Something for you to ponder and read. Sharepoint does have a concept of personal profile. It is called MySite(http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver/HA101087481033.aspx?pid=CH100964111033). You do have the concept of controlling what you want to show other people and what you think should be private. Not only that it is very well integrated with search. Sharepoint has had this functionality since their 2003 product. I know you are competitor to them but spreading FUD is not the way to go atleast do some research on your competitor.

As for tagging you are correct in saying that there is no OOB solutions in MOSS 2007 but there are freely downloadable solutions that can be deployed on top sharepoint to achieve that. Here is one such link http://wsssearch.com/tagging.html. Here is another link http://blogs.msdn.com/sharepoint/archive/2007/01/22/taxonomy-tagging-starter-kit-for-sharepoint-server.aspx which has a starter kit that can be used.

Hi Stewart,

Big fan of your product. I've helped make the case for an enterprise wiki at various companies. I'm always looking forward to Confluence releases.

That being said, you might want to take a look at this presentation of what SharePoint will look like in their next release: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=201756 and http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=177646. It's definitely not going compete in features, but it will be the most logical step for Office users. It does include tagging, personalization and wikis. Probably not as cool as Confluence, but it does have the Microsoft sticker on the side.

I've also seen SharePoint spread like wildfire in large companies because it convenient. It's only a click away in Office. Word 2007 has a blogging API that defaults to SharePoint.

Wiki in the enterprise will have to integrate with Office better than SharePoint if they expect to see widespread adoption. Confluence would greatly benefit if it re-evaluates its position against Office SharePoint Services.

Nonetheless, I'm still a Confluence fan and will continue to be an evangelist.

as I commented in that article, it doesnt seem you have enough expirience with sharepoint (or with corporates for that matter) to say the things you say.
The sharepoint wikis and blogs are not targeted at internet users, but are supposed to be intranet applications. The control is important to all corporates (who are afraid of getting sued because of improper content on the intranet). Also, sharepoint has the ability to remove the control, and remove the workflows and so on - so why do you say it's not good? It seems to me that sharepoint gives more options than regular wiki software.
Personally, I would love to have a sharepoint site as a blog, as long as I can customize it (like adding captcha support). but for my customers, I would suggest that sharepoint is fantastic as an intranet 2.0 solution, and a fantastic internet 1.0 solution.

This is so wrong. Unless your are refering to the old version of SharePoint because the current version inclides Blogs and Wikis and has user editable profiles (My Site) along with coluge tracker and 'how I relate' to someone else based on organization hierachy and distrabition groups we both belong to.
Tagging is a core feature in SharePoint. In fact the lists containg the tag values can be used to tag the wiki's, blog's, documents, web pages, appointments, tasks, issues etc. So when you search (oh yea, it searches not only all the stuff in SharePoint, but almost anything else you point it at).
Yep, its an integrated platform, not another island!

This is so wrong. Unless your are referring to the old version of SharePoint because the current version includes Blogs and Wikis and has user editable profiles (My Site) along with colleague tracker and 'how I relate' to someone else based on organization hierarchy and distribution groups we both belong to.
Tagging is a core feature in SharePoint. In fact the lists containing the tag values can be used to tag the wiki's, blog's, documents, web pages, appointments, tasks, issues etc. So when you search (oh yea, it searches not only all the stuff in SharePoint, but almost anything else you point it at).
Yep, its an integrated platform, not another island!”

(and I can't spell when I'm mad;-)

so i'm just curious but what version of sharepoint are you referring to? if you're referring to sps 2003, then sure i'll give you credit that it wasn't up to par in terms of social networking, but you should check out the newest offerings that come with moss 2007. you'll be pleasantly surprised to see that the user is becoming central to the way the application server works. additionally, you'll see that there are blogs, wikis, rss feeds, personalized content...

Thanks to everyone who commented on this post so far. My comments below respond to specific points made in the above comments:

1. I'm not spreading FUD. The sheer fact that I put this on a blog means I'm open to debate and listening to different points of view. That having been said, I maintain that SharePoint has some major shortcomings.
2. I do have experience with SharePoint - I wouldn't write about something I don't know anything about. Before I came to Atlassian I worked for a large organization that evaluated SharePoint, Confluence, and several other enterprise collaboration tools and much of what I wrote in this post reflects the conclusions we came to about SharePoint.
3. I also have experience with corporate organizations & needs. I've been a wiki consultant and evangelist on my own for about three years before coming to Atlassian.
4. Although Microsoft just released Office 2007 at the end of January, many large organizations won't upgrade to it very soon. The general reaction to both Vista and Office 2007 has been lukewarm at best, and even in the past when reaction to new products has been more positive, many organizations won't make that switch for some time, and will likely look at other tools in the meantime.
5. "I would suggest that sharepoint is fantastic as an intranet 2.0 solution, and a fantastic internet 1.0 solution." We don't need any more Web 1.0 solutions - the whole point is that we're in the midst of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is a phenomenon that no one can ignore, and it's producing very compelling tools that respond to critical collaboration, networking, and knowledge construction needs. Microsoft has had a pretty tough time embracing Web 2.0 and it shows in their products, so I think organizations owe it to themselves to look at all their options, especially those that already provide a fantastic Web/Internet 2.0 solution.

"We don't need any more Web 1.0 solutions"

I beg your pardon?

Do you expect all brands to make their sites 2.0? what if I want a site that is pure information giving and not allow discussions? do you really think that all sites should allow user input?
What about govermental sites - do you think a page that has legal information should also contain a comments section?
The talk backs in major news sites have tought us that web 2.0 is not perfect. there are many spammers, and many flamers, and you just cant expect major brands to go 2.0 in their public face. I know of a person who developed a very ugly approach to Fiat. if Fiat ever decide to go 2.0, their site would be swamped with comments they will have to filter because of this guy. what's your solution?

Sharepoint 2007 lets you built a web 1.0 or even 2.0 solutions.
2.0 may require some tweaks - I would not use the out of the box configuration, but I will bet you whatever sum you want to bet that any solution you are selling to public internet sites to customers also requires configuration and customization before going live!

Thanks to everyone who commented on this post so far. My comments below respond to specific points made in the above comments:

1. I'm not spreading FUD. The sheer fact that I put this on a log means I'm open to debate and listening to different points of view. That having been said, I maintain that SharePoint has some major shortcomings.
2. I do have experience with SharePoint - I wouldn't write about something I don't know anything about. Before I came to Atlassian I worked for a large organization that evaluated SharePoint, Confluence, and several other enterprise collaboration tools and much of what I wrote in this post reflects the conclusions we came to about SharePoint.
3. I also have experience with corporate organizations & needs. I've been a wiki consultant and evangelist on my own for about three years before coming to Atlassian.
4. Although Microsoft just released Office 2007 at the end of January, many large organizations won't upgrade to it very soon. The general reaction to both Vista and Office 2007 has been lukewarm at best, and even in the past when reaction to new products has been more positive, many organizations won't make that switch for some time, and will likely look at other tools in the meantime.
5. "I would suggest that sharepoint is fantastic as an intranet 2.0 solution, and a fantastic internet 1.0 solution." We don't need any more Web 1.0 solutions - the whole point is that we're in the midst of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is a phenomenon that no one can ignore, and it's producing very compelling tools that respond to critical collaboration, networking, and knowledge construction needs. Microsoft has had a pretty tough time embracing Web 2.0 and it shows in their products, so I think organizations owe it to themselves to look at all their options, especially those that already provide a fantastic Web/Internet 2.0 solution.

First of all Stewart I must apologise that I came out stronger in my last comment then I intended to. Now to respond to some of your comments:
"I maintain that SharePoint has some major shortcomings" - It is hard to argue with that generic statement. No product is perfect and sharepoint is not perfect. Having said that the shortcomings are not what you necessarily mention.
"Before I came to Atlassian I worked for a large organization that evaluated SharePoint, Confluence, and several other enterprise collaboration tools and much of what I wrote in this post reflects the conclusions we came to about SharePoint." I do not know which version you evaluated. sharepoint 2003 did have the concept of my sites which has evolved in MOSS 2007. I will agree that sharepoint 2003 had very primitive social networking but in 2003 when the product was released the concepts were primitive at best for enterprise software.

Manual trackback ... automated didn't come through, so I am late to the party
http://www.frogpond.de/index.php/archive/control-control-control/

Stewart Mader is taking Kathleen Gilroy’s discussion of “Why can’t we build this on Sharepoint?” (here my take on it) farther, pointing out that some of the underlying principles are in some ways antiquated (“Sharepoint is still stuck in the 90s - don’t get stuck there too”):

- focus on the group not the individual, limiting the emergence of new informal social networks

Yes, finding like-minded collaborators starts with the individual, its competencies and interests, not necessarily with the work group he’s currently in.

- an overly mechanistic view of employees - overseeing many complex issues (motivation, informal organization overlaying formal organization, resistance to naive steering attempts, …)

Puneetn,
I think you made a great point that social networking concepts were pretty primitive in enterprise software when SharePoint 2003 came out. Probably the biggest difference between then and now is that many other enterprise software products have seen more frequent updates to keep up with the rapid improvements in social networking. It's a fast-changing world!
Stewart

Puneetn,
I think you made a great point that social networking concepts were pretty primitive in enterprise software when SharePoint 2003 came out. Probably the biggest difference between then and now is that many other enterprise software products have seen more frequent updates to keep up with the rapid improvements in social networking. It's a fast-changing world!
Stewart

My comment about the post you referred to being old was wrong - http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/02/06/why-cant-we-build-this-on-sharepoint/ - is about MOSS.

WOWA! Well I am in a large Public Sector environment and we are being told to get to WSSv3 as soon as possible. Users are clamoring for the new features. Is it perfect? No, we still see areas (bulk adding users)where it can evolve but I would argue that as OOB feature set SharePoint WSSv3 and MOSS2007 are Best of Breed at the moment.

For the comment that companies won't upgrade:
I work for an IT outsourcing company, and most of the 2003 installs we have done are now upgrading to MOSS 2007. Orginizations can't wait for MOSS because 2003 was very week, and depended on 3rd party apps and custom code. We have even had some major corps install the beta into prod. This blog is waaaayyyy off target in both assumptions and conclusions. Not only is the OOB profiles robust, but highly customizable.

Don't forget that to use Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) you need a CAL, and possibly an Enterprise CAL as well. Plus if you are authoring in Word you need an Office license.
That's all fine for the large hierarchical multinational or public sector. Not so good for less structured organisations. www.airdesk.co.uk.

You may also want to check this out regarding social networking and MOSS.

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=231223

Hi,
as the above post suggest, you need to check out the MySite mechanisms in SP2007. Personally I set up users with their MySite page as their default browser home. They can then add whatever links, etc they need to it, use it as a replacement for a private share or C drive and magpie away to it to their hearts content. They can run blogs on it or whatever. They also can have links out of it into their collaboration groups.

Having it as a home page makes users think about it every time they fire up a browser. They are much more likely to keep it up to date and to contribute. Sure their are ones who go overboard, but they are usually the ones with 100 kinder surprise's all around their workstation.

As for Wikis, I would personally only give the SP2007 wiki a 6/10. It scores big in areas of integration with the rest of SP, with versioning security and admin. The editor is so-so and the presentation fits well with the rest of the SP sites. However its poor in supported wiki features. There is basic wiki linking, with the display name|page name separation, and that is about it. It doesnt allow for linking within a page, which is useful for constructing a TOC or linking to a subsection in another page. Their is no TOC auto generation tags.

Worse still there is no templating. This is wierd-o as it would probably be an simple matter to have another document library containing prospective wiki page templates, from which you pick when creating a new wiki page on a site.

Lastly, MS missed a big chance in putting in presence links. I have requirements to mark up wiki pages with users names and contact details. For example it would be great if you could do something like "Technical contact - [[@Fred Smith]]" and have the SP wiki create a link complete with SP presence ball and drop down menu for email/IM/IP Phone/whatever. Instead the only current option is to put in an email hyperlink which is decidedly second rate.

But still, this is a v1.0 SP Wiki and I suspect new versions of it, either in new template releases or serv packs will make it richer over time. Currently i get the feel the wiki was added to SP 2007 to defuse the wiki versus SP debate and allow adopters to tick a box during product selection. Down the track i think we will see much more.