Talk:Collaborative software

message: It seems that there is only one pending issue with this page, can someone please change the TAG to just the specific issue? Also I believe it pertains to the section on "collaborative software and human interaction" some references would be of use on this classification scheme for types of collaboration (indeed relevant): Where was this published? This seems to be relevant it is too bad we can use some references here.  
Quite on the contrary, I have doubts concerning the classification "By area served". According to the author we can divide collaborative software into:
Knowledge management tools
Knowledge creation tools
Information sharing tools
Collaborative project management tools
The issues concerning this scheme are the following:
a) I really think "information sharing" to be a common function to all types of collaboration software, is  it worthwhile to have it as a "category" on its own? 
b) A "knowledge creation" tool that does not include a simple management function would not be feasible, right? In that case is it useful to separate "knowledge management" from "knowledge creation", shouldn't they be both the same given the KM definition: Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organization to identify, *create*, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences. 
Nunesdea (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer multiple issues on the page 

message: CVS and SubVersion are more like "version control software", not to mention that GNU Arch is omitted.
Perhaps better examples would be SourceForge and GNU Savannah?
Also, under Collaborative Media, I think this is now pretty much every weblog from Invisiblog to Moveable Type.
Also also, the BBC have H2G2 at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/
Finally, it's perhaps also relevant to mention jwz's article on intertwingularity at http://www.mozilla.org/blue-sky/misc/199805/intertwingle.html  (also a definition rescue of wikipedia's entry for intertwingularity would help.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
Today, CVS and RCS are mentioned in the article, in passing.
I see nothing about SourceForge or Subversion.
Version control software is a prime example of collaborative software;
I'll add it somewhere.
JöG (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CVS vs. SourceForge

message: Is it just me or is the list of collorative software 'examples' completely out of control? The applications listed cover a broad range of functionality, including whole difference classes of interactions.  Also, are all of the packages listed notable?  Perhaps this section should be a new article; List of collaborative software.  Autiger 19:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article is becoming a link farm.  In my humble opinion, we need to link to Open Directory Project categories, while simultaneously removing all the cruft from here.  It's just getting out of hand. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add a cleanup tag for this purpose. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 22:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I just moved the "Examples" to List of collaborative software.  I'll revise what I think needs to be done with the links: Convert as many external links as possible to internal ones, and eliminate much of the external links if they are not notable (for the notable ones, perhaps create red links to potential articles). — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 12:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software list out of control?

message: Should be merged with Collaborative workspace.  Comments?
:Why?  Are they the same thing? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 15:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the proposed merger. The Collaborative workspace stub can't be expanded without overlapping with this article.  --Mereda 10:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge [[Collaborative workspace]] 

message: Groupware is a pretty specific subset of collaboration software.  Would anyone be opposed to me making an article on it (right now it's a redirect). Oberiko 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splinter Groupware

message: * Haag, Stephen, Maeve Cummings, Donald J. McCubbrey, Alain Pinsonneault, and Richard Donovan. Management Information Systems. Third ed. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2206. 25-27.
* Brink, Tom. Usability First: Groupware Introduction. 1998. Foraker Design. 23 June 2006 (http://www.usabilityfirst.com/groupware/intro.txl)
http://grace.awakentech.com:8082/at/awaken1.nsf/UNIDs/1AAC0F50A95547878825667E0001A3C2?OpenDocument  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.17.136 (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: "The design intent of collaborative software is to transform the way documents and rich media are shared to enable more effective team collaboration."
Can someone here please translate this from bullshit corporatese, into English?  I came here to learn what groupware was, and I am no closer to that goal now, than I was before I accessed the page.
203.206.179.33 (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Marketing Weasel Words

message: # The order of Gethering applications & wikis are quite strange. It should be edited in different place.
# The classification of Collaborative project management tools and Collaborative management tools should not be below Collaborative project management tools, it should be isolated.
# "Some authors argue they are equivalent.[who?] " Try to find the resource to support this.
# There are lots not places where "MUD" occurres, but only one place there is link to MUD.
# Collaborative software and human interaction part needs more resource to support that.
Rocioluo (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement of Collaborative Software article on Wikipedia 

message: Could collaborative writing be integrated somehow in the article? Implementations range from Wikipedia (Wiki) to Etherpad (Collaborative real-time editor).
--Fixuture (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborative writing? 

message: Hello, my name is Patricia Wagner and I'm an employee of Microsoft. I work in the Cloud+Enterprise division as a content publisher for Visual Studio Team Services, Team Foundation Server, and Application Lifecycle Management products. We are reviewing Wikipedia articles that relate to our areas and would like to update some to better represent the current state and features of our products. Please review the changes below and let me know if they are acceptable to you. Thank you very much for your consideration.
In the "Notable collaborative software vendors" section, please add two entries:
After "Smartsheet" add: Team Foundation Server https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Foundation_Server
After "Trello" add: Visual Studio Team Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio#Team_Services
Pat MSFT (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pat MSFT Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you want to edit the article (or any others) as you propose, go for it! Be bold. There is no "you" who will in advance review your proposed changes. Make them, and you'll then find that other editors may edit your changes and/or may come back here to the Talk page to discuss them. -- Jmc (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I applaud you for using this approach where you have a clear COI. These things blow up all the time, and it's not worth the bad PR when it goes poorly. I added Team Foundation Server as it seems to meet the list criteria.  I'm not sure on Visual Studio Team Services as it has no independent article. If someone else wants to add I won't object. Kuru (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft requesting edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Collaborative software. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.intranetjournal.com/faq/lotusbible.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some feedback on the status and scope of this list would be appreciated. It always seemed problematic and difficult to maintain for several reasons: 1) Is it a list of "notable vendors" of collaborative software or a list of vendors of "notable collaborative software" - or both? 2) As mentioned by  in a recent edit, the list sometimes mixes vendors and products, further blurring its inclusion criteria. 3) Separate lists of collaborative software and related products already exist with far better detail and significant overlap. 4) The term "Collaborative software" itself is vague ("broad concept"), and often misused by PR folks to include non-specialized software suites and trivial tools with minor shared functionality (calendars, text editors, etc) - bloating this list even more. 5) A vendor is not necessarily the software's developer, adding yet another vague aspect to this list's definition: are mere distributors without own development capacities eligible for inclusion? 6) the list lacks sources and encyclopedic context (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) ==> In summary: it would probably be best to remove this list altogether if these flaws cannot be addressed. With the current redundancy to other lists the loss of "real" encyclopedic information would be minimal anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: With no objections so far, I have removed the list. The flaws of this list are just too many for a policy-compliant fix imo. GermanJoe (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions on "Notable collaborative software products & vendors"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Collaborative software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305020459/http://www.pmi.org/PDF/Lockwood%20-%20PMI%20Survey%20Report.pdf to http://www.pmi.org/PDF/Lockwood%20-%20PMI%20Survey%20Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715084211/http://www.pinnadyne.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=80 to http://www.pinnadyne.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=80
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Collaborative software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527023159/http://www.ezenia.com/products/products-infoworkspace/ to http://www.ezenia.com/products/products-infoworkspace/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on the "Levels of collaboration" I believe should be removed.  It is an inaccurate re-creation of the levels from the old Lotus white-paper, and it doesn't make any sense because the very link to the wikipedia article on "collaboration" is what is referred to as "coordination" by the third level, thus creating confusion.  The levels are actually degrees of coordination with collaboration being the most complex kind of coordination, i.e. coordination for the purpose of work output.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Harris-Braun (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration vs. Coordination

message: I can understand that what was originally called GW changed to CS historically, but please add how it changed and how you will handle these two in the future. Mocha c jp (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The concept of identifying CS and GW (history from GW to CS)