Wikipedia administrator Sj has posted what appears to be the final word on the debate about deleting the Enterprise 2.0 article:
- "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.
- [Amcafee’s (in other words, my) comment, in response to Wikipedian Fairsing, was:] 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? Notability?? 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)"
I suggest that we do exactly as Sj suggests, and that to flesh out the article in advance of posting it to Wikipedia we use the enterprise wiki set up in the wake of our Wikimania panel (irony aficionados will be happy to learn that the panel accepted at Wikimania and the article rejected by some Wikipedians were about the same set of topics). I’ll get to work on this over the weekend.
We now resume our regularly scheduled blogging…
Update 9.1.06: Turns out that the final result of the ‘Articles for Deletion’ process for ‘Enterprise 2.0‘ was keep. This means that the article with this title will persist, and that we can modify it over time without having to further justify its existence. Good news!