Talk:Enterprise social software

message: Previous discussion, and content for potential inclusion in this article can be found at Talk:Enterprise_2.0. Additional citations can be found within Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Enterprise 2.0 (second nomination). -- Rossmay 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross link

message: Please, Do not merge or delete this article. The term, invented by Andrew McAfee from Harvard ca. one year ago, has become well-understood and wide-spread in the meantime. On the German Wikipedia it is impossible to find any information about the term. I'm glad that I found this article here. "Enterprise 2.0" is a concept of growing importance, being discussed in business, consulting and scientific environments. It's not about computing only. It's about the change of work and work organization. It describes the change of collaboration within enterprises being enabled by the use of social software. Some case studies on DrKW, IBM, Nokia etc. already exist. There's more to come, it's an emergent topic. -- Pit Hansing 11:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge/delete comments

message: This article is a mess.  It certainly hasn't cleaned up much since last year.   There were only a small number of refs, all related to terminology, not the focus of the article.  The text keeps veering back towards justifying the authors' preferred buzzwords and away from any verifiable statements (indicated by the lack of refs, despite all the 'external links').  This is a low-grade target for link spam by people who fully believe that their favorite commercial site selling enterprise social software is the best one to present a neutral whitepaper on the subject.  (An aside to those editors: if you can't provide a link to the whitepaper as a doc, not as part of a website with ads for the company's services, it is as often as not a mediocre whitepaper.)  
I cleaned it up by slimming it way down.  Please find useful things to say about the meme of social software in enterprise, or merge this with an article that has a clear intent to inform.  If an entire year hasn't turned up one useful reference or new piece of knowledge, the current merge suggestion may not be bad.   Sj
Enterprise 2.0 = The implementation of Web 2.0 concepts in the business world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.218.191 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest that this this article has potential, but yes, does need cleanup as well as verification of what references it does have (which need to be made inline references) as truly being valid and supporting the article, not propaganda or adverts? Anyone willing to step up and take a first attempt? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this article is that whenever some people try to improve it, others remove, delete and pretty much sabotage any such attempts.  This does not appear to happen with any of the foreign-language Enterprise 2.0 articles and one of them (I think the German one) even questioned why there seems to be so much controversy.  Having added a bit and seen it all removed, I'm content to just watch what happens in the hope that the Wikipedia Nazis will move on to other articles. -- kosboot (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the German one - and I am proud to be quoted here, thanks for mentioning, kosboot. Let's see it from the user's perspective - and isn't the user's perspective the one a wiki is bound to represent? Imagine you are new to the topic and try to look up the term - just to finally find out what they are all talking about. What is more obvious than to look up this term in Wikipedia? Then you find yourself redirected to a different term - which is not identical to Enterprise 2.0 (for a discussion with references see the German article, or just take the definition in the revised version of McAfee 2006 who defines E 2.0 as the "use of [...] social software" - which screams for a discussion of the implications of this within a hierarchical structured organization). A discussion if McAfee invented E 2.0 should of course be part of the article (supposedly not), but you can fairly pay tribute to him for coining the term for a broad public. And, yes: it's a neologism, but one that is so popular that there is an increasingly diversified scientific discussion about it - something that we should not deprive our "well-disposed" audience from. An article appropriate to the Wikipedia quality standards should comprise all this and kick it back to where it belongs: at the head of the discussion. -- AchimBode (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mess. 

message: Adrius42 (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this new entry to the bottom, to reflect its chronological succession.  I also agree with it, and wonder maybe we should restart an Enterprise 2.0 article and keep it on someone's sandbox, so that it will not be deleted or merged until more rational heads prevail. -- kosboot (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Computing is not Enterprise 2.0 

message: I completely disagree with what is currently presented in the Enterprise 2.0 wiki entry. Yes, social networking tools are tools used by Enterprise 2.0 organizations, but using these tools doesn't make an organization 2.0.
Enterprise 2.0 is a radical shift in management thought and practice.  Enterprise 2.0 is about agility, transparency, process alignment, flat management, distributed team, etc.
:I agree. Enterprise 2.0 is NOT simply the application of web 2.0 principles to the enterprise. Read this article for a better understanding of all the implication of Enterprise 2.0.--Dejudicibus (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enterprise 2.0 is so much more than traditional management using Web 2.0 tools

message: * move it back to enterprise 2.0 (the current title was actually invented in one of enterprise 2.0's deletion debates and is even more of a neologism than enterprise 2.0 is itself), clean it up a bit and see if some references can be found
* delete it like was done with web 3.0, as it is nearly impossible to write an article for vaguely defined topics
suggestions :) —Ruud 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a new Enterprise 2.0 article (there is such an article in 6 foreign language Wikipedias).  But before that's done, we should discuss how to make it so airtight that the Wiki-correctors will not be able to delete it. -- kosboot (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, but where? --AchimBode (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what to do with this article? 

message: The overused word "social" is light on content and high on misdirection.  Many would use collaboration and community instead.  This article doesn't mention community, particularly, but it should. 173.210.35.198 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is an article on the topic, but this isn't it 

message: Within the scientific and professional community there is meanwhile an understanding how the terms Enterprise 2.0 and Enterprise Social Software are to be understood. 
In short (pleased to add more later, including references e.g. Andrew McAfee/Harvard, Ross Dawson etc):
Enterprise 2.0 = concept of strategic application of social software within the enterprise - mostly for internal use (like intranet, corporate internal communication etc.
Enterprise social software = as the name already indicates this is software, as such it describes various software products from the range of social software. This comprises e.g. Wikis, blogs, collaboration platform software etc. It is about technology only and completely different from Enterprise 2.0. - it is rather the software, chosen to be used within the framework of E2.0.
In case there are any questions I am pleased to help. It's just that the next days I am extremely short in time - but if needed I can offer to help improve the articles listed presently.
Othertwice1504 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would see it the other way. The current proposal is to merge the concept of a social enterprise under the article on social software. It seems like it should be the opposite. Along with cultural and leadership changes, the use of software is one methodology or concept under a social business (Enterprise 2.0), therefore the software article should be merged with the Enterprise 2.0 article. Corporate 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The suggestion to merge those two pages is simply unprofessional rubbish 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Enterprise social 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/20090131142014/http://www.aiim.org:80/What-is-Web-2.0.aspx to http://www.aiim.org/What-is-Web-2.0.aspx
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) 20:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified