Talk:Content management system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).

CMS Listings and Reviews:-[edit]

I'd like to request permission to add my link which for some reason has been removed numberous times from the external links. Of all the links you have listed here, mine is the most relevant and helpful as I have a) a massive list of cms listings found here: as well as reviews and article and interviews...

My link WAS on for quite some time until removed. I changed my domain from to this new one and now I'm told I cannot haev my link here, which I have had for over 6 months now.

Please provide permission to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmscritic (talkcontribs) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

CMS alternatives[edit]

"Where wikis replace older CMS or knowledge management tools, semantic wikis try to serve similar functions" (from Semantic_wiki). Have section on competing/similar technologies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Types of Content Management Systems: There are literally thousands of content management systems available on the internet. Each one caters to different users offering a variety of features which are consistent across all sites. There are four main types of content management systems that each of the thousands fall under. The systems include: 1) Homegrown: Homegrown content management systems are software created by a single development company for their own use of their own products 2) Commercial : This is the most widespread offering many different pricing options, plans and features. Unlike homegrown systems, these are rarely customizable. 3) High-end: Out of the thousands of content systems available only a select few fall in to this category. One nice feature is their reliability as high-end content management systems deliver robust solutions. Unfortunately the consumer is going to pay a pretty penny for these services as they tend to be rather expensive. 4) Open Source: This essentially means that the software is available to anyone for free. The primary advantages are the price (free!) and that these systems are fully customizable since its open source code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

got Award[edit]

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:

A high level overview of the purpose of CMS 1234567890 0987654321
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


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 (talkcontribs)

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)

A bit outdated?[edit]

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.

External links?[edit]

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 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 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 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. -- 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)

Popular Open Source Content Management Systems - removed[edit]

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)

The history section[edit]

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) ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Directories of available systems[edit]

What happened to all these sites?

External Link Suggestion[edit]

I've just had a suggested link to a list of pre-approved UK CRM Experts and Vendors deleted from the external list: 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 (talkcontribs) .

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 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy at WP:COI to see why this is inappropriate for you to do this. Perhaps some other editor may consider it. Perhaps not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition (first sentence)[edit]

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)
The current definition is definitely too narrow. It currently says "procedures to manage workflow in a collaborative environment" yet that is certainly not anything that DNN provides without additional modules. DNN certainly does not manage workflows without additional modules. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Another problem with the definition is that it is wrong. CMS is either Content Management System or Collabrative Management System, but not both. In actuality, it doesn't apply to only collabrative environments. - KitchM (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinction between content that are documents (and managed by the modules of a CMS) and the modules. I think that many definitions of CMSs say that a CMS manages the content as if the content is the documents, not the modules that manage the documents. To that extent, the name "Content" is misleading and the distinction should be clarified in a definition. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of focus?[edit]

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. 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

In my opinion, content management spans document management, as documents is one of many possible content types. Workflow is a functional aspect of content management, as are search, versioning etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Appology for mistake[edit]

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)


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 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Added an usefull external link[edit]

I've added an external link to 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)
To the person who would 'prefer' to see only free cms links - that sounds incredibly biased to me. I agree that we don't want this page clogged up with links to commercial CMS products - it shouldn't become a shopping cart - but to penalize companies who aren't open source seems incredibly biased to me. Either disallow links to specific products or allow them if they're notable, but your personal affinity towards free cms' should not be the standard for inclusion or exclusion. This is meant to be a resource for people, both free and commercial products are relevant.--Makingstrange (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusion of two meanings for "module"? -- (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[edit]

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)

This content does not seem very rigorous.[edit]

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 availabilityTypes of Content Management Systems: There are literally thousands of content management systems available on the internet. Each one caters to different users offering a variety of features which are consistent across all sites. There are four main types of content management systems that each of the thousands fall under. The systems include: 1) Homegrown: Homegrown content management systems are software created by a single development company for their own use of their own products 2) Commercial: This is the most widespread offering many different pricing options, plans and features. Unlike homegrown systems, these are rarely customizable. 3) High-end: Out of the thousands of content systems available only a select few fall in to this category. One nice feature is their reliability as high-end content management systems deliver robust solutions. Unfortunately the consumer is going to pay a pretty penny for these services as they tend to be rather expensive. 4) Open Source: This essentially means that the software is available to anyone for free. The primary advantages are the price (free!) and that these systems are fully customizable since its open source code. ."

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)

I absolutely agree with this. I looked up CMS on Wikipedia because I had no idea what it is and I still don't. Is it software, a web-hosted database..What?

Someone needs to at least change the first sentence to a better definition that clearly informs people/summarizes of what it is and does. EssKayEll (talk) 2:44pm, 26 July 2010

An idea to clarify the different systems.[edit]

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)

I think that one would solve the problem to a great extent. Good idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankursen (talkcontribs) 06:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding an external link[edit]

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.

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

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 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

thankyou i got undertones of that - im very gutted this article is so weak. As i know nothing of CMS having read the article i am still none the wiser, come on wiki ppl build this thing! cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Very weak article[edit]

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)

Link removed[edit]

I have removed a link to this URL: . 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)

Motion for rewrite[edit]

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) gn —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the list format; I think it is the future of Wiki. --John Bessa (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Link Removed[edit]

I have removed the link to CMS Ratings. This is a misnomer. The site does not actually link to cms rating but a bunch of outdated demos that are laden with advertisements. Wikipedia is not a links page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Component Content Management System?[edit]

Itb seems to me that the section on Component Content Management describes what I have found to be basic functionality in most ECMs and WCMSs I have worked with over the last years and should describe an aspect of content management rather than a category in its own right. Vendors of module-based Enterprise Content Management systems tend to contain this kind of functionality within their main content management component. Modern Web Content Management Systems also tend to use the same concept. Most facilitate structuring of unstructured content by setting Document Type Definitions or likewise when content is entered/fetched and thereby store/generate xml in "components" (weird term, but ok...) so they can be used in various constellations and contexts. So is it ok to get rid of the Component Content Management category and add something about the concept of aiming for granularity and structure instead? (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Annike

Add page for mobile content management system[edit]

I am doing a class project on content management systems (CMS) and noticed that there is no page for mobile CMS. I have already done some research for this topic. Is it possible for a page to be created for this topic so that I can write an article? Thanks. Red440 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Red440

Check out WP:DRAW to have a discussion on this idea for a new article. Perhaps you might consider a section on this article on mobile CMS and the differences from full browser CMS. Be sure to have appropriate third party references for whatever you write. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Document Management System[edit]

The distinction between Document Management System (DMS) and Content Management System (CMS) seem to be related to the distinction between the concept of 'content' and the concept of a 'document'. DMSs seem to be systems for storing and indexing external document formats (eg ) whereas CMSs seem to be about organising and managing corporate (or other organised) information in order to maintain and publish that information (see ). This distinction is not really clear from this page, which seems to mostly describe DMSs (particularly the early sentence "collaboratively create, edit, review, index, search, publish and archive various kinds of digital media and electronic text") rather than the (overlapping but more general) CMS category.

These pages should be enhanced to amplify the distinction, rather than merged. --Hohlram (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge There is a big difference between a DMS and a CMS. Hohlram has it exactly right. Let's improve each article, and clarify the distinction. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose merge Yes; the difference demands respect. The idea of merging them caused me to recall another term, Configuration Management System, (also a "CMS"). This phrase is widely used in aviation, an industry that traditionally utilized its product documentation to differentiate between products and between variants of the same product. It was extended to include software builds as fly-by-wire became prevalent. Consideration of this term should also be considered for its potential to contribute to confusion.
Product documentation, e.g. schematics, mechanical details, etc. differ from Business Documents, e.g. versions of a Business Plan or of policy documents that define direction for running an organization. These need to be distinguished from each other with similar rigor. Also, in aviation and in medical device manufacturing, these documents will not be stored in the same places as product docs, or distributed using the same processes because the audience differs. In these two industries (perhaps others) there are three groups that demand distinction: a) the public at large, b) regulatory authorities and patent agencies, (whose purview generally exceeds members of the public), and c) interal-only (which may be part of the intellectual property that makes the business successful).
Kernel.package (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose merge I think Document Management System can be categorized as a type of Content Management System because in the end document itself is a form of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptaneha12 (talkcontribs) 12:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose merge These are two completely different systems that serve different purposes. No way should they be merged--Vaughanreed (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the merge proposal, because there doesn't seem to be any support for it. Keeping this in place is only confusing. -- Mdd (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of section on Web Content Management systems[edit]

It is stated that OSS systems such as Joomla, Drupal and Wordpress have achieved dominance over commercial systems. Whoever wrote this is entitled to their opinion, but there are many people who would disagree. "OSS is better than commercial" is a long-standing holy war, so before blindly accepting this statement, perhaps the author is able to provide some facts to help us to come up with a less controversial text. Dominic Cronin (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OSS is Free. Hence, it is popular. The statement about dominance is very misleading at least. Dominant doesn't mean better. For example, it is still not a fact that Firefox (OSS) is dominant in comparison with Safari browser. What is dominant is IE, which is one of the worst browsers on the market. (Seoevangelist (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

It sounds like you both are suggesting there may be a hidden agenda behind the phrasing of the statement in question. If the purpose of that editor had been to promote OSS though, suggesting that this is one of very few categories where it is superior wouldn't make their point very well, so it makes more sense that this was not their intention. Therefore, based on the context of it, "dominance" almost certainly refers to market share (a statistic), not product quality (an opinion). Simply changing "dominance" to "market share dominance" will clarify this for those who question the context. In accordance with Wikipedia policy though, this kind of statement should have a supporting reference. Also, I feel that a neutrality dispute was an overreaction in this instance, so I vote to remove it and make the appropriate change to the statement in question. Caben42 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're reading too much into all of this. Someone needs to review the original posting, make the content more neutral (less one-sided , perhaps?) and get on with life. - anon.

I'm new here, but I do think that this section could use some work. In particular, I'm under the impression that Microsoft Sharepoint is extremely popular in business; (anecdotally) I've heard many people say this, but haven't heard of a single OSS, commercial deployment. In contrast, I can't think of a single proprietary system that's used on the public web (at least, that I'm aware of). So perhaps this is partly a context issue? - anon #2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the disputed statement. It was unsupported, and it contributed little value to the article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Popular Browsers[edit]

I would disagree that IE is the most popular browser.

All the statistics pages (Google and several others) show consistently that Firefox is actually the higher ranked with an average of 42-47 percent user base. The assertion that IE holds the top position is pure personal belief and not a statement of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

At current, the general consensus of browser tracking services is that Internet Explorer still has a market share of roughly 48-66%, and Firefox has roughly 20-33%. (See Usage share of web browsers) The source that claimed Firefox has a "42-47 percent user base" was probably doing some statistical cherry-picking from tech-related sites, which tend to have a significantly higher percentage of hits from non-IE browsers. Caben42 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
May not even be anything as overt as cherry-picking. Especially in the case of the Google stats, there's a strong selection bias there since Firefox has had its default start page include a Google search for some time now. Geminidomino (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Could this work as an introduction to Content Management Systems? This was done as part of a class assignment. Thanks


A content management system (CMS) is a collection of procedures used to manage work flow in a collaborative environment. The procedures are designed to:

  • Allow for a large number of people to contribute to and share stored data
  • Control access to data, based on user roles. User roles define what information each user can view or edit
  • Aid in easy storage and retrieval of data
  • Reduce repetitive duplicate input
  • Improve the ease of report writing
  • Improve communication between users

In a CMS, data can be defined as nearly anything – documents, movies, pictures, phone numbers, scientific data, etc. CMSs are frequently used for storing, controlling, revising, semantically enriching, and publishing documentation.

A CMS supports the creation, management, distribution, publishing and presentation of various kinds of content.

At the front of a content management system is an easy-to-use authoring environment. This provides a non-technical way of creating new pages or updating content, without having to know any HTML.The CMS also allows you to manage the structure of the site. That is, where the pages go, and how they are linked together. Almost all content management systems now provide a web-based authoring environment, which further simplifies implementation, and allows content updating to be done remotely.It is this authoring tool that is the key to the success of the CMS. By providing a simple mechanism for maintaining the site, authoring can be devolved out into the business itself.

Once a page has been created, it is saved into a central repository in the CMS. This stores all the content of the site. This central repository allows a range of useful features to be provided by the CMS like keeping track of all the versions of a page, and who changed what and when. It also ensures that each user can only change the section of the site they are responsible for. The CMS provides a range of workflow capabilities. At each step, the CMS manages the status of the page, notifying the people involved, and escalating jobs where required. In this way, the workflow capabilities allow more authors to be involved in the management of the site, while maintaining strict control over the quality, accuracy and consistency of the information.

Once the final content is finished, it can then be published. Content management systems boast powerful publishing engines which allow the appearance and page layout of the site to be applied automatically during publishing ensuring that the pages are consistent across the entire site. It may also allow the same content to be published to multiple sites. The CMS fully automates the publishing of your site

The content management system can also provide a number of features to enhance the quality and effectiveness of the site itself. The CMS will build the site navigation for you, by reading the structure straight out of the content repository. It also makes it easy to support multiple browsers, or users with accessibility issues. The CMS can be used to make your site dynamic and interactive, thereby enhancing the site’s impact.

Mcweb10 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion this won't work as an introduction to CMS because it focuses too much on "sites", "pages", "browsers".
CMS is rather a marketing term (see ECM by Ulrich Kampffmeyer), and so is more important what a CMS does, than how.
Yes, they usually use http based interface, but that's not the point. (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (a comment only, no name, sorry)

It depends on what you are writing about, this introduction might be ideal for some people ( just a comment though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reformulate section "Types of CMS"[edit]

It would be more appropriate specific domains of use, because that's what it is. It's not a systematization (as the terms category and type suggest), just a simple enumeration of domains of use.

The list is most likely incomplete, and currently has seven rows, not six. (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reduce repetitive duplicate input[edit]

there seems to be some repetitive info on your page —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Page Merge?[edit]

Content management system could be merged with Content Management, as they are both discussing the methods of CMS. This page could become a section within the existing page. Topic is up for discussion.

--OJB2010(OBR) (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, adding merge tags. -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree merge This might be a chance to resolve some of quality issues. --Aeroid (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Group content management systems[edit]

As far as I can tell, this section is about something that doesn't exist, at least under this name (as one might suspect, given that it links to nowhere). On googling it, the only relevant hit that comes up is this section itself (unfortunately for me--I'm looking unsuccessfully for what this section purports to be about). So I would suggest either finding supporting material under a more appropriate name, or merging it back into the main article. · rodii · 16:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

One further investigation, this whole section is the author's only edit ever. It has no refs, and has never gotten any followup, so I'm deleting it. · rodii · 16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Also removed it from the Template:Content management systems --Aeroid (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


I have not looked closely at the grammar, but I see "CMS's" that should be "CMSs" (without an apostrophe). I wish that people that contribute to Wikipedia learn the basics of English but since that is not always the case, someone need to clean up the mistakes. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Is content modules or documents?[edit]

This article describes CMSs as if the word content refers to documents. I know that the DNN interface manages modules and skins, not documents. Some of the DNN Modules do manage documents and provide collaboration but the DNN software itself does not do that. It would really help to state that a CMS manages modules, where in this context the word module is general and could be a different word depending on the CMS and such. If there are CMSs that do manage documents directly then that should be stated explicitly as a difference among CMSs. I am not familiar with SharePoint but I am familiar with IBM PROFS. IBM PROFS existed before the internet became used widely but it is sometimes described as a CMS. I know it managed documents, not modules or the equivalent of modules. Therefore there is a need for a distinction. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)