I have sad news to report: there is no longer a Wikipedia entry on ‘Enterprise 2.0.’ My understanding of the details is a bit murky, and since I’m behind the Great Firewall of China at present I can’t access Wikipedia itself, but my understanding is that some flavor of administrator there decided that the concept was ‘not notable.’
Either those of us who think about this concept have failed to get over the very low hurdle of the minimum criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, or there’s been a bit of a breakdown here. I’m strongly inclined to give both Wikipedia and the concept of Enterprise 2.0 the doubt. I suspect that the deletion decision, which had a unilateral and non-transparent feel to it, is just the result of a Wikipedian with an atypical view of his or her role and powers.
So it appears that we have two choices; we can lobby to have the deletion decision reversed or at least put to a more public vote, or we can just post another ‘Enterprise 2.0′ entry that makes the concept appear sufficiently notable and less like a transient buzzword. Wikipedia’s Web 2.0 entry might be a good template to use. If we take this approach we can use the enterprise wiki to collectively work on the new entry.
Preferences? My two cents: I see no problem with pursuing both courses of action, but I suspect that putting up a new entry is more likely to be successful.
8.18.06 Update: This post from the blog ‘The Ponderings of Woodrow‘ is my favorite to date on this issue. Spot on, and very funny to boot. Thanks, Woodrow!
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m with you Andrew, let’s try a new entry and if necessary use Ross’ platform to build it.
Was a bit put out about that little action from some autocratic ‘ikipedian, must say…
Andrew,
This is one for Nick Carr, surely? He has a strange incurable malady whose only symptom is to write about wikipedia in almost every post.
Thomas
Andrew,
Happy to oblige, when I saw this via Tom Otter’s blog I became infuriated. It’s just absurd. I apperciate you coining the term in the first place, and while I generally can understand the reluctance of the entire 2.0 movement, I think Enterprise 2.0 is fitting since, after all, Web 2.0 appears here to stay.
I won’t even hold it against you that you’re a Harvard man…I bleed the Red and Blue…Go Quakers!
Best,
J
Want to add this link:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=62
Wanted to add this as well – it references the Wikipedia issue once again and also provides many good definitions/explanations of Enterprise 2.0 (including your own and Vinnie M’s):
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3527
Infuriating, eh? (Here’s infuriating for you : I’m about to crosspost like mad
Don’t get mad, dig into Wikipedia culture.
Having read through the WP moderator’s convoluted explanation, I can only conclude he sounds like one for Bob Sutton’s Asshole directory.
{ 3 trackbacks }