Talk:Enterprise social software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Cross link

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)

[edit] More than Web

I'd suggest that Enterprise 2.0 isn't just a web toolkit. It includes live conversation tools for communication, coordination and collaboration. These may be built into web apps, browser or flash based rich apps, or rich desktop clients. They may also be blended into other Enterprise 2.0 services. Media modes: IRC, mobile SMS, text chat and instant messaging, VoIP, presence brokers, voice conferencing, video calls and video conferencing, screen sharing. When used in the workplace they are clearly enterprise social software. -- Phil Wolff 04:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise 2.0? What a load of rubbish - it doesn't mean anything, its just a buzz phrase - sheer hype by desperate men. NLB 12:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it ironic that members of the emergent Wikipedia community, such as our friend immediately above, are sometimes most negative about terms that themselves are emergent. These terms, yes, neologisms, are helpful to the community because they let us name emergent phenomena. Naming, in turn, lets us focus shared attention on these phenomena, make sense of them, join them, extend them, even fight them, if that is what one wants to do. Enterprise 2.0 was introduced by a faculty member at Harvard Business School to describe a phenomenon he wanted to call attention to--which is the consequences of loose, untyped, diy, interactive clusters and mashups and networks of web services being embraced by people who work together in enterprises. I see no reason not to embrace this new term. It calls attention on a set of interesting developments on the social and technical landscape. Web 2.0, a term--astoundingly--that has been trademarked by O'Reilly--is also a valid and valuable name. By the way, my own sense of linguistic and cognitive history is that Web 2.0 itself started out meaning nothing more than an O'Reilly conference loosely pulling together new developments on the landscape. Only later did it become a term that took on real meaning. Terms take on meaning by being picked up by users, by communities of users. Terms are given meaning by communities. The process always starts small, loose, and--let me say it, emergent. A couple of months ago my friend Joi Ito called my attention to an emergent movement among Wikipedia insiders to delist "emergent democracy." Too much of a neologism, was the objection. This movement was only overturned when someone pointed out that there is a real published book on emergent democracy available on Amazon.com. Geez, folks. How is it that the most emergent community on earth is developing policies to block the emergence of new topics and new names--and ultimately, new insights? -- Woodspoet 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this an horrible oxymoron? Enterprises are by their nature segmented and siloed to create efficiencies around tasks and leverage scale. Many enterprises use competition between silos to drive reward structures. Asking something inherently hierarchical to leverage social tools and structures is asking the impossible. The contributors will never be rewarded for contributing to the community ahead of contributing to "their job." Furthermore, if advancement in the hierarchy is a goal, it requires abandoning ones current social circles to move on. Differentiating oneself isn't a social behavior, it is a competitive and hierarchical (enterprise) behavior. I'm not convinced this will ever work. -- 192.44.136.113 (talk • contribs • logs) 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In the now-deleted Enterprise 2.0 article I put in a number of links and definitions. Apparently these have been deliberately deleted by those who argue against the term. I wonder if it might be helpful for such Wikipedia Police to take some courses on the constantly changing nature of language and realize that what might be a neologism today might have a big more significance a few months down the line. To be sure I'm not a "fan" of Enterprise 2.0 - but it is a term that one finds with increasing frequency, and for that reason alone, I feel it should be at least referenced, if not deserving of a separate article. kosboot 00:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/delete comments

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)

  • Completely agree that this page should not be deleted or merged. E2.0 is a growing term that now has it's own set of conferences, blogs, etc. It has began to represent the implementation of Web 2.0 social tools into the business place. -- 64.3.1.253 (talk • contribs • logs) 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Enterprise 2.0 is becoming the term for describing the effects of Web 2.0 in the world of business. I didn't like the term becoming replaced by Enterprise Social Software in the first place (I use the term Enterprise 2.0 myself a lot). I certainly would advise against merging the page with Social Computing! (Joost Bekel) 83.86.21.172 (talk • contribs • logs) 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Enterprises are by their nature segmented and siloed to create efficiencies around tasks and leverage scale" (above). Does that mean that enterprises should not try to overcome these issues? Working inside an enterprise, and helping to develop new ways of working, I was delighted to find this very useful page. I might not have read a page on social computing. Use of the 2.0 tag clearly delineates it as relating to a specific type of tool and culture. -- Camillaherrmann 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Enterprise 2.0' may mean the same thing as 'social computing,' but that doesn't mean that the two 'terms' should be combined. If a user wants to look up one or the other, each should have its own entry. That the entries refer to each other is sufficient. (bstro) 64.72.65.130 (talk • contribs • logs) 17:56, 15 May 2007.
    • I absolutely agree that 'Enterprise 2.0' deserves its own entry. It is a term known to people in the business world as something far more specific than 'social computing' which is a vaguer term. Merging the two will only confuse people like my students who would expect to find a seperate entry. Furthermore this is NOT a low importance article as 'Enterprise 2.0' as a concept is growing in interest. (chrisczechrep) chrisczechrep 18:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is clear that the use of Enterprise Social software is an important use of technology that is only partially related to the consumer phenomenon. The importance to which these solutions bring to business definitely deserves its own entry. Organizational behavior, as well as compliance and security requirements introduce unique elements to how software is used, what constitutes a solution, and what can and can't be done. (dlavenda). -- 80.230.233.207 (talk • contribs • logs) 07:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'D suggest that it be renamed as simply Enterprise 2.0 - because thats what people are referring to it as these days anyways! - 219.64.4.24 (talk · contribs) 11:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The term Enterprise 2.0 is highly used in organizational environments, it deserves a topic on it's own, and it's not limited to a set of tools or enhancements to the corporate intranet. There's a cultural aspect to it that is not covered by the current article, and does not correspond to the Enterprise social software term. A new Enterprise 2.0 entry should be created, and the current redirection removed.Gabouy 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the suggestion that entry be renamed Enterprise 2.0. The category refers to more that just social software in the enterprise. There are aspects of Enterprise 2.0 such as content sharing, folksonomy creation, content rating and voting and open standards that are not exclusive to social software. sdholz 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is going on here? I've not checked the article in a month, and in that time, my links have again been deleted, and much of the content of this article has also been deleted, making it a skeleton, (in order to?) receive a sub-class rating. I strongly suggest that the Wikipedia people not allow editing of this article except by those who really want to improve it. kosboot (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A mess.

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 ref or new piece of knowledfe, 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)

[edit] Social Computing is not Enterprise 2.0

Adrius42 (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Social Software or Social Computing is one topic. The implications of Web 2.0 tools to Enterprises is a another topic, that has in the past been labelled by the neologism Enterprise 2.0. While the topics are not unrelated, I now do not have a place to record the components and implications of Enterprise 2.0. One of the powers of the Wikipedia is its ability to capture and record emergent neologisms. The vandalism that comes from seemingly random merging of topics, is apparently driven by individuals who do not understand the changing nature of humanity. Where can one find the place to record SLATES and FLATNESSES, they are not simply a component of Enterprise Social Software. I had not until recently understood that there are fundamentally 3 forms of human beings, Luddites, Apathetics and Innovators. From my reading of various dicussion posts the Apathetics never make their thoughts heard, leaving the Luddites and Innovators to battle it out. My sense is that the Luddites win simply based on the fact that the Innovators having posted move on, the Luddites have more patience. No, I am not willing to do battle, I came to Enterprise 2.0, which I found to be merged, to read/add/update the section on SLATES to include FLATNESSES. Further Wiki research shows that SLATES has been twice deleted by the Luddites. Thus, as an Innovator with no patience, I have recorded my frustration here, and have decided to find a more forward looking online Encyclopedia, any ideas anyone? Just don't tell the Luddites when you find it!!! I was ready with my references, but sorry Professor Andrew McAffee your work is not recognised by the Luddites.

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)