Talk:Eclipse Foundation

Untitled

I'm just wondering, if it would make sense to add more informatin about Eclipse foundation. For instance, other members just than strategic members, something about the end results of the foundation etc. ... what do you thing, in to what extent new information should be added? Jrisku 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link

The Reference Link No 3 ( Open Source Software: the Role of Nonprofits in Federating Business and Innovation Ecosystems ) is broken. The same link appears on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Letellier . Best replacement I could find is this : http://www.researchgate.net/publication/270886220_Open_Source_Software_the_Role_of_Nonprofits_in_Federating_Business_and_Innovation_Ecosystems . There was something on archive.org, but that seems to be broken as well.

I don't know if this link is OK and I don't know too much about wikipedia editing procedure. Just wanted to tell you, so maybe someone can have a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noresoft (talk • contribs) 12:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability tag

Almost nothing in this article is sourced to anything other than the Foundation itself, and it doesn't look like it passes WP:NCORP to me, so I've tagged it. Anyone inclined to do the digging required to put this up for AfD should consider the individual items in Template:Eclipse Foundation before making the argument for deletion. Some look obviously notable, others very not. It might be sensible to merge the less-notable ones here. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lkb335 re your reasoning that this is notable the ubiquity of its IDE in Java development; its support from major organizations like Microsoft, Oracle, and Red Hat; and its general role in creating widely-used open source software - that unfortunately has nothing to do with the WP:NCORP criteria, which are primarily "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". An argument like "its IDE is ubiquitous" is an argument for an article on the IDE, not the Foundation. (It's one of the things I was thinking of when I said "look obviously notable" above.) But I certainly don't think you should try to get something deleted if you think it should be here! If you're planning to continue working on the article, finding sources that discuss (rather than just mention) that role in creating widely used OS software should probably be among your first priorities, since it would be a real drag to spend time fixing up an article that ends up being deleted for failing NCORP anyway. (Again, make sure those sources are on the company and not just the software, ie, you are looking for sources that discuss the Eclipse Foundation itself, not Eclipse. One of the many reasons why NCORP is harder than it looks.) -- asilvering (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't fault your reasoning; also, having spent some time looking for sources, I have been unable to find any significant discussion of the Foundation besides the occasional article by a hobbyist site. Even then, the discussion is almost always of specific projects; no one really writes about the Foundation itself. After I wake (it's late here), I'll propose AfD, and I'll likely do the same for several of the stubs in Template:Eclipse Foundation. Lkb335 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It occurred to me that there might be academic articles using the Eclipse Foundation's projects as a whole as an object of study (as opposed to articles that are "about" the Foundation) and did turn up enough that I think there might be a keep argument in there somewhere. Here's a random example from the pile: Salerno, J., Yang, S. J., Nau, D., & Chai, S.-K. (2011). Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction: 4th International Conference, SBP 2011, College Park, MD, USA, March 29-31, 2011. Proceedings. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Is the article good? reliable? useful for establishing notability? useful for writing a wikipedia article? No idea. Possibly none of the above. But at least it isn't someone reporting on a press release.

I ended up finding something usable in that article, and added it as a ref. Going to look for more scholarly articles to see if there's a way to salvage this article. Lkb335 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If you think deletion is the right way to go for this article or any of those articles linked in the template, you should look at WP:BEFORE to make sure you're good to go. In general the idea is to look for alternatives where possible. As for what those might be in this case, I'm too far out of my field on this to say anything other than what I said in my first comment on this page. Though I don't recommend putting multiple closely related articles up for AfD at the same time until you're really sure you've got the hang of how deletion discussions tend to work in the relevant subtopic. You might learn something in the first AfD that makes the others easier to argue, or even something that solves the problem altogether. (Also, it saves you from unintentionally driving people crazy by repeating the same newbie mistake across five different articles...) -- asilvering (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources and notability

I've been scouring google scholar for a little while now, looking for scholarly articles about the Foundation, and what I've seen makes the case for [[WP:notability] to me. Quite a few articles study the Foundation as something representative of OSS, looking into its practices and model as a way to study the open source field as a whole. For example, see:

This article about donations to the Foundation;

This article about the patterns of code contributions in Foundation projects;

This MA thesis about how Foundation members interact with projects;

This PHD thesis about how companies participate in the Foundation;

This article about member organization activity;

And this article comparing the Foundation to another prominent OSS organization, the Apache Software Foundation.

I've already added some of the articles above as refs for the WP article (some I couldn't find a place for), and am working on adding more.

The point of my argument is this: I'm seeing considerable scholarship not just focusing on the Foundation's role in managing the Eclipse IDE (its most famous product), but on its role in creating a community of open-source projects; its funding and membership models; and the lessons that can be learned by how it operates.

In short, I think that qualifies it as WP:notable, but, again, I'm new to editing and I've been wrong about notability in the past. Curious about others' thoughts on the matter, in particular @Asilvering.

Lkb335 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Great! And I've just now pulled enough remaining stuff from this that the main COI editor's authorship is under 25% (handy authorship tool: [1]), so I've taken off both of those maintenance tags. I'm no expert on WP:NCORP outcomes or what makes a source in this field reliable or independent, but if you can say "considerable scholarship" with a straight face I'm not so worried that someone will try to AfD it after you spend a bunch of time trying to improve it. Having gone some way towards addressing the two giant red flags (zero sources that aren't basically the org's website, almost entirely written by COI editors) that tend to set off people's notability senses helps too. -- asilvering (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)