Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise 2.0 (second nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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, and AFD is not the forum to discuss the appropriate name. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise 2.0

edit

not considered notable by Sleepyhead81 and Lectonar. +sj + 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second comment - top-posting. I want to highlight a comment by Amcafee which cuts to the heart of the matter, and point out that there is almost no content about the topic at hand, and only discussion of the term -- which many (including the coiner) have commented is a) the source of neologism trouble and other confusion, and b) not necessarily the best term for the topic in the long run.
    Fairsing, thanks for the response. I want to make sure I understand your position, and to do so it'll be helpful to me if we leave out the term 'Enterprise 2.0' altogether. Is it your position that the use-of-brand-new-collaboration-and-communication-technologies-within-organizations development we're interested in fails to meet one or more criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone entry within WP? If so, what policy or guideline is being violated? Is it verifiability, despite the references listed above? Notabilty? Or something else?Amcafee 04:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope that we can all get around to writing a great article about this topic and beyond debating over the name. I propose Enterprise social software as a working title for the time being, to be changed over time as necessary. +sj + 23:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enterprise social software is the perfect name for this. --SWolfson 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • sj, I think your proposal is a very good one. You might consider developing the page first as a sub-heading in the Social computing article, until it has enough verifiable detail to go into its own article, but either way is ok by me. Really nice job in proposing a creative solution to the problem! Fairsing 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [First] Comment - The article is vastly different in content now from the stub (calling the topic a neologism) that was created in May 2006 and deleted in June 2006. Not a candidate for speedy deletion. Sleepyhead81 mistakenly listed it as a speedy for being a recreation, and Lectonar speedied it (perhaps just not checking the diff). The current rev. has references and interested editors; please read the article before weighing in. I think an encyclopedic article on the topic should be short and reference-rich, discussing history and usage without trying to define the term; I don't know if the term is old enough or defined enough to merit its own article rather than a subsection of Web 2.0... but the core of the current article and 1-2 of its references belong somewhere on WP. +sj +


  • Do Not Delete - I think this is a sufficiently notable and distinct topic to merit its own WP entry. Let's please keep it. Amcafee+Note: First edit from this user
  • Delete any article whose citations are all blog entries about the Wikipedia article. Fan-1967 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - I think this deserves wikipedia users' attention. Let's keep it! (from Carnegie Mellon University)65.96.173.27 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Note: First edit from this user[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - A concept that describes how technologies such as wikis can be used in novel ways within organizations -- and that garners over a million hits on google -- clearly should be in Wikipedia. Although the boundaries of this term are still being defined, the Sloan article provides a very useful start. Wikipedia is exactly the forum where this term, like Web 2.0, can and should be more clearly articulated. mtoffel Note: First edit from this user
    • comment I find myself amused that the aformentioned google test by presumably a Enterprise 2.0 supporter appears to forget good google practice. Adding speech marks changes the result somewhat. "Enterprise 2.0" garners 720,000 results, whilst the alternative phrase "Social Computing" gets 921,000. Sadly these results are by no means authoritative, as there is no simple means to filter out the use of this term within forums (which wikipedia should not use as a reference, hence making their inclusion in a google test a bad idea), as forums are part of this concept. LinaMishima 02:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going through these points in order:
      1. A concept that describes how technologies such as wikis can be used...
        Wikipedia is not a place to discuss the theoretical uses of wikis. It is a wiki-based encyclopedia, but focusing on being an encyclopedia, not a forum for wiki meta-discussions. For that you have many other wikis, including Meta.
      2. ...that garners over a million hits on google...
        Yes, notability is a fair reason to keep an article on almost any phrase, person, or concept -- though perhaps a very short one.
      3. ...Wikipedia is exactly the forum where this term, like Web 2.0, can and should be more clearly articulated.
        This suggests a simple misunderstanding of Wikipedia's goals. It is not a place to store the definition of terms (for that, see Wiktionary). It is explicitly not a place to articulate new and unformed ideas, but rather a record of that which has been clearly formed about ideas. +sj + 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Enterprise 2.0 is not the same as social computing. Social computing is social software with device considerations included, which can also include consumer solutions Rossmay 03:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...or, to put it more simply, Wikipedia is not a forum at all. Fan-1967 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meaningless marketing buzzword based on another marketing buzzword. (For you marketing types: Look for the opportunity to leverage the synergy of this bleeding-edge deliverable by empowering the value-add. ) --Xrblsnggt 02:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - While certainly a neologism, so too is Web 2.0 as is "Wikipedia" for that matter. I would hope the fervor created by the deletion over the last few weeks would be indicative of the potential importance of this term. This is an evolving concept (as is Web 2.0) so it would be unfair to imply that the litmus test is a tried and true, uniform, definition. We don't worry about having one unified definition for concepts like "Faith" or "God" or "Love", and this is far more tangible and will find its way to a more universally accepted definition as we prove this out. Wood83
  • Weak Delete as a neologism, stated as emerging in spring of this year. The presense of references however makes this weak. Social Computing is arguably the better term for this. LinaMishima 02:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - A quick Google search [1] shows the term is worthy of discusion and therfore inclusion. David Terrar 02:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - More than worthy of discussion, as one time's neologism is not necessarily the future. I believe it takes ___domain expertise to understand the importance of this term and how it is being used in academia and industry. There is going to be risk of sock puppeting in this conversation, because the ___domain experts are highly connected through blogging and other networks. This isn't necessarily bad, as even Wikipedia forks content from conversation within the tool, previously on mailing lists and now on IRC (nor is it sock puppeting as most of the calls for participating are to expand the article). The article itself has great potential for expansion, use of the term is clearly on the rise, and it will be problematic to co-mingle it with consumer articles like web 2.0, social software, social computing, enterprise software, architecture of participation, wiki and more. Rossmay 03:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article really is not helped by being buzz-statement heavy, and almost evangelical. A casual read of the article is painful. With proper clean-up so as to make the article accessable, many delete votes may become keeps. A good place to start would be a description of what Eterprise 2.0 actually means, rather than it'the history of the term. Also, Social computing does seem very similar to me - however Enterprise 2.0 seems to be about the technologies rather than the business technique. All this needs to be clarified. LinaMishima 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I can respect the feelings that some editors have on this article, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites or saying the term isn't used. It isn't about if the term has a huge following or not. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so you understand. The Google searchs are really only used to back up a statement, not as a stand-alone basis for a vote though this is abused sometimes. The problem with the google searches are that they also include blogs, forums, and other links that are not accepted by wikipedia's policies as sources (and quite a few users forget to do quotation marks around the words to make sure it is a focused search for that exact term). The real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims of the author(s). It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet WP:V, some sections of WP:OR, does not follow the guideline of WP:CITE or WP:RS. The biggest violation beyond not citing reliable sources, is neologism. The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate and The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.. Following this, Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.. So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. More over Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles. So when the time comes that this term does have citations that rely on books and papers that have articles/sections about the term, then the article can be recreate. As far as personal thoughts, An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner. I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion.--Brian (How am I doing?) 04:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Brian, I appreciate the detailed view and, in terms of the letter of the Wiki law, I can't argue with many of your assertions. But the struggle I have broadly is that I could personally find you hundreds of wiki entries that are active and not subject to deletion which violate these very same "rules." Wiki is resplendent with neologisms of, frankly, far less import. There are even dozens of slang terms (including Booya! for goodness sake), which are allowed; yet Enterprise 2.0 which clearly has a following and an emerging interest can't pass muster? Wiki submission rules shouldn't be so complicated, is there somewhere I can read about the decision to create such rigid submission rules? Wood83
      • Reply Wood83, while I understand your thoughts, the arguement 'Because of Article X, then Article Y..' does not work here. Yes there are hundreds of articles that do not follow wikipedia's rules and as you see by the AfD logs, by the end of the day, dozens are removed. The thing is, nothing states that if I 'vote' delete on this afd, that I have to go out and make an AfD for all the other articles like this that fail any of the rules. If you found some, then by all means, make and afd for them! They are most likely subjects for deletion, yet no one has taken the time to start an AfD on them. The problem is that some of those slang terms that you have found do pass WP:V and WP:NEO...Enterprise 2.0 does not as of now. Yes, wikipedia has strict rules reguarding articles and they are all easily found. The talk pages for those rules are the best place to start. Though the three pillars of wikipedia are not subject to editor debate. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Booya is a disambiguation article, not a dictionary article about a slang word. Uncle G 16:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism that fails WP:V. Probably is also in violation of WP:OR, or at minimum ignores WP:CITE. A mention of the term in the Web 2.0 article might be appropriate if appropriately sourced. Fairsing 06:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete. The term has been written about in both HBR and Sloan Management Review, and is accepted in the business software space as a valid concept (where I work). I cant vouch that the term will be valid in 10 years time, but at the moment it is the best we have to describe a shift in how software is used in the business community. (this is my first attempt to comment in Wikipedia, so apologies if I havent done it correctly. Thomas OtterNote: First edit from this user
    • If "accepted in the business software space" means more than "my mates at work use this buzzphrase", then please cite sources. Cite sources to show where the concept of Enterprise 2.0 has been written about in journals. Show that the research, analysis, and discussion of this concept has been done outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 16:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - We cannot ignore this topic and it's importance. We need this entry. --mlazopoulou 08:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Note: This user set up this account on 5 November 2005, but this is their first contribution. [reply]
  • Speedy delete Already deleted. Original research. Not notable topic. --Sleepyhead 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. WP is not around to try to get yer blogging-term-of-the-month to stick. Mceder 12:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - In the context of enterprise software this is far different than simply web 2.0 or social computing. Insofar as neologisms are concerned, even the word "neologism" itself is a neologism so it's more than a little hypocritical to apply this deletion rule to some entries while not to others. Jeffnolan 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Note: First edit from this user[reply]
  • Delete per Brian. wikipediatrix 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include under Web 2.0 for now Based on the Wikipedia entry guidelines, this does not seem to stand alone. That said, it is an important concept that deserves mention somwhere. As someone who works with many corporate cios, they are all trying to figure out how to apply Web 2.0 concepts to their companies and I find Enterprise 2.0 as good as any term for now. cbcurran 25 August 2006
    • STRONG NOTICE I just want to point out to those that are creating single use accounts to comment here. This is not a vote. It doesn't matter if you have 3000 keeps and 30 deletes, or vica versa. All that matters is the arguements presented. Also, right from the AfD instructions: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. Basically, if you just creating an account to weigh in here about the AfD, it could be a wasted effort. Some closing admins discount new or unregistered users (anons) completely, while others only take the comments with a grain of salt and give them little weight. The best advice is to prove, via examples, how this article does not violation wikipedia policy. Refute each delete arguement, point by point, based on examples and WP rules. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - It has a sense by itself Berrinet Note: First edit from this user (84.77.96.216), and "Berrinet" is not a registered username.
  • Comment: Original Research, Sources, and Verifiability. I am the author of the Sloan Management Review (SMR) article referenced in the current WP entry on Enterprise 2.0. I hope that this entry is not deleted, and I'd like to address the arguments mounted here for doing so.

    It is true that Enterprise 2.0 has become a marketing buzzword, but it did not start that way. My article was the first use of the term (aside, I believe, from a single Technorati tag), so the term originated in an acceptable secondary source (as discussed more below), not in a marketing brainstorming session. It subsequently become a buzzword because of its resonance and popularity in some quarters, but the same is true of 'Web 2.0' and 'disruptive technology,' both of which have long WP entries not currently flagged for deletion.

    It is also true that Enterprise 2.0 is a neologism, as are Web 2.0, grid computing, and Web Services, all of which have WP entries. WP's guideline on this seems quite clear: "If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia... Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

    My SMR article (which is clearly referenced in the current entry) was entirely devoted to explaining what the term meant. SMR is a well-regarded and peer-reviewed journal, intended for both practitioners and academics. It seems to easily meet WP's criteria for appropriate sources, and for verifiability: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals..." "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors." It seems to me that the current entry does exactly this; anyone who wanted to could verify both the existence and content of the SMR article. I appreciate that this article is not freely available on the Web, but I don't see anywhere that verifiability must stem from free, universally available, or copyright-free sources. At any rate, an abstract of the article is available here: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2006/spring/06/. Other sources include the numerous blogs, my own included, listed in the current entry, as well as stories in Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2006/tc20060605_424102.htm) and other mainstream publications. I read in WP's policies that "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Aren't we doing exactly this sort of source-based research with the current entry?

    In short, after spending some time familiarizing myself with WP's policies and guidelines, I come away puzzled as to why many of the commenters here seem to believe that the inclusion of any entry on 'Enterprise 2.0', let alone the current one, violates policy on verifiability and/or original research. As argued above, it seems that the topic passes all of the relevant tests for inclusion in WP (other comments here have addressed concerns about notability). Most of the current entry's editors are, like myself, WP newbies and so have certainly made some mistakes in preparing and structuring the entry, but I don't see how these are grounds for deletion. Instead, I would hope that the WP community would use the entry's talk page as a forum to help us sharpen the entry over time.

    Another set of comments here and on the entry's talk page ask about folding Enterprise 2.0 concepts into WP's existing 'Web 2.0' entry. I can think of two main reasons not to do this. The first is the same reason that information about Chihuahuas is not subsumed under the entry for 'dog.' In other words, even if Enterprise 2.0 were purely a subset of Web 2.0, it might well have sufficiently distinctive history, features, and/or other characteritics to merit a separate entry in an encyclopedia. But I and others believe, and have previously published on the topic, that Enterprise 2.0 is not simply a subset of Web 2.0 -- that use of these technologies plays out behind the corporate firewall quite differently that it does across the entire Internet (see, for example http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/03/06/an_adoption_strategy_for_social_software_in_the_enterprise.php and http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/does_web_20_guarantee_enterprise_20/)

    I hope these comments are helpful. Thanks for giving me a forum to post them, and for having such a transparent AfD process.Amcafee 18:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment Thank you for your reply Amcafee. While you make a good arguement, the fact of the matter still remains that everything must be verifiable. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. While you state it was in a peer-reviewed journal, the problem is only readers that have access to this journal can verify the information. It must be available to anyone (by heading to the library, searching online, or stopping by a book store). Unfortunately, even though your blog may spell out parts of the journal, blogs are not accepted as sources in general. While you may have written the journal article on Enterprise 2.0 (and since you did it is generally, but strongly, frowned on that you work on the wikipedia article) the term still does not have multiple, Independent (from the source...being yourself), reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources. That is the main arguement. Now if the New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Newsweek, or some other major publication wrote an article exclusively on the term, or if a book had a chapter on nothing but this term, then the article would have reliable sources. As it is, we have a journal that the general public does not easily (if at all) have access to and no media mentions. On a related note: the last three enteries on your blog are fairly damning. The Get Out the Vote Drive where you tell people weigh in on its(enterprise 2.0) 'articles for deletion' entry. and that Every vote counts, so please take a minute to chime in (respectfully) on this . Let's get ourselves a not-in-danger-of-deletion-anymore entry that we can refine over time, in keeping with Enterprise 2.0 best practices! While I respect your knowledge and status as an Associate Professor, I take a dim view of a person who coins a term also being the person that is the main editor and follower of that term's wikipedia article. A google news search brings up no articles about the term itself (beyond your blog and an article about this AfD). A dogpile search brings up a lot of talk on the first and second AfD's but no full-length, featured articles about the term itself. A quick ODIN search of North Dakota and Minnesota's libraries does not bring up any printed articles or books that have the term. (and be careful before commenting, this search also looked into the college libraries. NDSU, Minnesota State Universities (all of them), UND, VCSU, Mayville, NDSCS just to name a few) --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment For an Article on a business topic, BusinessWeek's article on Enterprise 2.0 is ample verification acccording to the above. Rossmay 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Let me lead off my response by citing again WP's guideline on neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." As I said in my original comment, my article is such as source. Its contents are verifiable to anyone who has access to a good business library, anyone who has Web access and is willing to spend $6.50 for a copy of the article, or anyone who has Web access and access to retrieval services such as ABI / Proquest, which carries a .pdf of the article. I appreciate that these sources present hurdles, but as WP's guideline on reliable sources says, "Fact checking and reference-running can be time consuming." Luckily in this case, the SMR article's contents are currently verifiable to anyone who has Web access and moderate Googling skills, since at least one site has a .pdf of the full article available for free public download (I did not upload it).

        I see nowhere in WP's policies that multiple sources are required, but they do exist in this case. The Business Week article excerpted by Rossmay below (and available to anyone with Web access) places the phrase "Enterprise 2.0" very close to a quote identifying the trend as "... the biggest change in the organization of the corporation in a century." This seems like the opposite of a dismissive or trivial tone. The reporter does appear to tweak those of us who use the "Enterprise 2.0" neologism, but new concepts often demand new labels. This article, the title of which is "Web 2.0 Has Corporate America Spinning" is not about Web 2.0 as it's commonly and broadly defined. Instead, it's about nothing but the use of Web 2.0 technologies behind the firewall; it is, in other words, a full-length mainstream magazine article about Enterprise 2.0. It is also completely independent of me; I was not contacted by the reporter or referenced in the article.

        So I remain highly puzzled as to how this concept could be seen to fail WP's verifiability policy, which states: ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source,"

        To respond to some of the other points raised by Brian fairsing.

        Of course I have an interest in the outcome of this AfD process, and of course I have passion and bias. I have the same interest in publicizing this concept that all academics do in advancing their theories, and I think that it would be great if a Wikipedia entry on it existed. This is why I'm spending time to understand WP's policies, and to demonstrate that they're all being followed.

        As part of this demonstration I'm engaging in the distasteful activity of self-citation. I don't like it, but I can't see how else to proceed. And I cite my blog because, as WP's guideline on reliable sources states, even though blogs are largely not acceptable as sources "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." My blog meets all these criteria.

        Brian writes that he takes "a dim view of a person who coins a term also being the person that is the main editor and follower of that term's wikipedia article." A glance at the Enterprise 2.0 entry's history page would show that I have not in fact edited it at all. I have no way to see if I'm the article's "main follower," but I suspect I'm not.

        It was a mistake for me to refer to this AfD discussion as a 'vote' in my blog. I should have known better, and I apologize.Amcafee 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • Having something pass through a process of fact checking, peer review, and publication is one factor in our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Another factor is that a concept must have then become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. The existence of wholly separate non-trivial published works on the subject, from sources independent of the subject's creator(s), is a strong indicator of that. In slightly more academic terms: The original research hurdle is only jumped when other people's papers start coming out. You compare Enterprise 2.0 with Web 2.0, but the two are very different in one important respect: Whilst Google Scholar turns up several papers, from several authors, on the subject of Web 2.0, the only thing that it turns up about Enterprise 2.0 is your paper. Uncle G 01:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Printed books and matter on library shelves always lag the landscape on the ground. Wikipedia changes all of that. It keeps pace with time (and the rate of change). Enterprise 2.0 - it's in journals, newspapers, blogs, magazines, posters, signs - but not on Wikipedia! Irony of ironies.--171.69.101.214 20:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Professor McAfee. Thank you for your input into the discussion and for attempting to understand the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. To help out here, citing your own blog does not help establish Verifiability. And as to the Business Week article, the article itself is not about the term "Enterprise 2.0", but about "Web 2.0". The "Enterprise 2.0" term receives two trivial mentions in that article, one of which is derisive of the term: "Despite all the activity so far, it's still early days for this phenomenon some techies (who can't help themselves) call Enterprise 2.0." This quote indicates that even Business Week doubts the validity of the term. So, overall, what do we have here?

    An academic at a respected institution attemps to coin a new term in an article published in a respected journal (SMR). Fine, but all this means is that there is a new neologism on the block.

    The same academic starts promoting the term on his blog. Fine again, but does not establish verifiability of the term.

    Other blogs pick up the term. Nothing wrong with this, but these are very weak sources for verifiability according to WP:RS.

    There is anecdotal use of the term by people who work for various software companies. Ok, but again does not pass WP:RS.

    No other academics (that I have seen cited here, at least) have started to use the term in their own research.

    No mainstream business publications have published a non-trivial article regarding the term (that I have seen cited here). The BusinessWeek mention is trivial, and vaguely derisive at that.

    The academic begins to campaign to get readers of his blog to come to Wikipedia and "vote" to keep the article in this AFD ("every vote counts"). But voting is explicitly *not* the purpose of an AFD discussion.

    Several new WP editors consequently show up to "vote" in this discussion, several anonymously, several of whom have never edited Wikipedia before. Almost none of these postings make a coherent argument using Wikipedia criteria (notability, verifiability, etc.): some because they are new and don't understand these, and others don't even try, they just "vote".

    Also, because you potentially stand to gain personally if this term wins currency in the business community (respect among your peers, consulting engagements, etc.), you are inherently biased on the topic. So, although I respect your position and your passion for this subject, your comments here, and those of your blog readers can't overcome the fact that this term fails WP:V. I wish you well personally and if your term does become legitimately verifiable as per WP:V in the future (or additional citations are posted here), I will gladly support the inclusion of this term in the encyclopedia. But for now, it just doesn't pass muster. Fairsing 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please, cite the journals, newspapers, and magazines that have full length, featured articles on nothing but the term 'Enterprise 2.0' (Blogs, again, are not normally acceptable per wikipedia's policies, nor are posters or signs) I can't find them on a google, Dogpile, or ODIN search (which also searchs magazines and journals) --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The BusinessWeek Article says: "Indeed, what some are calling Enterprise 2.0 could flatten a raft of organizational boundaries -- between managers and employees and between the company and its partners and customers. Says Don Tapscott, CEO of the Toronto tech think tank New Paradigm and co-author of The Naked Corporation: "It's the biggest change in the organization of the corporation in a century." Rossmay 20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my comment above on the BW article. The article is not about "Enterprise 2.0" but about "Web 2.0". The "Enterprise 2.0" term has two trivial mentions, one of which is derisive. Fairsing 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire BW article is on Enterprise 2.0. It is important to understand (and I think people would if we spent the same energy on the article as this discussion) that this trend began with adapting Web 2.0 design principles and technology to an enterprise context. But remember that social software preceeded it and there are new discoveries in an organizational context. Also, Don Tapscott's quote, one of the leading business authors, who is known to be working on a book on the subject, should be taken into account. Rossmay 04:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • COMMENT Rossmay...you didn't read the BW article at all. The ONLY two times Enterprise 2.0 is mentioned is the ones pointed out. The title of the article is Web 2.0 Has Corporate America Spinning. NOT Enterprise 2.0 Has Corporate America Spinning.
        • Well, you have proven you have read the article, and have imagination. But sincerely, I appreciate you taking up the other side of the argument, someone has to. In this case, however, the MIT Sloan Management Review, BusinessWeek and Don Tapscott/Wikinomics stand to verify. Personally, but let's not make it personal, I have read all three. Rossmay 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rossmay, I need to point out that the Sloan Management Review article was written by the author of this term (Hence it is the primary source). Secondary sources are what are being sought here. Multiple, independent (of the original author/person that coined the term), Reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources are what matters. The business week article is about Web 2.0...not enterprise 2.0 and renders the article as a 'trival source' as stated many times already...that's wikipedia policy. The article has to be about (in title and body) the term in question (enterprise 2.0). It must be a full-lengthed featured article...not a sentence or two of an article hence the business week article fails to provide WP:V. The Don Tapscott/Wikinomics....article? Blog? I am not sure, you didn't source/link it so I can't say, but even so, is the article 100% about the term? So, no....at this point the article is failing WP:V--Brian (How am I doing?) 06:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bschott...Again, what I think we are dealing with is a grasp of the subject matter. And getting a commun understanding of what is a reliable source. Mainstream media needs to relate new, but important, concepts through framing. The BW article leads by framing the subject with Web 2.0. Why? Because they had written about it before and it helps contextualize for readers. Unlike a daily newspaper that leads with the who, what, when, why and sometimes how, the genre of a weekly needs to build a story. But the topic of the BW article is the same as this Article. All that said, I wonder why we are debating the title (of the Article, not the BW source, let's say). Some topics are defined by headlines (e.g. D-day), some are not so trivial. The original deletion was based on Neologism, which in my mind has been refuted. Does the reference to Enterprise 2.0 in the BW article not equate to a citation if you give the publication credibility? I'm happy to debate verfifyability, because, well, it is a good chance to test it. But isn't the argument about the topic of the article, not the title? At this point, I will have to ask other contributors to give their opinion of the subject of the BW article. The Tapscott quote and the logical tie to the book he is working on may require the opinions of other logicians. But I will say that if he thinks it is the biggest business trend today, he would probably be writing about it in a book that the website says is about the same tools and enterprise context. Back to common understanding. Fair reading outside of Wikipedia is required to get us there, but what is not here is obviously holding us back. Rossmay 07:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Brian brings up a good point, which is that the concept of the use of Web 2.0 technologies behind the firewall goes by a couple different names, of which 'Enterprise 2.0' is the dominant one. Dion Hinchcliffe, for example, calls it 'Enterprise Web 2.0' We should acknowledge this in the entry (assuming, of course, that the entry persists). The entry is about the concept, and the concept is captured by other terms in addition to 'Enterprise 2.0.'Amcafee 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting...a unique cultural moment. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete as neologism and for other valid policies already mentioned. As a side not, I know I am on the right track in voting delete whenever the anons and sockpuppets begin to multiply as they have here. Indrian 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely this debate will become a great strength or great weakness of Wikipedia? There seems to be a lot of egg moving about...Bruce 10:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blog sources Interested in the opinions of this group. Does noted journalist Dan Farber or Dion Hinchcliffe blogging under the Ziff Davis masthead qualify as a WP:RS? What can be learned about their reliability by following backlinks through a tool like Technorati? What about blogs that have met the criteria for inclusion in Google News? Rossmay 17:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment NO Rossmay. You are very well aware that wikipedia can not be self-referencing. Those blogs are about the AfD, and as such are voided as sources. The reference Wikipedia, which makes them invaild. Google News has their own criteria, and Wikipedia has theirs. I don't want to get personal, but it feels like you are grasping at straws here. And you mentioned a book that was due out but hasn't been published as a source? No, that isn't allowed either, though after the book is published AND has notability, then it could be sourced. Since quotations or sentances in an article is trivial coverage. Period. Blogs mentioning the AfD or Wikipedia are self-referencing and voided as sources. Period. Journals that the general public can not easily access are not valid sources. Period. That is wikipedia policy. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Glad you see both Ziff Davis blogs as reliable sources, here is a post by Dion Hinchcliffe on Enterprise 2.0 and one by Farber using the term -- neither are referring to this Article. Don't get personal. Above there are requests for more sources, this is a discussion, and I'm doing the research to fulfill the request. And thanks for challenging me, otherwise, I might not have found the Hinchcliffe post, which certainly meets the criteria for WP:RS. Rossmay 21:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually Rossmay, I think Brian is saying he *doesn't* see the blogs as reliable sources. I don't take as hard a line on blogs as Brian appears to, but in general Blogs are very weak sources with regards to WP:RS. His comment on the Hinchcliffe article being highly self-referential to Wikipedia is valid. Also, the other blog post you include (Farber) is about Web 2.0, not Enterprise 2.0 (Enterprise 2.0 gets only a trivial mention), and so it is a trivial mention in a weak source. This type of reference isn't going to get the article over the WP:V hurdle. Fairsing 01:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is interesting to point out that blogs have a greater capacity to be self-referential to Wikipedia Rossmay 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NOR etc.; reasons mentioned above. Lectonar 19:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seems to me that the schoolyard bullies are having just a bit too much fun with those of us who believe Enterprise 2.0 (the organizational and management impact of social media within large organizations) or Enterprise Web 2.0 (the new forms of collaborative software that enable the "emergence" (talk about neologisms) of new and still unknown organizational and management patterns and behaviors)is important and that the best idea may be to make a strategic retreat, get those peer reviewed articles and sources (and almost certainly a couple of new books) together, and come back in six months to a year with an overwhelming argument. Pointing out the obvious, which is that many, perhaps most, Wikipedia articles are neologisms and that that there are an awful lot of Wikipedia pages devoted to crappy little open source software apps that no longer exist, is not going to do it. 162.83.219.72 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Jerry Bowles 162.83.219.72 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Getting past the Neologism. It seems a lot of the debate here centers around the silly neologism 'Enterprise 2.0.' So let me presume to speak for the advocates of this WP entry (fellow advocates, if I misrepresent your position at all, please correct): this is not intended to be an entry about a neologism, but instead about a development -- the appearance of something new and noteworthy. 'Global warming' and 'citizen journalism,' for example, are other developments, both of which have excellent WP entries. Both of these terms are also neologisms, but their WP entries spend no time on the terms' etymologies. Instead, the entries treat the neologisms much as they are treated in the everyday world -- as shorthand for the development. And because encyclopedia entries need titles, the entry's title in each case is the neologism.

The development we want to build a WP entry about is the use of a novel set of communication and collaboration technologies within organizations, i.e. within the Intranet as opposed to across the Internet.

This is a development that the NYTimes and the WSJournal, and BusinessWeek have deemed worthy of reportorial and editorial energy: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/business/yourmoney/26mgmt.html?ex=1301029200&en=0d90ed5116e769d0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60612F8395A0C7A8DDDAC0894DB404482 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109105974578777189-email.html http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2006/tc20060605_424102.htm

It's also been the subject of some academic publications in addition to my SMR article. Papers and conference proceedings on intra-organizational use of blogs and wikis include: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110534832/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 http://osddp.org/files/issues/WP_WikisBlogs.7.pdf http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=21597&CFID=31149304&CFTOKEN=50547184 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1525-1594.2004.29005.x http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1149453.1149472&coll=portal&dl=GUIDE&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618 http://bir.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/4/269

Papers on intra-organizational tagging include: http://acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=344&page=1 http://domino.watson.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/242252765710c19485256979004d289c/1c181ee5fbcf59fb852570fc0052ad75

In addition, Wikipedia's parent foundation found the development notable enough to include it as part of the 2006 Wikimania conference.

Most of these references do not use the neologism 'Enterprise 2.0,' but they are all about the development for which the term is a shorthand -- the development we'd like to build a WP entry about. I can find no WP policy or guideline stating that every reference for an entry must contain the same words as the entry's title, and it's not hard to find entries where this is not the case. The following, for example, are references included in WP's entry on citizen journalism that do not use the neologism 'citizen journalism.' http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060217106.php http://www.cpn.org/topics/communication/civicjourn.html http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/010705.html http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/weblog.php

We want to build at WP entry about this development for the same reasons that the reporters, editors, academics, and researchers referenced above devoted their energy to their publications: we think the development is important and noteworthy enough to merit our attention and effort, and we'd like to inform a larger audience about it (For whatever it's worth, a number of entrepreneurs, executives, analysts, financiers, and bloggers apparently concur.). We also think it's distinctive enough to not be subsumed into a broader entry, just as WP's 'citizen journalism' entry is not subsumed into 'journalism,' and 'global warming' is not subsumed into 'climate change.'

This entry needs a title. We've been using 'Enterprise 2.0' to date because that neologism has become the most frequently-used shorthand for the development. People may or may not like the neologism (I'm coming to wish I'd chosen a different one), but what does everyone think of the development? Are its advocates right or wrong in thinking it's an appropriate subject for a WP entry?Amcafee 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the issue is that there are developments and trends in the Web 2.0 space regarding the ideas you are referring to, but that the term "Enterprise 2.0" itself just hasn't caught on widely enough yet to pass WP:V, then it sounds like the content you are describing could very well fit in Wikipedia as a sub-heading of an existing article (perhaps the Web 2.0 or Social computing articles might be good homes for this content?). Fairsing 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fairsing, thanks for the response. I want to make sure I understand your position, and to do so it'll be helpful to me if we leave out the term 'Enterprise 2.0' altogether. Is it your position that the use-of-brand-new-collaboration-and-communication-technologies-within-organizations development we're interested in fails to meet one or more criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone entry within WP? If so, what policy or guideline is being violated? Is it verifiability, despite the references listed above? Notabilty? Or something else?Amcafee 04:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for asking. I don't really have a position on whether "the use-of-brand-new-collaboration-and-communication-technologies-within-organizations development" is worthy of its own article or not. My guess is that it might be, and certainly the topic is interesting and ripe for study / discussion. My issue is that putting an article on this topic with the title "Enterprise 2.0" isn't appropriate at this time because the term itself doesn't pass Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. That's what this whole AFD discussion is about -- not whether the concept is valid or not, but whether there should be an article in WP with the title "Enterprise 2.0". My own personal guess is that the concept could benefit from an article, although I'm not sure whether that's the Web 2.0 article, the Social computing article, some other existing article or a brand new

article. But right now, as it stands today, I don't see how we can have a brand new article with the title "Enterprise 2.0" and have it pass the verifiability hurdle. At some point in the future, when/if the term has been picked up by other academics and the mainstream business press with substantive treatments of the term, then an article with this title would be appropriate. Fairsing 23:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Amcafee is right. For better or worse, Enterprise 2.0 has become the buzzword, or neologism, if you insist, to describe the convergence or collision of a new breed of widely available and deployed participative, social networking technologies (those things we call Web 2.0) with traditional hierarchical organizational dynamics. No one yet knows exactly what this will produce in the long run or even if it's a good or bad thing. It is, however, an incredibly BIG thing and one with enormous implications in the world of business which is one of key building blocks of civilizaton.

Of course, you won't find a lot of published references in dead tree media about Enterprise 2.0 yet. It still takes a year or so to get a book published and scholarly articles take months to be vetted and published. (I would point out that the words "Web 2.0" "Ajax" and "podcasting" did not even appear in the 2005 Gartner Hype Cycle report, published only a little over a year ago. Obviously, they are all over the 2006 report.)

Enterprise 2.0 is not an isolated concept that came out of nowhere. There is a long and rich intellectual trail of work done on participation and collaboration within large organizations before the advent of these new technologies and these are part of the evolving Enterprise 2.0 story. For example, consider all the groundwork done on "communities of practice," which is also shorthand for research across many disciplines and has its own full and rich Wikipedia entry.

I refer you to such seminal works in CoP area as:

Wenger E, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press, 1998. Wenger, E, McDermott, R & Snyder, W.M., Cultivating Communities of Practice, HBS press 2002. Saint-Onge, H & Wallace, D, Leveraging Communities of Practice, Butterworth Heinemann, 2003.

In the field of social networking, which is also part of the E2 story, see this example which available online:

Hanneman, Robert A. and Mark Riddle. 2005. Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside published in digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/

Enterprise 2.0, as shorthand for the collision of participative technologies with hierarchical organizational dynamics, also encompasses scientific notions like complexity and emgergence. See, for example, Paul B. Hartzog of the IGERT Fellow Center for the Study of Complex Systems who writes:

"Technologies that allow us to work together in new ways make possible an era of “do it yourself” cooperation. That means people being able to help each other without relying on hierarchies do things for them. These anarchical networks are best understood within the framework of complex adaptive systems.

"So, this means we have to study new phenomena like open source, wiki, and social software, but it also means that we have to look back to the roots of civilization: tribes, gift economies, communities, and political theory."

Enterprise 2.0 is an important concept that is going to go away simply because it does or does not meet the Wikipedia gatekeepers' criteria for inclusion at this time. It represents the most important and potentially disruptive business challenge since the advent of modern management.162.83.218.25 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Jerry Bowles[reply]

  • Uhh, ok, but I think you misunderstand the purpose of this entire discussion. A Wikipedia AFD discussion isn't about whether the concept is going to re-write the history of humankind or be the next greatest thing for business since sliced bread or whatever. The only question at hand here is whether there should be an article on Wikipedia with the title "Enterprise 2.0". There are guidelines for establishing whether or not such an article should exist, one of the most of important of which is WP:V. This question here is most crucially related to the *term* "Enterprise 2.0", not the various Web 2.0 innovations, concepts and techologies. As a tertiary source of information, Wikipedia will always be a bit "behind the times" when new neologisms appear. Wikipedia's purpose is not to be the proving ground for new terminology, represent the "cutting edge" of research, or any other purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, period. (See here: WP:Policy#Key policies, point number one). Personally, I think the concept of the various technologies involved in these concepts are exciting and interesting, but that doesn't mean that the "Enterprise 2.0" term meets WP:V at this time. That's why I suggested to Professor McAfee above that perhaps for now the Web 2.0 and/or Social computing articles are better places for this content. If the "Enterprise 2.0" term catches on in the next six months or year or so, such that there are solid third-party reliable sources regarding the term and its application to these technologies, then the term will pass the WP:V criteria and an article under this heading will be appropriate. But for now, there aren't third-party reliable sources, and the verifiability hurdle can't be reached, and as such the article should be deleted from WP. Fairsing 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, coming from the world's leading publicist for C. J. Cherryh, whatever the hell that might be, that pretty much settles it for me.162.83.218.25 02:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Jerry Bowles[reply]
      • Ok, well, your comment is probably a violation of WP:NPA, but I think it's better to just let that go since you have never before contributed to Wikipedia prior to your comments on this AFD. There's a very sensible guideline here on WP that I am reminding myself of right now called "Don't bite the newcomers." My comment above obviously made you feel the need to strike out at me (in anger, frustration, or some such), and for that I apologize. I hope that your experience here on this AFD discussion is not wholly negative, and in fact motivates you to learn more about Wikipedia and become a regular contributor so that you can more effectively make your case on AFD's and in other areas as well. Again, my apologies for angering you and I wish you the best of luck in the future. Fairsing 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include under Web 2.0 for now As a somewhat interested party, in that a post on my blog (http://www.scalefree.info/2006/03/list_of_tools_f.html) is referenced in the current article, my thoughts are as follows:
    • Enterprise 2.0 is a useful term that acts a shorthand description for a number of technolgies and behaviours that are referenced to externally as Web 2.0. There are sufficient differences in how people operate inside a company and outside to make the distinction a useful one, and I think once more articles, book chapters and papers are published, specifically talking about Enterprise 2.0, then it will merit an entry. For now though, why not include it in the Web 2.0 (or social computing) article ? Could it not have an explicit 'Enterprise 2.0' heading within that article which could then be moved out once the term becomes more broadly known and accepted ? Anu.gupta 10:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I believe there are robust arguments for keeping the article, if the outcome of this conversation is moving it to a section of Web 2.0, this should only be done if we can define a criteria for moving it back to Enterprise 2.0. For example, when there is one more academic or mainstream media source (but also acknowledging in advance that a well researched source may very well refer to this article). Including this article within Web 2.0 seems to be desired by some, if for no other reason there is a title-to-title match, but the roots of Enterprise 2.0 are less Web 2.0 than Social Software. I would also suggest fragmenting this collaboration across such topics as Web 2.0, Social Software, Social Computing and Enterprise Software would be a mistake, and to the detriment of the quantity and quality of contributions. Structurally, all four of these articles would be better off linking in reference to Enterprise 2.0. Rossmay 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include under Web 2.0 for now - Agree Inspite of many mentions, "Enterprise 2.0" seems to be in an echo chamber of a few blogs and one academic paper. I agree with many people on this discussion that there is a new and emergent use of social technologies within the enterprise, but I see no consensus that Enterprise 2.0 is the term of choice used by everyone. Even if this article is moved into Web 2.0, I expect that there will be an even livelier debate with proponents of other terms. Kingsley2.com 06:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - As a parallel, we might want to consider the treatment of the term 'knowledge management' in WP. This is arguably a broadly defined term, even among management academics studying organization. Nevertheless, there seems to be a robust and well structured page for the term. It seems to me that 'Enterprise 2.0' should be treated similarly. rhuckman
    • (Note above comment is from yet another editor who has never before edited WP prior to this AFD). The difference between the terms is the plethora of third-party reliable sources available on the term "Knowledge Management". Even though it is broadly defined, the use of the term is well-documented by third-party sources and thus is verifiable. "Enterprise 2.0" is not. Fairsing 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fairsing, hi again. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I'm worried that you might not have seen the question I asked above in response to your earlier comment. So here it is again: I want to make sure I understand your position, and to do so it'll be helpful to me if we leave out the term 'Enterprise 2.0' altogether. Is it your position that the use-of-brand-new-collaboration-and-communication-technologies-within-organizations development we're interested in fails to meet one or more criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone entry within WP? If so, what policy or guideline is being violated? Is it verifiability, despite the references I listed above? Notabilty? Or something else?Amcafee 23:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for asking. I don't really have a position on whether "the use-of-brand-new-collaboration-and-communication-technologies-within-organizations development" is worthy of its own article or not. My guess is that it might be, and certainly the topic is interesting and ripe for study / discussion. My issue is that putting an article on this topic with the title "Enterprise 2.0" isn't appropriate at this time because the term itself doesn't pass Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. That's what this whole AFD discussion is about -- not whether the concept is valid or not, but whether there should be an article in WP with the title "Enterprise 2.0". My own personal guess is that the concept could benefit from an article, although I'm not sure whether that's the Web 2.0 article, the Social computing article, some other existing article or a brand new article. But right now, as it stands today, I don't see how we can have a brand new article with the title "Enterprise 2.0" and have it pass the verifiability hurdle. At some point in the future, when/if the term has been picked up by other academics and the mainstream business press with substantive treatments of the term, then an article with this title would be appropriate. Fairsing 23:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misuse of the word "Enterprise" in my opinion as the concept seems focused on intranets which are only one of many enterprise systems. Should be named Intranet 2.0 and added to Web 2.0. --SWolfson 03:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enterprise_2.0_(second_nomination)&oldid=1220471583"