Talk:CoMotion

Untitled
This page has had its "notability" questioned. That's fair. If Wikipedia feels that it's too specific a product to have its own page, it should be merged into a newly-created General Dynamics C4 Systems (the company that produces CoMotion) page. The "General Dynamics" page, however, would be too general to include something specific such as CoMotion. However, I feel that people investigating the Army's Command Post of the Future in particular-- one of the more revolutionary pieces of command and control software in the world-- may want to dig deeper into its underpinnings, and may find value in this page. In addition, if the CoMotion paper is accepted at JavaOne people may want to look it up in Wikipedia. Finally, all kinds of tanks, ships, and planes produced by General Dynamics have their own pages (such as the F-16, etc)... I don't understand why software is so undervalued, especially collaborative software in a place like Wikipedia. Sam (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I put that there mostly because there aren't many references from third-party sources for the article. I think it's a good start, but it'd improve the article to include some newspaper articles covering the subject, etc., both for additional information and for verification of facts (see the criteria/guidelines for more details). It's probably also good to read the conflict of interest guidelines if you haven't yet. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dreamyshade. I've read the conflict of interest guidelines and believe I've lived up to their spirit. I did not write a marketing fluff piece, but rather tried to describe some technology partially developed by DARPA and used by the US Army in a Program of Record. It's true that a significant portion of the technology is ultimately owned by the company I work for, however. In this case the contributions of an employee might be required because of the nature of the rather new technology-- I'm not familiar with a neutral third party who could describe it to the level of detail that a researcher would find useful. But again, feel free to merge it with General Dynamics C4 Systems as per the Wikipedia "small product" guidelines if that's what you deem appropriate. Sam (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's nicely neutral and detailed. People are just sort of discouraged from starting articles about things they have personal connections with, since those articles tend to have notability/sourcing problems. (Some of this article might fall under the No original research guideline.) I'm happy to leave it here for future improvement, though. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I worked for MAYA Viz Ltd. 2001-2002. I removed some implementation details that I don't believe is really relevant to why this software is notable. I also tried to add an explanation to try to make it clearer how this software is (was?) unique. The basic architecture doesn't appear to have changed since 2002, so I think it's in the clear in that regard. Also, as of 2001 the assertion about collaboration software was true, although I have no sources for that. Buoren (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's great that there are more people working on this now! The article still has the problem of not really including any references or third-party sources that talk about the subject though, which is what the "notability" guideline wants. Are there some newspaper articles or research papers that would verify the statements in the article, to give it some cited references? Dreamyshade (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a paper here which is the predicate for the CoMotion framework.  I think this is perhaps as close as there'll be to a third party reference: all of this was research that Steve Roth et al. did for Carnegie Mellon in conjunction with the commercial venture (SAGE and then later VISAGE are the precursors to the commercial product now known as CoMotion). Perhaps there might be a bit of problem with the "original research" problem; all of this information is "out there" but not previously collated. Buoren 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)