Talk:Eric S. Raymond/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Picture

Can someone please replace that god-awful picture of him with another free image? Preferably one that doesn't make him look like a goblin. --76.218.45.211 (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The image, just like the text, must reflect reality. --Damiens.rf 05:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So ... you think Eric looks like a goblin? Okay, you've just admitted that you have a non-neutral point-of-view. I expect that you will refrain from editing this page in the future. --RussNelson (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What kind of nuts are you? Never put words on my mouth like this. Specially potentially offensive words like those. I'm not that anon ip if that's what you're thinking. The ip mentioned the goblin analogy, not me. And stop asking me not to edit article about your friends. It's annoying. --Damiens.rf 14:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it over to another free-use image. We did use a crop from the same base photo once before, but the crop wasn't very good - I've recropped, and tried to clean it up a bit. - Bilby (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the use of this image over my image (the previous one). The only way to get to Brazil from Philly is on a red-eye, and, well, you can see from my photo why they're called that. --RussNelson (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

gpsd maintainer?

Does anyone have a source for ESR being the maintainer of gpsd? The best I could find is that he is maintaining the gpsd manpages[1]. I have asked the contributor[2], to no avail. Jayvdb 11:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I ignored you, because you're a moron. But since you're a persistent moron, I suppose I must deal with you. Click on the gpsd link. Click on the Berlios link. Click on the "change log" link. Observe gazillions of contributions by ESR. Not finding that link is "The best [you] could find"? Tell me you only pretended to try and I'll apologize for calling you a moron. Otherwise, the facts are the facts. RussNelson 13:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I was looking for a source that explicitly backed up the claim, but as you are a previous maintainer I am happy to accept your word on it. The search for an explicit source is due to a policy that Wikipedia does not accept original research. Perhaps you can point out an email from the lists that discusses a transfer of maintainership, or something similar? It would be great to know when ESR took on this role.

Please remember when contributing to wikipedia that is your duty to find sources to back up any additions you make, when required. That is why I first asked you directly. My best implies all the time that I could spend trying to sources for another persons contributions, at that time.Jayvdb 17:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia there's etiquette to assume good faith. It's useful for a host of reasons, but largely to avoid flame-fests. I have no reason to believe User:Jayvdb was not acting in good faith. Raymond does appear to be the greatest contributor gpsd, it's just not listed anywhere that he's officially the "maintainer" which was what your edit conjectured, nor is the author and maintainer information--or any really useful information--at the gpsd article, yet. There seem to be 4 maintainers, yourself included. --69.54.29.23 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good faith cut both ways. Entries do not need to be doumented to an idiot's standard. Try reading the mailing list achives. Try to succeed, not to fail. RussNelson 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Mr. Nelson, none of the four mailing lists are searchable to my knowledge. You must remember that material submitted here needs to be verifiable, and that goes even for individuals with first-person experience with a topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.219.200 (talk • contribs) .

Oh. My. God. You are truly pitiful. I don't understand why I am wasting my time with you, but try Clicking ON This Link: [3] If you don't know how to do that, you put your mouse cursor over the link and click on the left button. I know it's hard, but, really, try to spend a few minutes backing up your ignorance with facts. RussNelson 06:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Russ, tone it down a little bit, OK? Not everyone who disagress with you is and idiot, or truly pitful. You need to work out the stress, guy. Go ride your bike, or get laid, or if you can't get laid, go stroke off to a Laffer curve... something. The previous unsigned comment was added by GonzoPancho.

I just get frustrated when somebody puts more effort into defending their failure to find something than they put into the effort to find it. In this case, there's one link to a wikipedia article, which has one link to an external article, which has a link for the 'announcements' mailing list, which has a link to the archives, which has exactly one contribution announcing a new release. It's not like work to click on the only or the obvious link every time. If somebody is unwilling to work, they should be called out for it. RussNelson 18:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

RussNelson, the reason that I responded at length the second time was to ask for addition information and sources (e.g. adding the date that ESR became involved in the project, or links to online reviews of the software you may know of that mention ESR and the project in the same article) and also to point out a few Wikipedia policies you didnt appear to be aware of. As it currently stands, the addition you made to the article is a sentence fragment, and does not meet the encyclopedic standards required. You know a lot more about ESRs involvement in gpsd than I do, so I assume you can do a better job than I can. Jayvdb 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

RussNelson -- Please remember to stay civil in discussions. Attacking your fellow editors (i.e. calling them "idiots", "pitiful", etc.) is strictly against policy and can lead to being blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding in this. Happy editting. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

um. You guys are scaring me. I just edited that section because I had no clue what the project was and supposed the average reader would not either. The current project page (brand new) lists the guy as admin. Of a 3-person project, shrug. If someone here is knowledgeable about the project however, which does seem interesting, please take a moment please to make sure my description accurately summarizes it. The JSON was what struck me, but I am not a Linux guru, just a semi-literate user ;) I have some other issues with the writing but I will deal with those in their own section as I had never heard of the dude (I got here from a link in Conway's Law) and don't have time to find the answers to these ambiguities. Elinruby (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

About recent edits by User:Damiens.rf (or, Why we can't have nice things)

Since I don't like reverting (possibly) good faith edits, here's an explanation of the latest reverts:

This removed certain biographical trivia about Raymond, on the basis that A blog is not a reliable source. Actually, this was an interview with Raymond which was published on a blog. The reason we have these guidelines is because blogs have a habit of making shit up, and for that reason we should be very careful about citing them as sources of fact. In this case, there is no reason to think that the blogger in question made up this interview.
This added the "claims to be" to "an initiate witch and coven leader", on the basis that it is "self-published". Actually, our policy on the subject gives seven points which self-published material may be used. The reference in question satisfies them all, and there is no reason to think Raymond is lying about this, so we may as well drop the "claims to be".
This was added on the basis of "weasel words". The point of "avoid weasel words" is to avoid people stealthing their own point of view into an article by saying "critics say". But in this case, the fact that such critics existed is not contended by anyone, given that Raymond himself admits to their existence and took the time to respond to them.
This was {{fact}}-ised on the basis that a "[s]elf-published c.v. is not a reliable source". The same applies to the second point above; we may use material written by the subject of the article if it satisfies certain criteria.

tl;dr don't try and justify your edits on the basis of policy if you don't understand the purpose of the policy in question. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources period.
One can "lie" about thing just to pretend to be cool.... or sometimes just be wrong about itself because he/she believe to be someone cooler the he/she really is.
Book case of weasel words. It may be the case the nobody (or very few people) cared about what he did to hacker dictionary, but he wrote the "response" just to make his acts seem important (the point is: remove the weasel words so that we can trust what the article says)
There's no way we can just take as truth everything this self-promotion artist says about himself. If we did, we would have to mention him as the "author" of the hacker dictionary, as a "social relations hacker" and everything else he like to say about him.

--Damiens.rf 02:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sez u. And nice dodging of the question: Is it likely that the author of the interview made this all up?
Why are you assuming Raymond is a liar?
Why are you assuming Raymond is a liar?
Why are you assuming Raymond is a liar?

Thank you for making your anti-Raymond bias explicit, though. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not what I say, it's what the police (i.e., project-wide consensus) says. Don't be disingenuous. Rejecting a source is not the same as saying the author is lying. Make sure you understand WP:RS and WP:V. I'm challenging non-trivial information in the article, and independent sources must be provided. --Damiens.rf 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the exceptions which justify the sources in question have been explicitly pointed out to you, I'm not sure why you think hand-waving in the direction of the policy pages in question is an effective counterargument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where have the exceptions been explicitly pointed out to me? Good faith question. I've reviewed the above comments and missed any links to policy exceptions. --Damiens.rf 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodness me. Rejecting a source is exactly the same thing as saying the source is either a) lying b) likely to be in error (what do you think "unreliable" means?). You're either suggesting that Raymond is mistaken about where he has lived, his status as a witch, etc or he's lying. Pick one. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. Just like the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, the threshold for removal is lack of verifiability, not lie. --Damiens.rf 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can find no online confirmation of Eric's black belt, although there are many print stories which make reference to it; then again, I cannot find any online confirmation of my Taiji studies other than my own claims. Am I lying? Is Eric lying? Not likely, but if you think so, then you should ask him who granted him the degree. If he refuses to tell you, why, then, that is a citable fact. Until you have taken that step, removing a reference to the canonical source of many print articles is not helpful. RussNelson (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As said before, and as said in the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability, it's not about truths or lies, it's all about verifiability. --Damiens.rf 18:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. If you don't believe Eric, then ask him who granted him his belt. If you don't believe that they are a real Tae Kwon Do school, then ask the instructor where he got his belt from. If you don't believe his school is a real Tae Kwon Do school, then ask its instructor who he got his belt from. Clearly one could do this until the end of time. At some point you need to stop being suspicious and start trusting. I start with trusting Eric. How about you? RussNelson (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a strawman. The criteria for inclusion is not not what I trust or what you trust. It's that the information has been published by sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Damiens.rf 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I kinda feel like I've wandered into a minefield, but -- here is my take as I raise a question about this in my own section. I don't have a dog in this fight btw. But look, don't say that he "claims" to be Libertarian. If you can't verify it why go there at all? Is he a registered member of the Libertarian party? If not, quote him as saying he is or let the issue go. To the extent that this guy is notable it has nothing to do with his politics or his possible black belt, right? Has anyone ever seen him *doing* Tae Kwan Do? Going to a dojo? If not what does it matter? If someone wants to make the case that he's a boastful liar, then if that is true there are probably enough facts lying around in the software arena to make that case. Otherwise, dare I say it, abrasive as he may be and much as it sounds like he and I would fight, he is a living person who should be left the hell alone, OMG ;P Elinruby (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the reason for the uncommonly high number of "claims" appearing in the article is because a lot of the information about this guy comes from his own mouth. And since he's a master of self-promotion, Wikipedia should be gullible enough to propagate them. Take some time to read the unintendedly comical piece he authored called "Take My Job, Please!" to have an idea of how

delusionally narcissistic is the image he makes of himself, and understand why we can't seriously take his words without filtering out his ego. By the way, you're welcome in trying to fix the article. I liked the points you made in the other section. --damiens.rf 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha. And rush in where angels should fear to tread? I am used to articles that nobody cares about but me, like 18th century theater and virtual private networks. I probably would have fled if I had seen this little flame war before I made changes ;) But I did come back because I said I would watch the page and I forgot to click that and to get rid of that extraneous word I overlooked in my edit. Odds of me attempting anything would increase if anyone can answer any of the questions I asked, I will say that much ;) Elinruby (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability

It seems that some of the confusion here comes from the fact that some editors equate an unreliable source with a "liar" source. Anyone with the time to read WP:RS and WP:V would see the mistake in this conception.

As a good example, Jimmy Wales claims in his blog that his birth date is August 8, 1966, but the Wikipedia article on him (Jimmy Wales) uses the date August 7, 1966, because this is the one based on independent sources. Are all Wikipedians calling Jimbo a liar by not accepting his blog post as a reliable source? Do anyone seriously believe Jimbo has any reason to lying about his birth date (by one single day!)? Answers are no and no. Because it's not about lies. It's about verifiable independent sources. --Damiens.rf 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Great theory! Unfortunately, a countervailing theory says that when you find a mistake in a dataset, it's likely that duplications of that mistake are replications of the original mistake. For example, mapmakers will put in a street that doesn't exist, or mis-spell a street name, so that if their intentional corruption appears in someone else's map, the conclusion is that they copied the mistake. This is reliable enough data on which to base a copyright infringement suit. Thus, your example is not "good", it is "crap". Wales's incorrect birthday and its citations are not independent; they are derivatives of the Brittanica error.

But since you choose to believe that the many references to Wales's incorrect birthday are the Wikipedia way, would you accept many references to Eric's black belt, none of which are his CV? RussNelson (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would accept even just one (as opposed to many) reference to his black belt, as long as it's from a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Damiens.rf 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't smack me with policy; I'm fully aware of what Wikipedia policy says, and more importantly, why it says what it does. (But if we want to start with alphabet soup, let's go to WP:NPOV; you've been very open about the fact that this article should read a certain way because "[t]here's no way we can just take as truth everything this self-promotion artist says about himself"). On Jimbo's birthdate: the fact the article uses an incorrect date because it comes from "reliable sources" (as if the subject of an article is less of a "WP:RS" for his own birthdate than Britannica is) is stupidity on an unfathomable and monstrous scale. This is not an example of how it should be done. It is an excellent example of half of what is wrong with Wikipedia (the other half being people who don't care about the rules at all).

With all that said, I think I'll duck out of this issue as of now. I've learned one thing about Wikipedia: the most determined people always win. I simply do not care enough to carry on this discussion, or to edit-war with you over this. Try not to give so much of a damn, mmkay. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it fortunate that you decline to defend your interpretations of the policy at this point. This is the right thing to do when you consider site-wide consensus "stupidity on an unfathomable and monstrous scale". --Damiens.rf 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You want the last word real badly, eh. The rules are good and there for a reason. But to me, the example you gave is a perfect example of why blind adherence to the rules is not a good thing. You see it as an example to be upheld. That leaves nothing to discuss. That rules out the possibility of any discussion on the matter, because (at least on this count) we think very differently. And you're a lot more determined than I am. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And please stop your personal attacks. Regardless of what I think about Mr. Raymond, I drive for a Good Article. I've removed "bad information" about him from this article just as well as "good information", always based solely on our policies. --Damiens.rf 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and you didn't even spell that as "WP:NPA". You have openly stated that our policy on self-published material should be read in light of your opinion that there is "no way we can just take as truth everything this self-promotion artist says about himself". It is not a personal attack to point this out. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we're deliberately using the wrong date on Jimbo's article because someone wants to make a point about verifiable sources, and you're using this as a positive example of our sourcing policies? I think you need to reconsider the purpose of policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Credited for Battle for Wesnoth

I saw in the credits after the end of a scenario, he was credited very many times in many subprojects of Wesnoth. Logictheo (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

this is one of the questions I wanted to ask here. Apparently this is a really big deal? But it's a game, right? Should it really be one of the first things said about a guy who seems to be well known in the Linux community (which may be more significant given that it's an operating system) and uh, I am gathering contributed to it as a critic as well as a contributor? Anyway, I moved that sentence, and the one about gpsd, further down the page. Please feel free to move it back if you disagree. Elinruby (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Eric Raymond

There is no wiki page for the aeronautical pioneer, Eric Raymond, who designed the sunseeker solar airplane. Not sure how one creates a new page for someone with the same name as one that already exists. He is mentioned in pages on solar vehicles, but if I put square brackets around his name, it will just point to this computer guy's page. 24.16.88.14 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the Eric Raymond page, it's the Eric S. Raymond page. Create a page for the aviator with his middle initial. If his is also S, then create Eric S. Raymond (aviator), and link to it from the top of this page like the other disambig link. As a separate issue, perhaps there needs to be a separate disambiguation page, but with only three Eric Raymonds so far, it's probably fine to have the disambig links here. --RussNelson (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody made a disambiguation page; I ran into it on the way here. Not sure if the aviator was on it. HTH Elinruby (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

dead link and why the move to Pennsylvania

I am noting the dead link but don't think the statement is controversial enough to warrant removal. If he was born in 1957 then he was still a teenager. I seem to recall seeing that his father was posted to Venezuala, probably in an ESR interview. Odds are he was transferred back to the States. As for the link -- the wayback machine works for page 1 but not 2 or 3, and those must be where the statement is made because it ain't on page 1 ;) Probably fixable, but not by me, at least not right this second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.44.10 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

unsubstantiated statements about interests

moving the paragraph here in case someone wants to chase down references that are neither esr's home page nor an interview with him. Leaving the meat of the provided references in place but editing out (I hope) enough syntax to keep the page from complaining.

In addition to his computing interests, and sometimes complementing them, Raymond claims to have a strong interest in science fiction and its fandom, web|url=http://catb.org/~esr/writings/sfshows/ |last=Raymond|first=Eric S.|title=Conventions at Light Speed: What Hackers Can Learn From SF Fandom |month=July|year=2001 |publisher=Eric S. Raymond's Home Page

Raymond ceased blogging in June 2006, but resumed in June 2008, making reference to "a certain lawsuit now in court" as the cause for the hiatus web | first = Eric S. | last = Raymond |url = http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=295 | title = I’m unstealthing | work = Armed and Dangerous |date=June 26, 2008 |publisher=Eric S. Raymond's Home Page | accessdate = 2008-09-17 Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

unclear why we'd linked to lifeboat page

It's not the most defining thing about Keith Henson. Makes him look like a whacko imho.

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.h.keith.henson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Gruen article quotes Raymond in passing only

leaving for now, as the quote really should have attribution, and I need to go on to other things for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I addressed this -- ref now follows a sentence about the context where the law is cited

personal blog cited as proof of threats and death threats

this one is a threat or perhaps a warning depending on which poster you believe. url= http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1096#comment-237475 | title = Forum comment on Dispatches from the Iranian cyberfront |date=June 24, 2009 |first = Kaveh|last=Dadyar | work = Armed and Dangerous |publisher=Eric S. Raymond's Home Page}}{{verify credibility|date=August 2011

No Halloween documents Reference

I was just reading the Halloween documents article and noticed that it links here. However, I don't see anything about the documents in this article. Is this the same Raymond that received the leak? If so, shouldn't they be mentioned here? Dall ben 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Also, "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way" redirects here. Shouldn't it also be mentioned in this article? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As part of my page rewrite I've added How to Ask Questions to the bibliography, for a start. I am not entirely sure how else to reference it since the document apparently circulated quite a bit at one time -- and I myself seem to recall seeing and being annoyed by it circa 1999 -- but now lives on the author's home page. Nor am I convinced that he should be speaking for hackers, at least in 2011. Suggestions welcome. I'll also take a look at the Halloween documents links/page or whatever there is right now. These too live on Raymond's personal website though, and it may take time to find some independent verification of their authenticity. Or perhaps I think that because I have not looked closely enough. I have an open mind on the subject and will do my best to refer to them appropriately. 75.149.44.10 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Explanation for deleted material

I've removed all of the following from the "Criticism" section:

Critics accuse Raymond of hijacking the free software movement for the sake of self promotion and profit. In that context it is argued that he has often worked to undermine other leaders/speakers of the movement. His forthright rejection of the moral and ethical arguments of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation in favor of a less idealistic (though arguably more pragmatic) market-friendly stance has exacerbated some pre-existing political tensions in the community.

Who did and where? (Stallman and friends have often accused Raymond, and the open source movement as a whole, of hijacking the free software movement, but when have they ever thrown doubt on his motives?

I've edited this and re-added this paragraph. —mako (talk•contribs) 00:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He has also been accused of directly selling out. He agreed to lecture at Microsoft in return for the opportunity to meet a couple of his favorite science fiction authors. [4] In addition, he accepted millions of dollars in stock options in return for giving VA Research/VA Linux Systems credibility as their hired "moral compass". [5] [6]

This is stealth POV, because none of the sources cited actually have any criticism of ESR for his actions. They are just documentation that such actions occurred, which is not the same thing. (Well, there may be some criticism in the comments for this source, but a) that doesn't really count b) screwed if I have to (or anyone has to) read through them all in order to verify the article.)

Raymond's claim to being a "Core Linux Developer" has drawn criticism since he has never had code accepted into Linux (the kernel), and his largest open source code contributions amount to portions of fetchmail, Ncurses, and Emacs (as well as a long list of small projects listed on his homepage). This lack of credentials led to a less-than-inspiring reception [7] to his essay "Shut Up And Show Them The Code" which he levelled at Richard Stallman, the original author of Emacs, GCC, GDB, GNU Make, among other things.

As above: comments on Linux Today does not count. Find such criticism from someone who is qualified to give it.

Raymond addresses some of these assertions in his essay "Take My Job, Please!" [8], where he argues that if anyone is qualified and willing to take his job and present the case for open source to the world, he would "back them to the hilt".

Given that basically all the criticism in the section was either unsourced or irrelevant, this is no longer needed. Lewis Collard 18:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for going through this!

I'm going to have disagree with removing the vast majority of what I think was a decently written and even reasonably well cited first draft of a criticism seems a little knee-jerk. It needed work, but for the most part that work doesn't seem too hard to do.

For example, if you think that the problem in the first paragraph is the references to the motives of Raymond, remove the references to the motives and not the whole (it's only half a sentence). If you are unhappy with the references, put {{Fact}} tags where you think they are warranted.

I'm going to go through the removed text and try to edit for POV and re-add much of it. I'm going to restore criticism that I am independently familiar with and add cite tags. —mako (talk•contribs) 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

{{fact}} tags are badly overrated. While we're at it, I've struck this out:

Raymond's public claim to be a "Core Linux Developer" has been disputed since he has never had code accepted into the Linux kernel. His only known contribution to the kernel (the CML2 configuration system) was rejected by kernel developers.^[1]

Run this Google search (which excludes WP mirrors). What do we have?

This, or sites discussing (or mirroring) it. An anonymouse somebody with a web page on a free host does not constitute notable criticism.
This, discussing an earlier version of this talk page. Nuh-uh.
The usual comments on news websites (if I post "esr iz a fag lol" at Slashdot, does this mean we can start a subsection titled "Allegations of homosexuality")?

Etc, etc. You can disagree with Eric's claim as much as you like, but the criteria here is verifiability. Lewis Collard 02:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your dismissal of the first anonymous criticism. That page was passed around heavily in the free and open source software community and has been mirrored and repeated by notable people. For example, this mirror by Baishampayan Ghose who is a well known member of the Ubuntu community. The fact that people have mirrored it at all is an important indication of this. In fact, the top hits on Google for "core linux developer" point to criticism of Raymond!

Anonymous and freely-hosted material may still be noteable (and, IMHO, is here). I was independently familiar with this material and criticism and am quite sure it qualifies.

FWIW, I don't particularly care about Eric's claims in this regard (I think they stem in part of different use of the term "linux") but it's criticism that I've heard in the community. —mako (talk•contribs) 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'll refrain from removing it again. What I have done is changed "disputed in the community" to "disputed by one anonymous source". This is because it's not at all clear that our anonymous source is, indeed, part of the open source/free software community. Lewis Collard 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone seems to have deleted the material again, as it was not on the page when I began my rewrite. I have in fact seen many criticisms of Raymond while researching the rewrite, but given the nature of open source much of it is on sites that Wikipedia does not consider authoritative, ie blogs and comments on blogs. Apparently there is sentiment that Slashdot and Linux Today don't count either. My own thought is that Raymond's many disputes may in fact be pertinent, but this is not proven, and the people who think they are need to add and document the material. I myself don't plan to venture into these waters. For instance, I do not know whether it's possible to prove or debunk a claim to having been a "core" Linux developer. His HOWTO contributions do seem rather peripheral, and in some cases obsolete, but that's all I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.44.10 (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Vague, very vague, description

I guess the page has been edited and re-edited and that is why it reads so badly that I felt the need to critique it even tho I have stuff to do. Yes, I know I could fix it and maybe I will if nobody else does, but it's not happening tonight. Here is what I, as a reader who has never heard of the dude, asked myself when I read the main part of the bio. Perhaps someone who is familiar with him can easily answer these questions and will use this as a fresh-eyes guide to what does need fixing. In any event, that is the spirit in which the following remarks are made, so if you have worked hard on this page please don't take my criticisms personally :) PS: I removed the footnotes in this example text on the talk page only -- they were making the page complain that it couldn't find a reflist.

Born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1957, Raymond lived in Venezuela (why? army brat, diplomatic family, parents fell in love with the place?) before settling in Pennsylvania in 1971.(why?) Raymond says his congenital cerebral palsy motivated him to chase a future in computing;(chase a future? Ick. Also, the logic that links computers to cerebral palsy is not clear. And isn't the condition usually congenital?) He also (ick, I will take care of this "also" -- it's a leftover from my edit) wrote CML2, a source code configuration system; (configuration? are we talking auto-indentation or automatic imports of classes or what exactly? Once you answer that you should probably break the sentence there, as it's already pretty long.) while originally (originally?) intended for the Linux kernel, it was rejected by kernel developers. Raymond attributed this rejection to "kernel list politics".(OK so did it ever get used or implemented anywhere? and did the kernel developers have a version of these events?)

Raymond is the author of (many? multiple? several?) HOWTOs (should this really be capitalized?) and FAQs included in the Linux Documentation Project corpus. (corpus? Unless this is a term of art I would lose the word; the sentence is fine w/o it) Raymond is the author of (here I removed "books like" for readability) The Cathedral and the Bazaar and The Art of Unix Programming, which discuss Unix and Linux history and culture, and user tools for programming and other tasks. (one of my edits here, originally said user tools for programming and accomplishing tasks, which seemed both awkward and redundant. Are they...sysadmin tasks? cron jobs? what? May as well spell it out if you are going to go there at all -- anyone who gets this far is probably interested.) Raymond has also been (consider change to "he is") the editor of the Jargon File (except didn't I notice that it's no longer maintained? Or was that only one version of it?) since he adopted it in 1990, and the author (I think I got rid of a "Raymond has also" here, check for accuracy) of the included guide document (is this like um documentation or something different? what's an included guide document? code samples? tutorials? Installation instructions?) for NetHack (what's NetHack?) for several versions. (if it matters that it's been for multiple versions, it probably matters how many and the sentence would be clearer and read better) He is currently the primary maintainer of gpsd, a daemon that makes GPS data from a receiver available in JSON format. (my summary of the project starting at the comma, feel free to correct if needed...) He contributes code and content to The Battle for Wesnoth.(which is what? a MUDD? and why does this matter?)

In addition to his computing interests, and sometimes complementing them, (unless there is a really good reason for the preceding words get rid of them) Raymond claims (claims? does someone doubt this?) to have a strong interest in science fiction and its fandom, claims (?) to be an active Libertarian, (if this matters please supply some evidence as well as justify "claims" which seems to imply he is not) and has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do;(this part we are sure about apparently? I notice most of the footnotes go to interviews, does this meet wikipedia criteria? I am asking, not saying that they don't...) he also claims to be a neopagan,(I am not sure what this means exactly or why it matters. Apparently he is pretty outspoken so there should be no problem finding a quote?) a political anarchist, aren't all anarchists political? And we are still saying claims, see previous comments. Any reason to think he is not?) and he advocates the general right (general right? but not specific? what does that mean? A quote might be best here too.) to possess and use firearms. (for....anything? hunting? defending property?) Raymond ceased blogging (about....what? software?) in June 2006, but resumed in June 2008, making reference to "a certain lawsuit now in court" as the cause for the hiatus.(from June 2006 to June 2008? And what's up with the lawsuit, anyone know?)

In June 2009 Raymond participated (how) in the establishment of the hacktivist website NedaNet, founded in honor of Neda Soltan (by whom) "to support the democratic revolution in Iran" (where is this quote from?) via proxy servers, anonymizers, etc. He serves most prominently (most prominently? what else does he do? the sentence may be stronger without these words) as the website's public contact, and has in this capacity received on-line threats,[21] including one death threat which he claims (we aren't sure? we doubt his word?) he has reported to the FBI which the agency "is taking seriously". (according to him or to the FBI? Also, this sentence is really long.) He has since ceased to participate in this movement (but previous sentence is in present tense and needs fixing if this is true), claiming (?) that he (had?) started to doubt if (whether?) his contacts really were connected to activists on the ground. (who did he think they were? Iranian secret police? American agents? Some third party? Con men?)

HTH. I'll watch the page and see if I can get back to it. Elinruby (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand the anger as I've now noticed the mess on the hacker pages, which Raymond seems to have had a hand in. And yes, I now understand the many instances of "claims." He also claimed to be a hacker hero, apparently. I still think, though, that Wikipedia is not the place to debunk statements that are irrelevant on their own, so...I propose to remove the statements that he claims to be a black belt and claims to like science fiction and so on. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone wants to tell me I am wrong. By the way, I put a coi flag on the cml page because of the references to cml2.Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be ok with such removals. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate his self advertisement. Beware that the most active editor on this page is one of the subject's personal buddy. --damiens.rf 13:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's been puffing the article on his other buddy, Danese Cooper too. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, fine. Let him accuse me of bias and see where that gets him. There also seem to be some critics with an agenda here, possibly justified, but an agenda nonetheless. Again, I don't have a dog in this fight. I am going to do a major edit and have tagged the page in consequence. I'll err on the side of caution -- I don't care enough about this to chase down the history of old arguments -- but will try to at least address the over-reliance on self-published work. I may also seek guidance on how to handle a subject who is notable at least in some part for being notorious. The work tag should be on the page no more than a couple of hours. Elinruby (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person, Damiens.rf? And since when are you Eric's personal buddy? --RussNelson (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Want to remind people that the talk page should be used to discuss how to improve the article. The last 4 edits on this talk page has been more about the editors here, than about the article. If there is things to say about a specific editor, please use the talk pages of that person or use WP:COIN. Belorn (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

big re-write finished

I have tried to be neutral. I may tweak this or that in the next day or so, but I am essentially sorry I ever heard of the man and completely sick of this topic. Therefore I am walking away for the foreseeable future. I don't think the article is perfect as it sits, but I think it is better than it was. It tries to be, anyway ;) Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel that way? --damiens.rf 12:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

just a lot of time spent on a topic that, honestly, I don't care that much about. But I think the page did need a going over from somebody that honestly does not give a shit either way. Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it surely needed and your work is welcome. --damiens.rf 12:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

removing COI tag

As I recall I am the one who put it there, so afaik I don't have to seek consensus to take it off. I personally am fairly happy with the article as it is. It's not perfect and still over-glorifies a bit in my opinion, but it's a lot better than it was. But of course I would think that of my own re-write, so dissenting opinions are invited. However, there does not seem to be an edit war going on. That said, there do seem to be editors with an agenda who are watching the page, for reasons that are not that clear to me. RussNelson has an affiliation with Raymond through the open software initiative, but I do not know whether that would bias him in favor or against the man. Some of the other editors seem strongly anti-Raymond, but it's not clear to me whether this is related to global warming or to open software or to something else. Even those who think he is a liar need to give the man his due for real contributions in my opinion. Elinruby (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

RussNelson is his bro. He will sanitize any article related to anyone on the open ~~software~~source initiative.--damiens.rf 12:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"sanitize": "Alter (something regarded as less acceptable) so as to make it more palatable". And by way of disproof, Alolita Sharma --RussNelson (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

tag on reference to Linus' Law

Actually, I agree that the reference is an example of the law being cited and does not, if you want to be picky, back up that it is *often* cited. However, the law is very much "in reference provided." Elinruby (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

pov tag on purist

I am not sure I agree that this is non-neutral, though I suppose it could be seen that way. I chose the word because I needed to describe someone who thinks that changes should not have been made. I understand the issue that is raised but can't think of a better word at the moment. Alternate edits invited. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should use no adjective at all, and just describe what he did. --damiens.rf 12:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a wording that you like and that doesn't enrage someone else, I personally have no objection. Just can't seem to generate an alternate myself. Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism and Libertarian

There is too little mention of Raymonds philisophical and political conventions. Specifically that he is an anarchist, and libertarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.163.84 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason at all to think that his political views are at all notable? In my opinion the whole section on his politics should be deleted. Right now his own blog is being cited as support, which I think violates the guidelines on using primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.196.128 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Nedanet?

The information on Nedanet and Raymond's involvement in it is false and doesn't belong on Wikipedia, IMO. It's a made-up self-promotional material. First of all he didn't "help found" anything. He only joined the team as a spokesperson [as he claims], but most importantly, this vague project never really existed outside of a static website (which is a dead link for some time now). You can't find anything about this project from any credible third party sources.Omid.espero (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the hoax existed[9]. Shouldn't the article mention that? This is part of what ESR really is. --damiens.rf 17:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should talk about it but a better source is needed to back the claim. The source you cite here is just an incidental mention. Do you have a better explanation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to do some research. I remember the hoax and the hype at the time, with some sites (Wikipedia included) just reverberating Eric's self-promotion. --damiens.rf 05:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The hype was documented at a failed AFD for Nedanet I started at the time. --damiens.rf 13:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Damiens.rf The problem here is just the sourcing. It only takes one good source to back a statement. The content just added and removed was mostly from self-published sources. Add something again, except this time omit those sources and have a citation for whatever you add. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

^ "Linux: CML2, ESR & The LKML".

[1] "Linux: CML2, ESR & The LKML".

[1]