Talk:Community Server
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] added infobox
I added the software infobox as per request. --bdude - uwantit TalkCont. 04:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Should this software be added to the Comparison_of_wiki_software page? Wffurr 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Glowingly positive
Was the text for this article "borrowed" from a Community Server press release? Having been forced by necessity to use CS 2.0 for the past few months, I'd hardly call the forums "robust." Making even the most slight modifications to an installation is an infuriating experience. Perhaps this article should aim for a more neutral point of view? FireWeed 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV
The last part of the article ("Criticism") seems rather jaded, even if true. It probably should be rewritten; I'm putting an NPOV tag on it in the meantime. I'd take care of it, but I'm not entirely familiar with the software in question. Zelse81 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The tone is matter of fact, not jaded, and a great number of software (and other topics) articles on Wikipedia have a criticism section. Telling both sides of an issue, the positive and the negative, is commonly accepted as NEUTRAL, whereas censoring any criticism is POV-pushing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.216.188.161 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
- I agree with Zelse81, I don't think you can criticize someone for charging for their services. If you are going to make criticisms, make them against the product itself, not the politics of how it is sold. For example, CS has a very steep learning curve before you can start modifying it. Also it is very reliant on a very solid IT infrastructure, and many sites have found by using fly by night hosting providers. But of course you need to have actually used the software extensively before making these comments in the article it self.
David Singleton 09:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)