Indeed, the failure of Wikipedia to differentiate references to the kernel (Linux) and OSs that depend on it (GNU/Linux et al) is unfortunate. Many people, including those who actually use Linux-based systems, are wont to use 'Linux' as a short-hand for GNU/Linux*; and there are many who aren't aware of the distinction at all, which is where this shortcoming of the Wikipedia article is particularly unfortunate.
Leslie *Me too. On 2022-06-16 16:46:42 Akira Urushibata wrote: > An article appeared in Washington Post's opinion section praising > Wikipedia's service to democracy by providing objective information > on the history of Russia and Ukraine and related issues. > > Russian President Vladimir has made claims that Ukraine is run by > Nazists and they need to be eradicated. He also believes that > Ukraine should not be independent from Moscow. Upon hearing such > statements many people in democratic societies headed to Wikipedia > to examine their veracity. Relevant articles saw a sharp increase > in page views. > > --- > > Wikipedia acts as a check on Putin's false view of history > https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/31/wikipedia-hitler-putin-la >vrov/ Perspective by Noam Cohen > > ... > > Since the Russian invasion, the English Wikipedia articles about the > historical figures and topics Putin invoked have been racking up > pop-star numbers. The article about Stepan Bandera, a far-right leader > of Ukrainian nationalists before and during World War II - whom Putin > sees as an evil force guiding Ukraine even today - has been viewed a > million times since the invasion. The one about the Ukrainian Soviet > Socialist Republic, an obscure entity within the Union of Soviet > Socialist Republics that Putin sees as having enabled Ukraine's > current separate political identity, has had more than a half-million > views since the invasion. Also with Bandera-type numbers is the > article about Kievan Rus' (just under a million views), the ancient > kingdom led by Vladimir the Great (225,000). > > ... > > --- > > A world with an impartial source of information is far healthier than > one in which only disparate narratives from two competing entities are > heard. > > However, my personal observation of Wikipedia makes me doubt whether > it deserves as much praise as Noam Cohen suggests. > > Occasionally I take a look at the Wikipedia article on the "Linux" > operating system. It is constantly edited. At times I have seen > efforts to eradicate or minimize the role of GNU. Here are the > first two paragraphs of the current version of the article: > > Linux is a family of open-source Unix-like operating systems based > on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on > September 17, 1991, by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged > in a Linux distribution. > > Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system > software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU > Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their > name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name "GNU/Linux" to > emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy. > > It is true that FSF uses the name "GNU/Linux" but the way it is > phrased gives people the impression that FSF is but an isolated voice > among computer specialists. This is a factual error. For example > there is "Debian GNU/Linux" developed by an organization independent > from FSF. Moreover in numerous technical documents I encounter the > term "GNU/Linux" used by people who are obviously not affiliated to > FSF, in contexts where it is necessary to distinguish between the > kernel and the operating system. Wikipedia, while putting emphasis on > the desires of FSF, fails to make clear that people have practical > reasons for saying "GNU/Linux." Failure to say that not everybody who > says "GNU/Linux" is prodded by FSF is a factual error. Failure to > mention that people need to distinguish the kernel from the OS is > yet another. > > Wikipedia may have helped thwart Russian President Putin's efforts to > rewrite history but it has been less successful in getting operating > system history straight. > > I know of other instances of questionable quality. Certain articles > on WW2 subjects exhibit stark differences in the Japanese page and the > English page. It is easy to imagine this happening where disputes > surround the subject matter. But I have also seen contradictions in > figures for which controversy is not known to exist. Japanese and > English Wikipedia pages on Japanese capital warships at times disagree > on the number of casualties at the time of sinking. For the Shinano, > the world's largest aircraft carrier at the time, the difference is > 644. > > Nowadays machine translation is widely available and Wikipedia encourages > its use. If people who edit Wikipedia articles don't always check > the facts with the help of machine translation, it may well be that > they do not examine available references either. > > --- > > Discussions of free software often presume that promotion is a good > thing. The eagerness to promote may shove other aspects aside. > > Even in a world with no proprietary software, people may suffer from > lack of freedom. Computers are useful because they are accurate. > When fed false data, computers produce misleading output. > > Imagine the captain of a sinking ship who is not sure how many > passengers are on board, or the capacity of each lifeboat. Delays in > evacuation may put lives at risk. An accurate computer running free > software won't help the captain if he does not have faith in the data > therein. And when a person dies, loss of freedom is total and > irreversible. The survivors are better off but also suffer from > dimininished freedom caused by physical and mental injuries and loss > of belongings. > > Now consider an industrial setting. False figures lead to defects. > Money, effort and time are spent dealing them instead of production > or development. False figures take away the organization's freedom. > > As important as the promotion of free software are efforts to ensure > that false facts and figures are not supplied as input to the systems. > > --- > > Has anybody been monitoring the Wikipedia article on the "Linux" > operating system? As stated above I notice that it is constantly > evolving. I see the need to examine the article and the "GNU/Linux" > naming ordeal from an objective perspective. > > > > _______________________________________________ > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss -- _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss