issue seems to have been overlooked. The introduction:

"Richard Matthew Stallman (abbreviated to RMS) (born 16 March 1953) is both an acclaimed activist and hacker."

is completely and totally pathetic. "Abbreviated to RMS"? By whom? Librarians and NRA members? "Activist"? Activist for what? Complete and utter destruction of the rainforest? "Hacker"? Okay, so is he wanted in seven and a half developed nations for breaking in to the World Bank's janitorial database?

I realize that this is a very controversial topic, so I won't make the changes (right now I don't have time, in any case), but what does everyone else think? — supreme_geek_overlord 05:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Overview section, right after the summary and Table of Contents, expands on both his activism and his hacking. It could move back into the introduction, but that moves the ToC several screens down the article. I just made a change to the "abbreviated to". - Lentower 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I truly doubt that the slight repositioning of the ToC is much of an issue. Remember, in many cases, that top section is the only part of the article that is read. Many readers are only interested in a tiny bit of background on him, so that they can have a context for something else they were interested in. I have never seen a page with an "overview" before, probably because that is the whole purpose of the summary section. I couldn't point out any specific place, but I'm sure this is well treated in the style manuals, etc.


 * In any case, an anonymous user aparantly already made these changes (it was not me), and they seem to be good. The only change I would suggest is something like "free software activist," rather than simply "activist." It gives quite a bit more context. Any reasons why this is a bad idea? — supreme_geek_overlord 04:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a bad idea, because rms is an activist in other fields beside free software (though the article doesn't go into that). And the article already makes   his ""free software activism" clear by what it lists, both in the summary and throughout.  It's also redundant - which is poor writing, and makes an overly long article even longer.  I suggest leaving it as is. - Lentower 08:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but what about "free culture activist"? Free software, copyleft, patents—they all fit in that category. Is there really any notable area in which he could be considered an activist? (I honestly don't know.) Even then, wouldn't "activist, especially in the area of free culture" be a huge improvement?


 * As for the redundancy, if you consider that redundant, then encyclopedias are redundant, just like any other writing where readers are likely to read only so far (newspapers come to mind). Someone is just as likely to only read the first sentence as to read the entire summary before moving on to something else. It is not bad writing, just not narrative writing. It is a topic sentence, something that summarizes the useful information, which will be expanded upon later.


 * I still think it should be changed, though you're probably correct about "free software" not being appropriate. — supreme_geek_overlord 06:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * rms is an activist in other fields beside free culture and free software (though the article doesn't yet go into that). - Lentower 09:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, despite the fact that you haven't presented any examples. Since you likely know him personally, I'll trust you. Also, although I still think a nod to his focus on free software/culture would be appropriate in order to give some more context, I won't press it, given your apparent diametric opposition.

Nonetheless, one of the things I'm still wondering about is the use of the term "acclaimed." It really gives no mention of who he is acclaimed by. Though I suppose the "Recognition" section gives a hint at this, this seems like a questionable violation of NPOV, especially since he is still disliked by many. Comments? — supreme_geek_overlord 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)