Talk:Content management system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] got Award

Still too focused on web content managment

We know that this page has gone back and forth a few times, but I believe it's still too focused on web content managment. A web CMS typically has a small portion of the functionality of an enterprise level CMS, yet the focus of this entry keeps moving back to the web based feature set.

So, how can they organize it so that those who are focused on web based CMS can get their information in, and those of us who spend a lot of time with enterprise level CMS don't have to keep adding that information back in?

Here's my thought:

Introduction
A high level overview of the purpose of CMS
Types of CMS
Define enterprise level, periodical focused (such as for newspapers), web focused, and any other style people can think of
Subsections for each of the above defined types of CMS.

What do y'all think?

I agree that more stuff on non-web CMSs needs to be included. I think the article should have an overview, then straight into a description of each different type of CMS, rather than having a definition section. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that your organisation into different CMS types are appropriate. Moreover, I specifically came to this page looking for Enterprise Content Management related material and found none

[edit] Motivation?

I came to this page looking for and not finding the motivation for using a content management system. What are they good for? What are they bad for? What sorts of people would want to use them? What might I use instead if a CMS is over the top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.133.63 (talk • contribs)

There isn't a black-and-white answer. From personal experience, I'd say you'd need a content management system of you are publishing information that (1) changes periodically, but where older revisions should be stored and tracked, and or (2) the information is published in different formats (e.g., plain text emails, HTML newsletters, PDFs, etc.). That's an extremely high-level take on it from a non-specialist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Pages, Modules, Roles, Users; that's how I start explaining CMS... Gifford Watkins (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A bit outdated?

Surely with today's CMS products Transactional, Publication and Learning CMS's are really under the same umbrella as any normal CMS product? By differentiating it just muddies the water for people trying to pick up the details? In regards to Integrated CMS, this must come under the heading of a DMS?

I've put back the link to a list of content management systems and removed a couple of the links to web content management systems. I'm assuming a mistake was made.

[edit] External links?

Ofcourse, the links in this article are an excellent way for CMS vendors to further their own cause *ahem*. That means regular cleaning of those links is neccessary.

Apart from that, I think it'd be useful to add in some links to professional organisations (AIIM, CMPros) and some general overview sites and/or blogs? I'll look some up and add them in, feel free to elaborate on them.

But please... no specific systems, on last count there were over 1800 worldwide and there's no room for all of those here ;)

I checked CMPros on June 5 2006 and got a blank page.


I do not understand why my link to http://pantzer.freehostia.com is constantly deleted. This is a non-commercial site with review of open source CMS. It is mostly concentrated on CMS that do not require the database like MySQL. If you would try to find in the internet any site that lists text-files-database driven CMS you would hardly to find the one. People who could be interested in this article on Wiki are unexperienced or future web-site owners. The information about text-files-database driven CMS is very useful for them, because if one wants free CMS he/she probably wants free hosting and many free hosters do not provide MySQL support. Why my link is deleted but the link to http://www.contentmanagement365.com left in the external links section. If you would visit that site you would find that there is 5(!) signs "Register Now" on the main page and no useful information visible for non-registered users. Then under the Title "Directories of available systems" is such a monter as http://www.cmswatch.com/ that is mostly profit oriented site. So, why MY link should be deleted? My link was placed at the external links section for a period of approximately one day. And I had 28 visitors followed this link. That means that the infromation about CMS that do not use MySQL is needed for people who read this article on Wiki. --217.157.158.36 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As per me this place is becoming marketplace for many of the cms or related service providers. I found that 'CMS List Annotated reference to major Web CMS tools' in the External Links section is purely an commercial site and do not help you in any manner unless and until you register with them. I am deleting the link. Anyone who wants to add any link please discuss it with the others in Discussion area. If anyone find that this is becoming a place for vandalism I strongly believe to semi-protect it. What others say? Please discuss.Dkcreatto 15:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Open Source Content Management Systems - removed

I'm removing the "Popular Open Source Content Management Systems" section from this article, since it both calls for edit wars and is quite unverifiable what systems should be there or not. Note that wikipedia provides a list of CMS systems that does not make unverifiable assumptions about popularity. --Sindri 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The history section

The history section just got blanked (with the rest of the article) and replaced by a generic description. I reverted, but in the process I noted that the history section is pretty weak. It starts with Vignette (appropriate, I think), then talks about Pencom, which I don't think of as such a significant system--I might be wrong about that, seems a little spammy though. But surely there's more to the history of CMS's than that? I am no expert, but I'm hoping someone who is might pitch in on this. How about ArsDigita Community System? Slash? The advent of small, PHP-based open source systems like Drupal, Plone or Nucleus? Etc., etc. · rodii · 13:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Directories of available systems

What happened to all these sites?

[edit] External Link Suggestion

I've just had a suggested link to a list of pre-approved UK CRM Experts and Vendors deleted from the external list: http://www.approvedindex.co.uk/indexes/ApprovedCMS/free-quote.aspx. I'm puzzled how other sites doing exactly the same e.g. Content Management 365, CMS-Zone etc all seem to be allowed to link to their sites?? Could somebody point out the difference please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.253.104.160 (talk • contribs) .

You added a link, I removed it. I haven't checked the existing links. If you think other links are business spam too, feel free to remove them. Femto 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add Blue Dasher from my company Tynken Interactive to the list of content management solutions on this forum. How do I post the link or is it even allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.51.228 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition (first sentence)

The first sentence of the article defines the term using all three words found in the term. Is it possible to define the term without repeating ourselves? Mattbrundage 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. How about something in plain English such as "A Content Management System is one of many means by which web sites can be created and edited." - ? John259 07:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A Content Management System is one of many means by which web sites can be created and edited. - no, in this case it's only a WCM Web Content Management System! There is a lot of other content around, that's too narrow ... Kff 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of focus?

Are document management and workflow in the scope of content management systems - what is the difference than between content management and document management for example?! Enterprise content management is not mentioned at all - is an ECMS a special CMS?! What about the relation to content syndication, portals, content integration - are these only similar systems or are these special content management systems?! What about standards for CMS - interoperability is a strong issue today?! In regard to ECM at least there is a new publication with definitions: ECM Enterprise Content Management, Ulrich Kampffmeyer. Hamburg 2006, ISBN 978-3-936534-09-8 (English, French, German), PDF. 80.171.132.88 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way - ODMA is completely outdated, JSR 170, JSR 283, WebDAV and other standards are important today! 80.171.132.88 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ODMA is outdated and was focussed on document management systems. Kff 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Appology for mistake

I was running my random Lupin spellchecker and totally didn't realize that this was a vandalized page. Please accept my appology. I will spellcheck a little slower next time. Regards. Wiki Raja 06:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Is it me or is this page getting hit with far more vandalism than other articles? The rate at which this page gets blanked, replaced with nonsense or abused as a sandbox is unbelievable. Maybe it should be temporarily protected? --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem all that bad to me. Try adding to your watchlist some of the one-word articles on topics with which any school child is familiar like cat, dog, lion or tiger. Those basic articles are relentlessly assaulted by unhelpful edits. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This does not sound right: "Aaron Doering is currently teaching a course at the U of M that explores the useage of the CMS." But I'm not sure if it is vandalism or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.203.231 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added an usefull external link

I've added an external link to cmsdownload.com because i saw there were no direct links to pages where people can actually have a bunch of content management systems categorized and available for download.

1st I wanted to add Sourceforge as a link but they are just too wide spread and people looking for a cms might get lost there. Then i found that place and felt it was more apropriate for the article.

Also i'd preffer to see only free cms links as they are the mostly used and might not create the feeling that the links are just ads for some companies to make an extra buck.

Have you noticed that everyone seems to have a "useful" link? And links seem to be the only "useful" thing they have to offer Wikipedia? Wikipedia rarely benefits from another external link. I have removed it. You failed to mention that both your IP and the website you added both are associated with Romania. Pure coincidence? Care to explain? I propose that we remove all the external links from this article except for the DMOZ entry. All of the conflict of interest editors can add their links there. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion of two meanings for "module"?

As a reader, trying to find information about whether CMS would benefit my writing projects, I read one section of definitions that seems to have two meanings for "module". I quote:

  • Module - A content module is a section of the web site, for example a collection of news articles, an FAQ section, etc. Some content management systems may also have other special types of modules, for example administration and system modules.

...

  • Module-based CMS - Most tasks in a document's life-cycle are served by CMS modules. Common modules are document creation/editing, transforming and publishing.

Should the first entry include two definitions, the second being "A CMS module is a step in the process of creating a topic or document."? Or is a better term available for "module" in the use of "module-based CMS"? Tgkohn 17:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This content does not seem very rigorous.

I'm kind of a Wikipedia newbie so I hate to criticize, but I found this page disappointing.

"A Content Management System (CMS) is a software system used for content management. This includes computer files, image media, audio files, electronic documents and web content. The idea behind a CMS is to make these files available inter-office, as well as over the web. A Content Management System would most often be used as archival as well. Many companies use a CMS to store files in a non-proprietary form. Companies use a CMS file share with ease, as most systems use server based software, even further broadening file availability."

The first sentence is essentially circular. The second sentence uses "this" without a clear antecedent. The third sentence is informal. The fourth sentence is not quite literate and is unsubstantiated. And so forth.

I'm not a CMS expert, so I'm reluctant to actually edit it, but I wonder if someone more knowledgeable than I might not clean up this first paragraph. (I have no idea whether the remainder of the article is valid or not.) I came here looking for an overview of CMS that I could paste into a note to a client -- and this first paragraph falls way short of the mark.

I see that someone else above also objected to the first sentence. I'm no CMS expert, but I can write a decent English sentence. Does anyone like "A Content Management System (CMS) is a software system for managing the display and maintenance of content such as word processing documents, multimedia files, and Web pages"?

Charlesm20 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC) charlesm20

I second Charlesm20's observations, now almost half a year later. And similarly, I'm hardly a knowledgeable authority on CMS, but only someone trying to get some valid, unbiased information.

I also second any direction away from limiting the definition to web-output content. I hope to use a CMS for rigorous "write-once, use-many" documents that may be PDF, web, or other media in the output form.

Tgkohn (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An idea to clarify the different systems.

Hello, I am offering this as a suggestion NOT an assertion.

What I have in mind is a graphic representation of the relations between the different types of content management systems. There is quite a bit of overlap when it comes to what ECM, DCM and WCM systems can do: granular permissions, versioning and other core functionality. However, when we get out to the edges of what organizations are doing with their content management systems, there are different functions such as "in-context" editing for the WCMS.

My idea is that a graphic such as a Venn diagram be used so that the core functions and use-specific functions can be differentiated quickly and accurately.

All thoughts on this are welcome!


--Redlandish 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Adding an external link

Greetings, wikipedians. I humbly submit that an external link to a series of advice- and instructional-oriented articles is not vandalism. The page in question is this [Feature Articles About Web Content Management]. Yes, we are commercial site. The page in reference, however, is fundamentally a media resource with a quite a bit of meaty and useful analysis.

I would be happy to synthesize and share all this information on this wikipedia page, but would not want to do all that work and see it disappear overnight. This page does indeed need a lot of work (distinguish WCM from ECM, then define the two, provide examples, etc. etc.), but we would need a framework first. Welcome your comments.


[edit] Take with Grain of Salt Anything Presented on Wikipedia Concerning CMS's

If you are a casual browser looking for information on content management systems, perhaps a comparison or listing of commercial or open-source CMS's, beware that there are impartial "editors" trolling in the CMS waters who delete both software articles and CMS-list entries based on their personal biases. You will not find a complete list of even notable content management systems here in Wikipedia because of the prejudiced, arbitrary actions of many of the editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.246.87 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very weak article

Does anybody have any clue why this article would have a special section for School Web Content Management Systems? I don't get it. Also, a WCM subheading and no document management or records management headings? No ECM vs WCM vs etc? 4 pillars of content management just sitting out there all stark and naked with no citations? Does anyone have any objections if we just rewrite this article? --Davidp (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Less objections the more closely I look. It is easy to superficially improve this article's tone, but when you get to the substance, text like the following just isn't up to encyclopedic standards:
The idea behind a CMS is to make these files available inter-office, as well as over the web. A CMS would most often be used as an archive as well.
This article completely lacks any formal definition of what functions a CMS fulfills and what its most basic features are. It is vague and concentrates on WCMS to exclusion. This vagueness, in turn, attracts marketers who spam it with buzzwords and external links. To improve it substantially, this article would need to be rewritten to a great extent. --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 12:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link removed

I have removed a link to this URL: http://www.digitalfunction.com/public/pag163.aspx . I argue that this page is not an article in that it provides no information or research at all. It is at most a blog post or marketing pitch, and an extremely brief one at that. To paraphrase the text:

This article will explain how I see CMS and SEO. I disagree with the SEO companies who claim that good SEO requires moving to a new CMS.
SEO cannot be performed by software, as software is incapable of SEO. While basic SEO can be automatized, you cannot trust the quality because it is not checked by humans.
So you should use a CMS that allows you to optimize manually. Optimization involves structuring your HTML code correctly and writing keyword-rich text. This must be done by humans.
Check these two links (Yahoo and Google).
In summary, don't trust CMS vendors that tell you to buy a new CMS for better optimization just so they can sell their CMS to you.

Was that the whole article? This wouldn't be admissible content if it were on a blog, and it certainly isn't admissible when it is marketing material.

--- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 14:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motion for rewrite

I have marked the article for rewriting, due to the reasons outlined by multiple people above. Basically, the article makes a lot of vague statements wrapped in verbose sentences, it loses focus of its subject, it contradicts its structure by first confessing that it uses "CMS" to mean "Web CMS", then adding a section about Web CMS, then a link to another article about Web CMS.

The summary is unstructured and too long compared to the rest of the article, which provides little more information than a dictionary definition. This is not the fault of any editor; rather, the problem seems to be a patchwork of improvements that stop short of the rigorous overhaul that would be necessary. The subject is unfortunately difficult to define in solid terms, possibly because of marketing buzzword usage...

--- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 12:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)