User talk:Amcafee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Greetings, A McA

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Getting started 
Make a short userpage! Everyone's wary of a redlink. Edit your preferences to verify your email and set up email alerts, say for when someone leaves you new talkpage messages.
Helpful links 
Editing || Writing a great article || Naming and Merging || Style Manual || Policies
Reassigning old edits || What Wikipedia is not
Maintenance 
Deleting articles || all maintenance tasks (see also open tasks, below)

Uploading images: please note the origins and copyright status of every image you upload.

To sign your comments, type four tildes like this:  ~~~~. 
This automatically adds your name and the current time.

I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian on en:. You can also leave questions on my talk page. :)

Regards, +sj+


[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

[edit] Nice response time

Now I know we're approaching a truly networked society... I was reading your blog among others not an hour ago before coming here to fix the E-2.0 oversight. +sj + 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Enterprise 2.0

Improving the article :

  • it should lose bulk inclusions of one intepretation or another. Even though you coined the term - and if there is a crisp definition from that original paper, it should be uoted i nfull - its article should describe how it is used now, and why it is not just a marketing phrase.
  • it should be made short and reference rich, with at most one reference to any particular work. If you feel up to editing content about yourself, you might try removing personal references and external links as you can (now largely done). And you should clarify on the AfD discussion that you are the person who coined the term... +sj + 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It needs references to important uses of the term. There are thousands of good pages and articles and intra-company discussions that use this term. How do they use it? How is this different from discussions had before it was coined? Who is using it?
  • It needs a better empirical discussion of what Enterprise 2.0 means in practice. Don't just discuss the phrase, discuss the paradigm shift. If there is no paradigm shift, it's just another Web 2.0 marketing phrase.

Decision timelines : AfD discussions run for five days. If no consensus is reached, the discussion is moved to the article's talk page. In the long run, the article will exist iff it is made more informational and useful than it is now; a particular AfD debate is just one aspect of that evolution. +sj + 09:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ??? 2.0

As for helping more generally... this isn't a simple matter of a few random people on the web disagreeing over what deserves a spot on the community noticeboard. It is the kind of important semantic discussion that until now has been constrained to small editors' chambers. If you take the conversation seriously, as something more than a push to get one article 'accepted', and help reach consensus on this class of articles, you will have halped both the quality of the article in question and the quality of Wikipedia's amazing and growing style guide.

The heart of the matter is this :

  • There are over a thousand things that have been written about by more than a few people in a niche, responding to Web 2.0, and named "<existing term> 2.0" as a way of saying

'new online networks are changing everything'.

  • These thousand things do not all need a new [[<term> 2.0]] article. That specific phrase will die out soon, though the "... 2.0" meme will remain.
  • Work that might go into writing a[[<term> 2.0]] an article should be placed directly in context of either [[<term>]], Web 2.0, or something similar. Else each article has to retrace the shared steps of Web 2.0 and its properties and wide impact, before getting to the specific ways in which specific aspects of <term> are influenced by it.

My gut reaction is to say "Web 2.0" and "Business 2.0" are among a very few privileged terms -- the former because it provides its own context (doesn't define itself in terms of anything else with "2.0" in the name), the latter because of the publication. Anything else probably doesn't need its own article.

If you want to make the case that "Enterprise" is also privileged in this way (and different from "clothing", "art", "gaming", or "science"), go for it. But to be truly helpful, work with others to draw a general line between independently and collectively notable terms, highlight the use of the term by many people in many contexts, and as you identify elements that make a meme lasting and significant, find ways in which Enterprise 2.0 does or doesn't satisfy each one. +sj + 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] update

See my last comment at the top of the afd discussion. Try starting an article about "enterprise social software", make it say what you mean to say about E. 2.0, and then we can figure out what the right title is. Right now the E2.0 article is just about the term, which is precisely what it should not be. Best, +sj + 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • see Social computing#Enterprise social software. When that section gets longer, you may want to move it out into its own article under that name, encourage people to change it to Enterprise 2.0, &c. +sj + 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


The final result of the AFD process was a keep, which means that the 'Enterprise 2.0 article stays as a separate article. To quote Phil: "The result was keep. The arguments for deletion are not to my mind persuasive, and it turns out that rather than being a neologism, the term has in fact been around for some time. There is no question that we need an article about this subject..."
Could you please honor this decision and restore the most recent version of the Enterprise 2.0 article?Amcafee 22:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
AfD discussions are about deletion of articles. Their decisions are narrow in scope, as Phil also mentioned. The article was kept, none of its content deleted. "Enterprise 2.0" currently redirects to a more generally named article, with a reference from the social computing page; a normal way to deal with stubs that rely heavily on introductory content already present in other articles.
As I mentioned in the AfD, I recommend putting more work into the reference material at hand (at the moment, there is almost nothing there) before debating what to call it. +sj + 03:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] on AfDs, community reviews, editing and moving

Dear Andrew,

The AfD process is... a rare instance of polling* in a community that usually operates on the principles of consensus through an rapidly repeated process of discussion, boldness, and reversion. It is also one of the rare cases where the latter action, reversion, is not encouraged for some outcomes [rather than simply reverting a deletion, as one might do to an edit one disagrees with, there is the arduous process of requesting deletion review].

After 5 days, any administrator (particularly one who hasn't been too actively involved in the AfD discussion at hand, in this case Phil) can 'close' the discussion by assessing whether there is consensus, adding 'closed' tags to the discussion, and acting on the consensus if it exists. Administrative boldness, following community guidelines (consensus should be at least 80% agreement, plus reasonable arguments [not lots of votes with no explanation]). The default result of an AfD discussion, if no consensus was reached [as in this case], is "keep".

Beyond the closing of the debate, articles that are not deleted are left to the normal vagaries of wiki editing: anyone can edit the article as they see fit, up to and including blanking it; anyone can move or redirect the article to another title; anyone can add and remove specific content and references. If you feel strongly that Enterprise social software should be titled Enterprise 2.0, you could make that move yourself (probably a bit too bold for someone directly associated with either term). Or someone could do the same anonymously. Of course changes made anonymously or without new reasoning behind them are likely to be reverted more quickly than they might otherwise be.

* Note that, even there, AfD discussions are not votes; they are discussions informed and clarified by polls.

Cheers, +sj + 05:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)