Talk:Rob Enderle

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Archives

Archive1

Poorly sourced/written criticism section[edit]

I removed some "material" that was poorly sourced, being nice, and poorly written. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is a fair amount of low quality citations, blogs and such not wikipedia reliable, about such a person there should be plenty of high quatity citation so as not to use poor ones especially as this is a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this from the article, comments such as this about a living person need high quatity citations, I have googled it and not managed to find one, has anyone got a WP:RS to support this? Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 2006 The New York Times were reported to have stopped its reporters from quoting Enderle as an authoritative source on Microsoft related topics.[citation needed]

I would agree with your assesment Off2riorob. --Tom (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count? Times rattles IT industry with analyst ban Pay, no play Note that the point of the article is to call out the New York Times, pointing out that Times is treating Enderle differently than it does other analysts. I would try to find something on the Times itself, but last I looked their archives were closed.

(By the way, I wrote that sentence, and wnat is now the "open source critisim" section. I'm really happy with the way the edits have proceeded, in small bits with each bit justified. It makes it very easy to follow. I'd written on the talk page of two folks who'd previously reviewed the article to see if someone would do just such a review and am very happy with the way people have come forward.)

FWIW, the other references in the NY Times sentence were there to support other parts of the sentence: that the open source community felt vindicated and that the perception is that he is consistently biased in favor of Microsoft. Was it wrong to cite this way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kop (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kop, thanks for your contributions, I can't see that link yet, it for me shows 404 not found, but I will gladly discuss any cites you find, best. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is again. NY Times rattles IT industry with analyst ban Pay, no play Sorry for not checking. (I did the linking wrong.) --kop (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, it appears (tomorrow I will investigate more) to be a report in the aregister of a article in an IT magazine, for now to me it looks weak, other people may disagree with me, as yet I have litle time to analyse the content in the article, tomorrow I will have another looks, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI "Business Day" is a New York Times section. Link --kop (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humm. This seems to be the original NY Times article. See the Editor's note at the bottom. --kop (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe this. I find the Register article more interesting, and relevant, because it points out that Mr Enderle was singled out by the NY Times. The NY Times is certainly the primary source. (I have also heard, and not verified, that there is a derth of Enderle quotes in the NY Times after the ban on MS related topics in comparison to before the ban. It's unclear how to cite this or if a link to some sort of counter vs time graph counts as original research. I'm not going to go there but I'm curious about Wikipedia policy.) --kop (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research, I have looked at the original statement from the NYT and mostly ignored the opinionated editorial type comments in the aregister article as it is a bit of an attack piece, a section header of Robbing Rob for example., looking at them, the paper said that if they knew how involved he was with microsoft they would not have asked him for an independent review on the release of such machine, that is all, this imo does not support the comment that was in the article previously that added 2 and 2 to create a comment that is simply not correct or rather not citeaable....Enderle's critics felt vindicated[23] in their opinion that Enderle is consistently biased in favor of Microsoft[24] when in 2006 The New York Times banned its reporters from quoting Enderle as an authoritative source on Microsoft related topics.[25] .. the new york times just said if they knew he was so connected to Microsoft they would not have asked him for an independent review on that one specific product. Adding the tag on that his critics felt vindicated in their opinion that he is biased towards microsoft due to this comment is imo WP:SYNTH the morphing of two comment to allude to a third position that is not in the citation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation required[edit]

These are also uncited and I couldn't find them in a reliable independant citation so I have moved them here for search and cite and replace. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pace University, CMA Certificate ^{[citation needed]}

Orange Coast College, Associate's degree in Merchandising ^{[citation needed]}

here is his education and BIO on thepromar.com site but I don't think it is an independant citation ?

AA, Merchandising, Orange Coast College, 1975

BS, Business Administration, Long Beach State University, 1977

MBA, Long Beach State University, 1984

CMA Certificate, Pace University, 1989

Article does not accurately reflect Enderle's current position[edit]

It seems that since 2006 Enderle has backed away from many of his criticisms of free software. I found this article by him quite interesting, since he discusses why he originally found SCO Group's claims credible and why he eventually concluded that SCO has "lied" to him. I'm not suggesting that we ought to strike his previous statements from the record, but I do feel that we need to show that he is not the dogmatist that many (including me) presumed him to be. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps yes a simple comment, to refresh his updated point of view would be good, like..in 2008 Enderle commented that free software was not so bad...or whatever his expressed opinion is here in this article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enderle's long article reads like a sob story (I was tricked by SCO and the nasty lunixers were horrid to me... they made me do it). What's notable is that he has almost entirely reversed his position, with the exception of his skepticism about how Groklaw is funded. Incidentally, he never explained the basis for this - and I cannot imagine that a volounteer organization with no employees, premises and infrastructure costs all that much. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such is life, but is it notable? feel free to present a comment here for addition and discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reversal of Enderle's most notable opinion is definitely notable. Enderle would not be WP:N without his involvement in the SCO vs X lawsuits. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have to disagree about the notability thing there, what reversal, please present what you want to include with the supporting citation and I will understand more. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to dodge your question (I will answer fully when I have time) - it seems obvious to me that if Enderle's controvercial views on OSS in 2004 are WP:N then the fact that he claims to no longer hold these views must surely also be WP:N. If we disagree on that point it's probably not worth me formulating a new citation. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly if that is the case and can be cited a comment would be needed. Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible addition/ comments.

....although in 2007 he back-tracked from this position and said he had been quoted out of context and commented, "I no longer paint all Open Source advocates with the same broad brush and, strangely enough, I have always liked BSD Unix and had just, for a time, forgotten it was Open Source as well".[1]

No criticism? Really?[edit]

Kinda surprised that the article doesn't mention at all that, while he is considered a tech expert by some, there's an equally large number of people that have very little regard for his opinion or his worth as a commentator (phrased as delicately as possible). Surely there are some reasonably reliable sources for some anti-Enderle opinions (and can be mentioned in a fairly neutral fashion; I think the guy's an idiot, but I'm not wanting his article to become an attack piece). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the accuracy of this article is entirely suspect without including some comment of Enderle's notoriety. Without any mention of that this article should probably be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaroast (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]