Talk:GNU/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Design and implementation

The section appears to be a WP:COPYVIO from Open source software law, Volume 1 By Rod Dixon. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Appears? Good editing is based on FACTS, not appearances. I looked and the actual copyright notices for each article are not visible on books.google.com. WP:AGF suggests that the editor who added this, knew the copyright status, and that use of material from that article meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Quite possible, as Richard Stallman has words in that book, and his works are always usable under WP guidelines. I suggest you explicitly find and ask the editor who added it, and/or find a printed or another on-line copy of the book or article and check. The other issue, which I didn't check is whether the work is quoted into WP, or just used as a source. Both are OK, but just have to be made clear. If you can't do this work, I suggest you revert your edit, and add the appropriate warning templates, so another editor can. Thanks. Lentower (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Lentower. We're discussing this issue in order to get to the bottom of it. I was alarmed by identical content of the section in question and the book by Rod Dixon, please click on links provided in my message timestamped 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC). I've stumbled on Dixon's book while looking for refs to improve this article. The section in question in this article is a long standing and appears as a collaborative effort by many Wikipedia editors. So far I went as deep in history as year 2006. There might be another explanation for identical content, i.e. the book by Rod Dixon is citing this Wikipedia article. Please review the links and share your thoughts. Feel free to revert in case you feel that strict Wikipedia licensing requirements are satisfied. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Most welcome. Was Dickson's book written after the editing on this section started? OK to copy WP text, though it should be cited in his book. Lentower (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Len, the paragraphs were exact copies added by an anonymous IP with no track record, and so it looks just like any of the other thousands of copyvios we are deluged with every day. If nobody takes quick action on these, WP gets in the news again, but not in a good way. :-) So the process these days is to revert the publicly-visible change first, discuss, then fix for real. Stan (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the problem. When this is the case, it's useful for the deleting editor to note he's reverting edits from an IP address with no track record in the edit summary. I spent my time here dealing with the slow and poorly designed Google Books web interface, and was surprised, they hadn't scanned in all the copyright notices. They might be in violation of the GPL/GFDL or another license here. If someone finds out, it should be brought to Google's attention as well as the license holder, and published widely if Google doesn't resolved it. Lentower (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

I had to wait until I got home to type this up, but I'm not understanding why the primary sources tag is being removed. The issue the tag highlights has been tagged since 2010, true. However, that issue doesn't go away just because the article has been sub-par for a given amount of time, the issue is still there, and editors and readers alike need to be informed that this article has this issue. Yes, it says "Please add citations from reliable and independent sources." however Wikipedia readers are Wikipedia editors, and if a reader is aware of this problem and has sources that they can provide, then that serves the dual purpose of introducing a reader to editing Wikipedia and potentially becoming a useful contributor, and also improves the article, and that's a win-win. But the article is still in the state that warrants the template, I'm not aware of any policy, guideline, or even so much as a local consensus that says that a template can only be on a page so long before it is for some reason made invalid. - SudoGhost 00:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SudoGhost. Tags are also a warning to WP's readers, that the article is not meeting encyclopedic standards. For this article, there are lot's of secondary sources that could be sifted through and used. Lentower (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets look through the primary sources which are used. Its not like its hard to find secondary sources on most of this stuff, but is it necessary? There are clear exceptions when a secondary source is not needed. Please answer the questions below. In summery (written after looking through each source and it use), it look like the PRIMARY tag is missing the actually issue of the article, which the tag "more sources needed" would be more precise. The sources directly attributed to the GNU Project or Richard Stallman are almost all straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and most would be unlikely challenged (thus allowed per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY). Its the text between those claims, the ones with interpretations made in the wiki-voice that should require secondary sources. At any rate, here are the disputed sources and questions about them.

1. (Ref1) Is the pronunciation. Is this claim challenged or likely to be challenged? If so, is it not an "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.(WP:PRIMARY)"? we could always add a source like this one, but is it necessary?
2. (Ref2) A claim that the gnu project is an: Unix-like computer operating system, under development by the GNU Project, with the expressed goal of being an "complete Unix-compatible software system". What claim in that list is challenged or likely to be challenged? If there is such claim, is that part not an straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge? Please specify. Dictionary and computer word description list could easy to use source, including the above kwsnet link, but it looks to be unnecessary.
3. (Ref6) That claim that: GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix!", chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, and differs from Unix by being free software and not being a derived (in a copyright sense) work from the Unix code. Which part is challenged or likely to be challenged, and would not fall under the straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge? Again please specify so a secondary source for any such part can be identified and added. In my eyes, only the last part is even slightly near to be required a secondary source.
4. (Ref7) is an in-line attributed claim as by WP:PRIMARY. Citing a living person, secondary sources is commonly not needed or wanted. Interpretation of what he said would require secondary sources however.
5. (Ref8) Unclear if a secondary source is needed. Should the statement that someone made a press release (but with no added interpretation) be needing a source. Would suggest checking with WP:RSN if this source is disputed as bad.
6. (Ref9) A claim about the intent of Richard Stallman on why he picked the name GNU. Might be better to be inline-referensed. Would that solve the issue?
7. (Ref10) As above, this is a claim about the intent of Richard Stallman on why he designed it unix-like (an portable system for the unix environment). Inlined-referenses might be an improvement, if somewhat cumbersome and verbose.
8. (Ref11-12) A direct claim about what the GNU Project recommends. Is it an claim that is challenged or likely to be challenged?
9. (ref13) Exactly as above.
10. (Ref14) as this is written in the wikipedia voice on the matter on who can enforce the GPL license, it should have a better source. This source should be fixed (will look for one in the near days).
11. (Ref18-19) Attribution claim on who made the logo. Do not look like an claim that would be challenged or likely to be challenged.

Belorn (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not a lack of sources, the content is sourced. The issue is a lack of third-party sources, hence the tag. Articles can use primary sources but should not be based on them, and this article is, hence the issue of primary sources. Primary sources can be used (with care) in articles, but the article shouldn't be based on such sources. - SudoGhost 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"The issue the tag highlights has been tagged since 2010, true. However, that issue doesn't go away just because the article has been sub-par for a given amount of time"

…and clearly it also doesn’t go away with a giant template atop the article, either. What then is the point of the template? Oh right it hasn’t one. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read the discussion, your question was already answered by myself and Lentower. The purpose is to both inform the reader of the issue with the article, and to encourage secondary-sources to be placed in the article. - SudoGhost 06:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have any (non-rhetorical) questions. Please re-read the discussion and you'll notice. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Randomly sprinkling sources for claims that are not likely to be challenged will not solve anything. Please specify *where* third-party sources is needed. There are no policy that says that x% of sources can not be sources affiliated with the subject. Like I said above, finding third-party sources is not hard for most current used primary sources, but most of the cases, a third-party source is neither needed nor required.

A tag without specificness is useless. Belorn (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources are preferred to primary sources. Tertiary WP:RS/WP:V sources are preferred to secondary sources.

The words above supporting the use of primary sources in this article are clearly against the policies and guidelines. They are the kind of argument, we often hear from those who do not put the readers and Wikipedia first, before their other goals (I do not know if the this is true of the editors here, making the arguments, but they clearly have not understood the policies and guidelines.)

If you want to remove the primary sources tag, do the work to upgrade the sources. Lentower (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I could sprinkle 10-20 sources to general non-challanged claims in the article, but that would not improve it. Please read the whole WP:OR. To claim that Secondary sources are always preferred over primary sources is not supported by the Wikipedia policy Verifiable or No original research. To cite the OR policy:

Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. Wikipedia:PRIMARY

Common sense do matter. To fix a problem, you need to identify where the problem is. You do need to specify which sources could be improved by citing a secondary source. specificness IS requested. Why is specificness so hard to get here? Belorn (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

update. Added a ton of secondary sources, while doing my best to avoid adding them to non-challanged claims. The majority of sources are now no longer primary sources. Everyone happy? If not, then specify what part, that is the exact part, you are unhappy with. Belorn (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I added {{tl:Primary sources|date=July 2010}} back. The new citations do not meet WP:RS. There is no reason this tag needs to be hastily removed. Encyclopedic editing and citing is, almost never, a few web searches away. Takes time, care, and effort.

The policies/guidelines you cited do not address the points I raised above. You need to read more of the policies/guidelines. If no one else beats me to it, I'll dig them out for you when I have more time. Lentower (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what issues you have, because you have not said them. The only raised issue by you above in this talk is that "The article is not meeting encyclopedic standards." Beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, do you have any specific issues which then I could try to resolve? Belorn (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you really have not been specific, Lentower. I'm afraid merely claiming some assertion is covered by an unspecified policy or guideline is not enough. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding three sources does not resolve the issue. The article is based primarily on primary sources. Add three sources, and the article is still based primarily on primary sources. It doesn't matter if these sources are RS if the article is still based on primary sources. - SudoGhost 22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

While Lentower still needs to respond himself to justify his own actions, I'll go ahead and ask you, SudoGhost: what then would you like done? Have all copy that is not attributable to a non-primary source removed? Where exactly is the line, in your opinion, where the article becomes based on non-primary sources? ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

When even glancing at the article shows over half the references are GNU/FSF, there's no way the article is not currently based on primary sources. There is no bright line for when an article is no longer based on such sources, but this article isn't anywhere near that line. - SudoGhost 22:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, if there is no line, then what you're asking for cannot ever be satisfied, and by extension it doesn't matter if we have a template asking for that satisfaction. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you don't know what "bright line" means. If you believe there is no point in having the template, you're welcome to discuss it here. Until you can get a consensus that the template has no place on Wikipedia, however, it's still relevant. - SudoGhost 22:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus means general agreement. At present we have roughly equal amounts of people on both sides of this, which is not a consensus. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. You boldly reverted the content, and it was reverted. There is no consensus that the article is improved. Until a consensus determines this, the WP:STATUSQUO remains in effect, and the template, which has been there since 2010, remains in place. - SudoGhost 00:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I see, so in your mind the status quo starts after the template was added, and somehow before the template was added there was no status quo? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, "in my mind" the status quo is there because there was a previous consensus on this. consensus can change, but until it does the previous consensus is the status quo, especially since the template had been there since 2010. - SudoGhost 00:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well your mind needs another look then, because that is a discussion between a mere two users, with opposing views (from which a consensus cannot be achieved). ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very odd that you think there was no status quo for a template that has been there since 2010. I understand that you don't like it, but there was a previous status quo before you decided to edit war to remove any mention of the template (and without any policy or guideline based reason). As such, per your own reasoning about consensus, there needs to be a consensus to change it. - SudoGhost 00:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There's always a status quo, including before templates are added to articles without consensus. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to do a recount. The total number of gnu/fsf/stallman sources is 10 of an total 30 sources (not counting reuse of sources for multiple statements, in which the total number of sources goes to somewhere around 35 and gnu/fsf/stallman sources goes to 11). My first post after the added sources specifically said "The majority of sources are now no longer primary sources". Belorn (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm counting twelve different sources, but having a third of the article based only on what the primary source says makes it very difficult for the article to appropriate adhere to WP:NPOV. If you leave the lede out of it (leaving the actual body of the article) 9 out of the 12 references are primary sources. The lede is supposed to reflect the body of the article, and if the body of the article is only from the point of view of the primary source, that's an issue. - SudoGhost 22:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If we disregard the lead, about 40% of the article (the History section) is cited by the total number of 3 sources. The current template of need sources is spot on there. In regards to the next section called Copyright, licenses, and stewardship (30%), Only the first paragraph and last sentence has a source. Section GNU software (10%) only has the two last sentences sourced, but there are a few citation needed already in the section. GNU variants section (10%) is without any source. The last section, GNU logo (5%), has only one sourced statement and that is on who the author is. Given the trivia importance of the logo section, secondary sources is unlikely to exist.

Some of those sections could be improved by taking sources from lead to appropriate places in the body, but most would require a bit more research. The history section could probably be helped by looking at books about open source and free software, as those are likely to include statements and facts about the history of GNU. The wikipedia article on History of free and open-source software might also have a few insights and sources. We might also want to add a Main article or See also tag, or move this section there. Since its late, I will not do all this work now, but it would be helpful if other people here would chip in (like say the very active posters here in this discussion). No pressure through :).Belorn (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

New sources does not follow RS?

The new sources was rejected as not following WP:RS, including this university publication and this world published book. What, exactly, is the issue? Do I really need to bring this to RSN to have a third-party state that yes, world published books and university publications are indeed reliable sources. It follows as so obvious that I dont know what else to say. Belorn (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me save you some time on that. You may still take this to RS/N, but as an editor that volunteers there as well I can tell you that the Indiana University source "What is the GNU project?" is not RS. It has no author information and the article itself is not clear if it is the originating source. Generally, university web links will be from the author itself. This does not appear to be the case here. The second link is sketchy in that there can be only one source and the link itself does not appear to be the source itself but the book entitled "Learning Debian GNU/Linux" By Bill McCarty. It is best not to use a web link as the source but merely the conveniance link, but should still be formatted as a book reference using the ISBN number etc..--Amadscientist (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The book link should be reformatted to a correct book citation. The weblink to the book was just the quickest/easiest way to digest the content. As for the Indiana University source, I did not know a source had to have a distinct author to qualify as RS. An clearly identified author helps when determining the quality of the source, but nowhere in the IRS guideline or the V policy do I find a requirement for it. The Indiana University source looks to me to be a internal controlled wiki, originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff (which is explicit allowed under the WP:SPS policy). In that context, and to my understanding, what matters is if the Indiana University has editorial control. Since the evidence looks to support that Indiana University do indeed have editorial control over the page "What is the GNU project?", it looks to me as qualified reliable source. Could you provide example from the policy on an requirement for identified authorship, or a reason why in this case WP:SPS explicit exception in regards to closed wiki pages do not qualify in this case? Belorn (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about with the closed wiki reference and "looks to me to be" is not enough to demonstrate it as a qualified RS. Specifically WP:SPS is speaking about limitations...not allowance. What it says is:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[6] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

This is speaking about a limit when using an author's self published work. Not a university that is hosting a web page with no authorship. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources makes it very clear that there are three criteria for RS with just the source and authorship is indeed one:

Definition of source

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• the piece of work itself (the article, book),
• the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

A writer or journalist is an author.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can effect yes, but is it an required part of any RS? Its a interesting interpretation of the policy, so I will inquiry at the policy talk page. I do not interpret it as an requirement, but rather an contributing factor when identifying an reliable source, but I am open to change in my interpretation. Thanks for providing an slightly interesting question in how to interpret the guidelines.

As for WP:SPS (in the IRS guideline):

Definition of source

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

As from WP:IRS but with added emphases. The concept of open vs close wiki's are also discussed at more length at WP:External links. My own interpretation of the policies is that Wikipedia puts the focus on identifying editorial control, in which the Indiana University has over this page. I look forward to see if this is interpretation is correct as I have used the same logic at other articles. Belorn (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...I know what a closed wiki is, how does that relate here? By the way, such wikis are not RS in most, if not all cases, as they are still user generated and do not have editorial control. An expert may still say whatever they want in them.......and I have actually seen this happen. By the way...you do realise that external links do not go in the body of the article? You have not even demostrated that it is such, just that you think it is. Also, what that link says is this "Links normally to be avoided - Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." And as I said, you have not even demonstrated that it is an open wiki, let alone one that can even be used in an external link. With all due respect sir/ma'am, I personally am not concerned with editor's own interpretation of the policies. I have attempted to help. I will not argue with what you percieve. You need to demonstrate your points at the DR/N you opened. Thank you and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The page is part of an structure most similar to an closed wiki: its an knowledge base for the University, based on a content management structure like an wiki. Users can not do changes, but only suggest changes by an form to the editorial staff. In all sense, this is an website with user-generated content, but which content is originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff and not users. Like you say, their staff may still say whatever they want, but they are under editorial control of the university. If you want me to demonstrate that the site is indeed an closed user-generated content website which only credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff can change, I would not know how, so please explain how one would be able to do so. At any rate, if people feel strongly that this is an bad source we can avoid it. Its not like there aren't books with the same content easy found, and it would avoid the issue of this source. As a side note, the question made to the IRS talk page about the interpertation of the policy did yield a very good answer, and in thus may improve my future editing in regards to closed wiki's with no identifiable author. Belorn (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Indiana University source is now removed. If anyone is interested to retain it, we can create take an RS/N request. Belorn (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

New sources

Since I am adding new sources quite rapidly, it would be great if someone could go through and remove less than optimal sources where there are now too many of them. I still have a few areas left to collect sources from, but it already is starting to look crowded in the lead. My current focus is to try finding suitable sources for the body, but as I go through books/sites/news, some might still end up being added to the lead. Belorn (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll do a cleanup, but I would like to see the whole picture first. So go on adding sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It will take me a few more days, but I will get there. Belorn (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets call this an early first version. If there are areas needing more sources, just drop an template. When reading, please read the sources carefully. Sometimes multiple sources exist because each one are support only partial part of the claim, but together they support the whole claim. There is also the goal to improve the article text to better reflect the collective story from the sources, so do so when you can. Most importantly, lets try keep good Etiquette and work towards agreement if there are areas which are lacking in quality or truth. Belorn (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Good show, Belorn. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of {{rp}}

The {{rp}} template appears to be being misused to place external links in superscripts. This is not it's intended usage, and prevents the actual title, publisher, etc. of the documents from being displayed or seen in the referernces section. These should be converted to proper citations in footnotes. Yworo (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Gnu dab page

I think that GNU Project and probably List of GNU packages should be listed at GNU (disambiguation), to help the reader find them. Another editor thinks that they should not be there, because of a rule against using part of the article name. What do you think? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bubba73:

• The proper place to reach a consensus about this is Talk:GNU (disambiguation), not this talk page. Please set up two sections there. One for each article you wish to list. The Wikipedia issues are different.
• I'll join the consensus making after you do so.
• I also suggest you read WP:PTM, the guideline (it's not a rule) the editor is using. Then think carefully about whether it allows an exception for either article, and/or whether you can make a good argument for making an exception to it, based on Wikipedia's goals and principles.

— Lentower (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I put it here because over 200 editors watch this page. Probably no one would see it at the GNU dab. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith efforts to resolve this issue via consensus.

• As I already said, Wikipedia wants that discussion at Talk:GNU (disambiguation).
• So far, two editors saw the request at Talk:GNU (disambiguation).
• You can ask editors to add to a consensus on other talk pages, but note WP:Canvass. Many editors would view what you did in this section as inappropriate — see the sub-section WP:Votestacking and the rest of that section. Consensus should be developed from a set of editors that represent all of Wikipedia. (The three other Rfcs linked to at Talk:GNU (disambiguation) should provide balance, so I don't see a real issue with what you did here.)

— Lentower (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I was definitely not looking for people who would side with me. I figured that the 200+ editors who watch this page would have a better idea of whether or not those changes should be made to the dab page than I would. Anyhow, I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. I think guidelines should be ignored when they get in the way of helping the reader. But this isn't worth my time, so I'm leaving the GNU discussion and I don't care what happens to it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Sad to see you go. We disagree about the best use of dab pages to help the reader. Canvassing problems have less to do with intent than what happens; best for Wikipedia to be aware of how to do canvassing to insure wide input, avoid WP:NPOV issues, etc. — Lentower (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A unix like operating system or many?

Is GNU one operating system, because whenver I see a Unix-like OS it's always a Linux distribution like Debian or Ubuntu, never "GNU on its own" (whatever that is) The point of GNU is it's free and you can modify it, "make your own OS" so is it really correct to say that its one operatin system and not many? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.101.97 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

GNU is not an operating system, it is an organization and set of tools. The Hurd kernel components are GNU's operating system, and this article should be rewritten from scratch to counteract the GNU POV that's seeped in. 63.153.253.49 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(I've just edited my longer post because I think this topic isn't worth the frustration.) I totally disagree with the previous editor's explanation, just as I disagree with Richard Stallman's explanation. The truth, I feel, lies in between. GNU was intended to be an operating system but is not a complete OS today. That doesn't mean that Linux is an operating system. Anyway, this article is most certainly written from the perspective that Linux IS an operating system and that GNU is not, right from the opening paragraph. So I find it amusing that the previous editor chides at a supposedly pro-GNU bias. Meh. This argument will go on for a long time. :) 192.171.51.107 (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) —innotata 23:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

---

GNU → GNU operating system – I believe that some people (if not most people) know "GNU" from the GNU Project and things that came from the project, such as GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Compiler Collection (gcc), GNU Debugger (gdb) or GNU Core Utilities (coreutils).

However, the GNU operating system is not widely known (at least not known as "GNU"), since it is usually combined with the Linux kernel (this is explicitly mentioned on the GNU homepage, resulting in a system usually called Linux. Although there is some GNU/Linux naming controversy, but it seems like the majority of the people call it as Linux.

Here is some more information on the naming problem, and I hope that another flame war won't happen here.

My opinion is to move content on this page to GNU operating system (which is currently a redirect to this page), and change this page into a redirect to GNU (disambiguation). The GNU link in the disambiguation page would also have to be changed. Theemathas (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - GNU is the primary topic; if sources use "GNU" by itself, they are referring to this subject. If they mean the GNU GPL, they use GNU GPL, they never refer to the GPL as simply GNU. There is no subject that is referred to simply as GNU which competes with this subject as a primary topic, and that GNU itself isn't as widely used as the GNU GPL or coreutils doesn't mean that this article's title needs to be changed, there is nothing wrong with this article being at this title, and the rationale given doesn't support the change in the context of WP:AT. - Aoidh (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aoidh: most sources I've seen use "GNU" to refer to operating system, and specify particular GNU project otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed changes by Fsfolks

I've reverted the changes by User:Fsfolks for the following reasons:

1. This edit of theirs changed "GNU programs have been shown to be more reliable than their proprietary Unix counterparts" to "GNU programs have been shown to be more reliable than the alternative proprietary Unix counterparts". The sentence was clear enough before, but after the change it is nonsensical. Fsfolks's edit summary, "GNU doesn't own proprietary unix counterparts", implies they don't understand the use of the English genitive here. To be clear, "their" doesn't denote possession or authorship here; it's simply indicating the comparand to "counterparts".
2. The same edit changed "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is known as Linux (or less frequently GNU/Linux, see GNU/Linux naming controversy)" to "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is called GNU/Linux (though some people call it as Linux, see GNU/Linux naming controversy)". Both statements are true, but the second is a bit prescriptive (as strangely worded—bordering on grammatically incorrect, in fact). In an attempt to address Fsfolks's concern, I modified this to "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is commonly known as Linux (or less frequently GNU/Linux; see GNU/Linux naming controversy)". I think this makes it clearer that "Linux" is only the more commonly used name, but not necessarily the "correct" one. For some reason Fsfolks reverted this change as "vandalism".
3. The remaining changes simply seem to unnecessarily expand the image captions, which were fine the way they were.

Fsfolks, if after reading the above explanations you still believe your changes are better, please seek consensus for them here before reintroducing them. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

1) the sentence I've edited is not always understood by all the people the same way as in your case: the context of "their" here creates some ambiguity: so it's better to change the whole sentence to a more clear one: so all people understand it correctly.

2) I think that here you tried to completely revert the edit, rather than fixing the gramatical mistake you are seeing. Fsfolks (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget that deleting cited text as what you already did for my edit [1] is vandalism: and it should be reverted for this particular reason. Fsfolks (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning your last sentence, what you're describing is not vandalism per WP:VAND. Just because something can be cited does not mean it is appropriate for an article, thus removing it is not vandalism just because it is cited. - Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

When people talk of Linux technically, they mean the kernel: when they hear of "GNU/Linux", they understand the combination of GNU+Linux, even if they don't know that term before. What do you think the goal of the Ubuntu company is, when they say "we prefer to use the term “GNU/Linux” to refer to systems that many people casually refer to as “Linux”" ? do you think honnestly that they are wrong? Fsfolks (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"When people talk of Linux technically, they mean the kernel" is only true in a minority of instances, in which case they always say "Linux kernel"; even the FSF makes this clarification. The word "Linux", when used by itself without the word kernel following it, is not used in the English language to refer solely to the kernel outside of a very, very, very few instances that are by far the exception and not the norm. "GNU/Linux" is a minority term that is not used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. As for the Ubuntu reference, that's not Ubuntu's goal. Ubuntu is based on Debian, which was directly funded by the FSF and the FSF directly influenced Debian using that term through its sponsorship. The Ubuntu page you're citing is an exact copy of the Debian documentation. The goal of Ubuntu is (apparently) to avoid using Linux or GNU/Linux whenever possible, as evidenced by their website. So yes, I do think that the idea that Ubuntu prefers to use the term GNU/Linux is wrong, given that, outside of documentation lifted from Debian, there is no use of GNU/Linux by Ubuntu that I could find. - Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The term "Linux" when refering to GNU/Linux: is the Linux Foundation's POV term which was widespread through their manifesto: but when we treat this combination technically: GNU/Linux is the most appropriate term. already KDE uses the term when talking about the combination without additional software: [2].

Describing some terms of being "minority term" is too idiosyncratic, since oughing to know the way how all people more than others is basically incorrect.

It's true that the term is used by Debian and not directly by Ubuntu. But, Debian is a project founded by SPI and under SPI policies and guidelines: already the DFSG forbids GNU FDL invariant sections and already FSF and Debian have different approvals of accepting software as being free: so I think here you missed the point. Fsfolks (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source that shows that Linux is the Linux Foundation's POV term? Because usage of the term Linux to describe the operating system as a whole predates the existence of the Linux Foundation itself, so that claim seems dubious, and what manifesto are you referring to? The KDE source you gave is severely dated, KDE does not "already use" that term, it used it in 1999 according to that source and refers to it solely as Linux now. As for the Ubuntu source you gave, I didn't "miss the point" at all. You claimed Ubuntu had a stated goal of using the term GNU/Linux, when that is not the case, and Debian and the FSF "decided jointly to call the system "Debian GNU/Linux"". That is per Richard Stallman himself[3] so the Debian example is anything but a third-party example of usage. Claiming that "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is known as GNU/Linux" is true only within a small minority of sources, most of which are associated with the FSF and are not a third-party source for such a claim. Most sources do not reflect that claim, therefore per WP:NPOV the article cannot state that as if it is a universal truth; it is not. Please see MOS:LINUX. - Aoidh (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

When I said "Linux Foundation's POV term": I was meaning Torvalds POV + other people who started the kernel project: I was meaning by "manifesto" the open source movement of the kernel project and the Linux foundation. Torvalds was the first one who started promoting the Linux term [4]. KDE already uses the GNU/Linux term in this page [5]. per WP:NPOV an operating system is a complete software stack so the use of "Linux", which is a piece of software developed at kernel.org, is not appropriate here: otherwise it's Torvalds POV. Fsfolks (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the source code that page was last updated on 2014-08-20, so that's not a recent change that supersedes the main KDE page which has numerous articles written more recently than that, and even the parent page of the one you cited uses "Linux" exclusively, so the KDE source you gave absolutely does not verify that the OS is referred to as GNU/Linux and not Linux. The problem with what you're saying is that reliable third-party sources that have nothing to do with Torvalds use the term Linux overwhelmingly. They do not use GNU/Linux in any significant way. Linux is a kernel, but where reliable sources disagree with you is the idea that the only thing the word Linux describes is the kernel. Linux is also the operating system as a whole; that is what reliable sources reflect, and Wikipedia articles reflect viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. See also MOS:LINUX and (if you want a very detailed catalog of the discussions that created that consensus), Talk:Linux/Name. - Aoidh (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fsfolks, regarding your first point: I disagree. The sentence is crystal-clear in English; there is no appreciable possibility of misinterpretation by anyone fluent in the language. I suspect you are in a tiny minority for having misinterpreted "their counterparts" to mean that GNU itself must have published those counterparts. Regarding your second point, I already explained that not only did I revert the poor writing, I also rewrote the claim (in correct English) such that it addressed your apparent concerns. Regarding your third point about this edit, you broke the existing reference, which is arguably worse than the previous dead link, and added another reference which, besides also being syntactically incorrect, was superfluous. I've now properly fixed the dead link. Please stop referring to my edits as vandalism, and please make sure that when you edit the article, you carefully check the syntax of your markup. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The use of "tiny minority", regarding the first point when explaining that "The sentence is crystal-clear in English", is POV and nothing else: since it is too superfluous and incorrect to ought to know the things that you don't about how all people understand such sentence. as for the second one, you need to avoid duplicicity: I used two references and now I added a new one [6] : I think three references are enough to prove that the cited term is not superfluous: describing it as "syntactically incorrect" is POV-pushing.

I see that you are assuming bad faith: and that your unconstructive behaviour is showing here.

You need to make more constructive edits and assume good faith, so I will not refer to your edits as "disruptive edits" or "vandalism". Fsfolks (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to assume the assumption of good faith. I've reverted your most recent edit for the same reasons they were previously reverted. The addition of the Arch Linux wiki doesn't change anything (not least of all because open wikis are not reliable sources), because while you found three sources that support what you are saying (two of which are directly tied to the group that pushes the term GNU/Linux), there are many, many more sources which directly contradict the claim that "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is known as GNU/Linux" and not simply "Linux". Most sources describe it as Linux, not GNU/Linux. That is why your edit is being reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I missed that the ArchLinux citation was a wiki: so I kept it removed. I have already added new citation [7]: I think that reverting cited text with three references without verifiablity issue is vandalism. You need to discuss things as well and get a consensus before reverting again. Fsfolks (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works, you are proposing a change, you must get a consensus for your proposed change, else the WP:STATUSQUO remains: During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.. Please also read WP:VAND, because what you're suggesting is vandalism is not, per Wikipedia's definition of what vandalism is and is not. - Aoidh (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's vandalism per wikipedia definition. Fsfolks (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask any administrator, but the edits you are describing are not vandalism and to accuse someone of vandalizing a page is a personal attack, even if you're just referring to their edit and not them by name. - Aoidh (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's your own POV. Fsfolks (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not a POV, it's a matter of fact, one that can be easily verified by reading WP:VAND. But like I said, don't take my word for it, ask any administrator or here or if that works better for you. - Aoidh (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fsfolks, your template markup cannot be parsed by the MediaWiki software that runs this site. As a consequence, it has inserted into the article three conspicuous red error messages complaining about syntax errors. I can assure you that the parser has no point of view whatsoever. That your edits are syntactically incorrect (both in terms of English language and in terms of wiki markup) is a trivially provable statement of fact, not an opinion. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We have a longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME and also MOS:LINUX. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. On Wikipedia the term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux", such as "Debian GNU/Linux", and then only when referring to the distro itself. I don't see any argument here made that would change this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You want it to be a "minority POV": but you don't already own the truth. Fsfolks (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is from longstanding consensus. You should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. As far as the truth goes, please refer to WP:THE TRUTH. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Fsfolks is now canvassing other editors.[8][9][10][11] - Aoidh (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not your concern. Fsfolks (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nor yours, since you have been blocked indefinitely. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the pronunciation verification

An IP editor has been making a change to the article that is not only unnecessary, but hurts the ability to directly verify the information given. Their latest edit summary was "clearly, you haven't read the sources. they do not just verify the pronunciation. grow up and stop reverting for no reason" Personal attacks aside, it doesn't matter that they don't just verify the pronunciation, that's the part that matters because that's the part that needed a citation. We don't need five references at the end of the sentence verifying a simple statement as that is overkill, especially for the lede sentence when the lede isn't a particularly exceptional claim. Readers wishing to verify the pronunciation should be able to do so without having to dig through irrelevant references hoping to find something that verifies the information; the references should be near the material they support. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that references be placed at the end of the sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GNU. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120913055100/http://developer.amd.com:80/tools/opensource/gnu/Pages/default.aspx to http://developer.amd.com/tools/opensource/gnu/Pages/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Wildly outdated reference

I noticed the following sentence

GNU programs have also been shown to be more reliable.[34]

The problem is that the solitary reference to bolster this claim is from 1995! Surely there must be a more recent reference? Or are we to assume that nobody has bothered to try demonstrating the reliability of GNU programs in the past twenty years?

86.158.129.110 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I initially was triggered by this as well, but then I noticed that the sentence actually talks about Unix counterparts. In which case 1995 article is okay. Louigi Verona. 213.61.95.77 (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fix Misleading Sections

The entire section on how GNU started because of the PDP11 ending support for an OS is entirely misleading. Unix system V had been in existence for many years in academia and provided the cornerstone for GNU. His original announcement of GNU to the usenet states a new version of Unix. The article should not ignore that RMS was writing replacements for existing Unix System V utilities - mainly the GCC cC complier - and not writing the OS first. GNU Hurd is not yet ready for production use and RMS started GNU in 1983 - 25 years ago! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:3172:33F3:7EB9:74B1 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, history has proven that the the GNU OS was a proposal to write an operating system that was never completed, as the kernel was never finished and another one (Linux) used instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)