Talk:Eclipse Foundation

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: ), 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)
thread_title:  Secondary sources and notability