Talk:SharePoint

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pure advertising drivel[edit]

I sure hope Microsoft sends the Wiki foundation a tenth of the income they'll earn from this product placement. Look at the cite for "It is the dominant software for creating organizational intranets with a recent survey indicating that around 50% of all intranets are developed using SharePoint.[5]" and you'll see that the "recent survey" is actually a push-poll from a 300 member linkedin.com subgroup, equivalent to a rigged survey of hot dog vendors for opinions on quantum electrodynamics. The poll clearly does not represent anything close to reality (half the world is using niche player sharepoint, but only one or two companies are using plone, drupal, joomla, or any of the other widely deployed high performance CMSes that actually dominate the market? Come on!) That cite should be struck and the spurious claim of market dominance deleted.

  • OBE - the article no longer has the 'dominant' phrase of remarked on by this 19:04, 11 October 2013‎ 205.153.180.229 edit 570106508, so case closed. Markbassett (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably actually true for intranets. Plone, drupal, joomla are all great for internet sites (though arguably sitecore dominates all of them), but they're great for view only sites, where a small number of people write and a large number read, but bad for collaborative style intranets more common in the modern organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.108.253.134 (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...but what does it actually do?[edit]

God love articles like this. It would be so improved by the addition of some some specific examples of what the luckless "non-technical user" might actually do with it in the course of their daily business.Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right there with you and I would consider myself a reasonably technically minded user. The article reads like a brochure: lots of positive statements without any actual substance. Was it written by Microsoft by any chance? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wrote the article and I don't work for Microsoft. The answer is "it depends", because SharePoint is more of a platform than a product. It's designed to provide whatever functionality you want, using internet metaphors that people are familiar with - but keep secure and integrated within a unified platform. It's a very broad platform, so this question is like asking "what does the entire internet do"? Well, it has a world wide web, and it has file transfer protocols, people do VoIP with it - there's no clear answer really... I have provided some examples in the "Applications" section... Originally I had a link to Simon Allardice answering this question, but people seemed to think it was spam and removed it - here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE9TpraPlrE . Anyway, will have a think about this, and try to address this question better soon. Even if the answer isn't particularly satisfying, I agree it should at least be clear. Thanks for your feedback. --Alirobe (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. Despite the individual opinion about the product and the company behind, this article needs rework. Too many parts contain few information and remind me of marketing material, more neutral and objective statements are welcome. I changed already slightly, contributors and well trained writers are welcome.--Bienengasse (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you very much for that explanation! I am doing training at MCSA level and need to get my head around SharePoint at the admin level. :-)—An Sealgair (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the theory that specific comments are often more helpful and more actionable than generalizations, I thought that a promising starting point would be to flesh out the "Wheel" metaphor. It is kind of helpful, but raises more questions than it answers. So in that spirit, I will ask some questions which, for the life of me, I can't figure out, with the hope that someone more knowledgeable than I might be able to answer them.

1. Sites: "A site is a contextual work environment." What is a "contextual work environment"? For that matter, what do you mean when you say "work environment?" I assume you are not referring to a coal mine, lecture hall or aircraft (or maybe you are?). Are you referring to a window that pops up on a computer screen? Or a subdirectory of a filesystem? Or an application that simulates a coal mine, lecture hall or aircraft? Or a programming library that contains abstractions of tasks common to a specific work environment? Or a rocketship? From the name "site," I might guess that you are referring to an html file or similar construct that is rendered on a browser and looks and acts like a website. But the term "contextual work environment" does not convey any particular image to me. Please describe the "thing" that you call a "contextual work environment," in terms that are (as Einstein suggested) "as simple as possible, but not simpler."

2. Communities: "A community is a place for group communication." Again, I assume you are not referring to a Kiwanis hall, but I have no idea what you are referring to. Is a "community" similar to a web-based forum or bulletin board? or is it more like a shared directory on your H-drive? Or an RSS feed? Or an instant messaging app? Or something like Facebook? It's hard to tell from the phrase "a place for group communication."

3. Content: "SharePoint provides document management and storage for work items." Now THIS is pretty clear.

4. Search: "Look for relevant communities, content, people, or sites: search is based on keywords, refinement, and content analysis." Presumably this is not the same as Google or Bing (or is it?). Are you saying it can provide the functionality to search "Sites," "Communities" and "Content"? If so, say so.

5. Insights: "Information from any part of the organization can be surfaced inside useful contexts, providing information that can improve effectiveness." What does it mean to "surface information"? Are you talking about a relational database here? Or the ability to include pointers or URLs or mirrors or shortcuts in your "sites", "Communities" and "Content"? Or something totally different? Who makes the information surface? Does a programmer in your IT department set up a surfacing algorithm that surfaces the appropriate information to the appropriate users? Or does SharePoint itself have tools that allow ordinary users to surface information? How is this different than "Search"?

Composites: SharePoint enables no-code integration of data, documents and processes to provide composite applications ("mash-ups" based on internal data). This is pretty clear too.

Hope that helps! (It would sure help me if someone could answer those questions. Because the web is literally saturated with mumbo jumbo about sharepoint and none of it actually says what it does, or - more importantly - why it suddenly appeared on my computer and what it's doing there!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkaplan (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I do Agree that the wheel paragraph is not clear. Also, The SharePoint 'Client Object Model' (available for JavaScript, Silverlight, and .NET), and REST/SOAP APIs can be referenced from within a custom page, feature, or in SharePoint 2013 from a SharePoint-hosted or Provider-hosted app is very unclear for me to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.25.188 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveX?[edit]

I thought SharePoint used ActiveX controls but there is no mention of that. Or is it all ASP.NET 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.48.219 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--114.31.253.34 (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has an ActiveX control which integrates it into Microsoft Office, but no - there is no requirement for ActiveX. SharePoint is a server-side product which closely integrates with ASP.net 3.5. It works great on most OSes and all major desktop browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera, IE7+, etc) --Alirobe (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some users are reporting issues about ActiveX in non-IE browsers and even with IE itself: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/665615 --57.66.70.225 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Devices[edit]

SharePoint on mobile devices is a rising topic that might be included in a new section. Microsoft's moves in this direction include the addition of the /m support in the URL for mobile browsers, the inclusion of Mobile SharePoint Workspace in Office Mobile 2010, and the announcement that SharePoint sync will be a central feature of Windows Phone Series 7. There are also at least three third party companies with different technology approaches to extending SharePoint to the mobile world: Vaultus, H3/Mobile Entree, and Formotus. It might be better if someone else did the writing since I'm in the space, but I can write it neutral if no one else wants to volunteer. WhatMeWork (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a great idea. I hope you will contribute it :) --Alirobe (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of writing the Mobile section as best as I could, should I edit the page? and Add it myself? or send it to you and you'll add it? YifatAmichay (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SharePoint vs. SharePoint Server[edit]

I have no idea who this non-existence distinction between SharePoint Server products and some kind of called SharePoint took hold among some people on the site, but the concept is never used by Microsoft in talking about the product.

Microsoft is a Server Technology. Full Stop. All Microsoft Products are Microsoft Server products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober1236jua (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. There's a reason why Microsoft SharePoint and Microsoft SharePoint Server have their own pages. It would be wise to distinguish the differences and purposes of each. --Eptin (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of confusion around this. "Microsoft SharePoint" is not a thing itself: it's a brand. SharePoint Foundation (previously WSS) is a free platform which forms the basis of what most people consider to be "SharePoint". "SharePoint Server" is a product - a set of extensions on the SharePoint Foundation platform which provide extra functionality. "SharePoint Enterprise" is built on "SharePoint Server", and provides even more extra functionality. "Microsoft SharePoint" describes any one of these three options. It's hard to put everything in "SharePoint Foundation" because then it has to be duplicated across all three products, so it makes the most sense to describe the brand as having the attributes of SharePoint Foundation, because for all intents and purposes, it does...
Please note also that this is a confusing and ever-changing compromise which has a history of shifting about. What I have said here is not necessarily true for past versions of SP and may also not be true for future versions. --Alirobe (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Microsoft SharePoint and Microsoft SharePoint Server are no longer their own pages. The SharePoint Server article redirects to Microsoft SharePoint. This redirect was done 12 August 2011 by Alirobe‎. There was a merger proposal by Alirobe‎ with the result being "No consensus to merge."
I do not particularly care one way or another if the pages are merged. The reason I came to this article was to understand the history of SharePoint. Sadly, that's not addressed by the article which at present focuses on SP 2010. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SharePoint browser support planning guidelines[edit]

In the Client Software section of the article, the link to SharePoint browser support planning guidelines returns a file not found error on the Microsoft site.

The best replacement article I could find was Plan browser support (SharePoint Server 2010). Could someone that knows more about the product check this is the right page to reference? Thanks. --TenguTech(Talk) 23:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the correct reference. I didn't know how to write the link out. This is now fixed. Thanks for pointing it out :) --Alirobe (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thanks. I should have noticed the link format error. Must have been tired. --TenguTech(Talk) 07:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End-user focus[edit]

This article was written by me, a developer, a designer, and a technical consultant. As such it's not the best article for an end-user perspective on SharePoint. Would appreciate someone with expertise adding that section. --Alirobe (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first line sounds like an advertisement - "popular web platform...for small to large organizations" --Joel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.131.123 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how? It is popular, it is a web platform, it is for small to large organisations. Seems descriptive to me. How would you phrase it? Maybe 'common'? 'widely deployed'? --Alirobe (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although sharepoint may very well be just as wonderful as you think, it's probably a mistake to believe that you can judge "popularity" or "wide deployment" from the place you inhabit, which appears to be the Microsoft Professional subculture. IIS is a very unpopular web server outside of that specific subculture, and Sharepoint is almost pointless without IIS. Sharepoint is fundamentally intended for the AD/IIS crowd, and the truly huge and truly successful multiuser portal-based enterprises like Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. don't use AD or IIS as a basis because Microsoft web and collaboration tools are expensive, overly complex and scale poorly compared to less expensive, simpler to understand technologies. --Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither claim (popularity, suitability for particular clientele) belongs in the first paragraph - you could move them to sections near the end of the article on market reception and typical use, with citations from sites discussing usage surveys etc. The opening paragraph and section is a place to summarise the subject of the article for a reader who doesn't yet know what it is or what it's for. Popularity etc. aren't at all informative to that end. How far do you currently need to read in this article before you learn that SharePoint is a software suite, or what it's primary purpose is? - toh (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toh, do you have any familiarity with the Content Management System space? I've written this as a person interested in CMSes trying to contextualise SharePoint in a very crowded field. SharePoint has a very specific purpose as a web application platform - which is extremely unusual for a CMS, it is popular in business scenarios, not web scenarios - also uncommon, etc, etc. SharePoint is an unusual beast for anyone not familiar with enterprise applications, so it's very important to be upfront in putting it in that context. That said, I understand your concern and would appreciate your input on how we can address introducing such a nebulous product.--Alirobe (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the article is practically free of information. "Microsoft SharePoint is a popular Sharepoint Solution developed by Microsoft..." This statement is tautological and useless to anybody who doesn't already know what Sharepoint is. Request that somebody who understands this product write a concise summary which doesn't rely on knowing what the product does. Leopd (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was a particularly stupid edit. I've put it back how it was. --Alirobe (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

Old conversations have been moved to the Pre-2010 Archive --Alirobe (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

NO ACTION
No consensus to merge. Discussion has come to a standstill and received no further input for two monthes.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have proposed merging the following pages with this page:

Of particular note should be citations. This article contains very few citations, although in my view the structure of the content is more comprehensive. We need to use as many citations as possible from all documents merged into this document. --Alirobe (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this proposal and the discussion below (SP Server vs Sharepoint) I think it is probably best to maintain a number of separate pages for distinct purposes:
  • Sharepoint - referring to the MS umbrella brand name which provides overview, potted history and links to following detailed pages:
  • Sharepoint Services - describing now historic (although still in use) information about this application platform replaced by...
  • Sharepoint Foundation - describing current application platform available separately from...
  • Sharepoint Server - describes premium product, history of versions inc. dependencies on SP Service and Foundation.
CoxJul (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While what you've said is accurate (although it doesn't include SP Enterprise) I think it would be fair to say that the level of detail we're talking about implementing is both (a) overkill for Wikipedia (might be appropriate for a domain specific wiki), and (b) unmaitainable given the fact that SP2010 was nearly a year ago now, and most of the pages still refer to the wrong version... --Alirobe (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Both articles mentioned above should be merged in this article and fostered with citations. Sae1962 (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. I agree with CoxJul. As for Alirobe's objection, I think the level of details here does not fit the bill for WP:UNDUE. On the contrary, a good article must be broad in coverage. Now, outdatedness is not a good reason for merger. It is merely denying it. Fleet Command (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Microsoft Windows SharePoint Service?[edit]

Is that a different version than Foundation, Standard and Enterprise? or is it another thing? bcartolo (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TechnoBabble?[edit]

"The SharePoint platform fundamentally enables users to provision 'sites'..."

What does "provision" mean as a verb here? Is this well known? (I've never heard it, but...)

“Site provisioning… whats that?” I hear you say through the electronic ether. Provisioning a site is a fancy way of saying “creating a site”. Why they use the word provisioning, I don’t know. Its probably for a good reason but I like to think that its something to do with software developers wanting to have a fancy new words to throw around.[1]

"SharePoint can integrate with SQL Server Reporting Services to surface business intelligence."

Another noun-as-verb! What does "surface" mean in this context? Is there a better way to say this?

"These customizations may be surfaced as..."

Found a definition from the web: "transformation of data into actionable information."[2] I hope it is correct.

--KSnortum (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Provisioning actually goes well beyond just creating a site - It also encompasses governance around how sites are created - and that typically involves fitting content around a governance plan and a content plan. For this reason, I have put the old definition back. If someone wants to add a section on governance it would be appreciated, but we are talking about a specific product here, and the question of 'what is provisioning of content?' is more of a general knowledge issue in the industry - if people want to learn what provisioning is, they can look it up on wikipedia : Provisioning. --Alirobe (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. Added a link for people like me. --KSnortum (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sounds perfect - thanks! --Alirobe (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I read that as "noun-ass verb". (Which is, ironically, using "noun" as an adjective-ass noun.) 78.86.200.205 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree with the direction the discussion is going. The article currently has jargon to the point of incomprehensibility. Wikipedia is supposed to be comprehensible to the interested general reader WP:Jargon. Alirobe's argument "if you want to understand, look it up" is not appropriate for this venue. The article itself is supposed to be clear. I recognise that such clarity is more difficult because the starting terminology provided by the manufacturer of SharePoint is pretty dense, and requires translation for those outside a particular sub-sub-specialty of marketing. Phytism (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your comment. I will spend some time 'de-jargoning' the article where possible. --Alirobe (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://mymemorysucks.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/site-definitions-vs-site-templates-and-site-provisioning-providers/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ http://blog.leaderquestonline.com/post/SharePoint-2010-Business-Intelligence-Surfacing-Data.aspx. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

applications[edit]

Sharepoint is an agglomeration of functionality usually found in separate packages in the OpenSource space. A list of applications that cover the Sharepoint use cases might help as a terse explanation of what Sharepoint is for those coming from an OpenSource background. (71.233.167.118 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Done Thanks, this was a great idea, and implemented. --Alirobe (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add-ons[edit]

How about a section discussing how add-ons can be installed to extend the out-of-the-box functionality? It could be added as a sub-section of the Configuration and Customization section. Also references to lists of add-ons would be useful. Kjhosein (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done kharnagy (talk)Kharnagy (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC) I added section of notable plugins to extend SharePoint functionality[reply]
Thanks for doing this Kharnagy, unfortunately it's too juicy for SEO-bot vendors who are not notable, and there was no citation or clear reference standard for notability provided. So I've had to take the whole thing out. I may investigate what citeable sources can be used and consider re-adding this section later. If someone else is happy to do that, that would be great. Citing something like a Forrester or Gartner report, or o365 market statistics would be ideal. We must remember to be citeable and objective. This is the final list before removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SharePoint&oldid=774887149 I would note that I maintain a community list of notable stuff at http://get-spsite.com, but as I maintain it, I can't really be the one to say it's authoritative. --Alirobe (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The opening two paragraphs feel like they use unnecessarily positive language when describing Sharepoint: "recent versions have significantly broader capabilities," and "SharePoint comprises a multipurpose set of web technologies which are useful for many organizations,".

Would these be better with a more objective cast? Or, perhaps just delete those two sentences altogether: "By default, SharePoint has a Microsoft Office-like interface, and it is closely integrated with the Office suite. The web tools are designed to be usable by non-technical users." is a nicely clear intro to second para without it. Zach Beauvais (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did Microsoft write this?[edit]

Does anyone know what this product actually is? This reads like a Microsoft marketing Web site and there is no description of what this software is used for.

The SharePoint Wheel? Seriously? Why is that in here?

128.174.127.111 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous version reference[edit]

In Pages subsection of Core platform functionality section, the second sentence begins "Unlike prior versions of SharePoint, the default page type is..." Presumably that intends to reference the default page type in the current version. That should be specified, including the version, though I'm not willing to add it given the ambiguity and my limited understanding of SharePoint. Don Hammond (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section?[edit]

Sharepoint is one of the most criticized products , yet there's nothing in here at all! There's enough referenced material out there for a separate section. How would this go over if it was added? BashBrannigan (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means add a well researched section with cited, well argued criticisms. I'm sick of users basically vandalizing the page with "M$ $UCK$$!". At the very least I'll have a nice section to remove those from. There are plenty of really good critiques to be made of SharePoint. Statistics such as the StackOverflow 2017 Developer Survey should absolutely be cited, just not in the first line definition. Random blog posts written by miffed individual developers are fine, but not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Alirobe (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely that there needs to be a section devoted to the negative aspects of sharepoint, of which there are many. Grrr!, if one may say that on a talk page. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding Plug-in Section[edit]

There are a bunch of third party SharePoint Plugins that provide additional functionality, the section should either be expanded or broken off into a separate page? Thoughts? Kharnagy (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of these vendors is Nintex, which I dont see anywhere on the page: https://www.nintex.com/workflow-automation/sharepoint/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.171.149 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice no mention of vulerabilities, breaches, exploits[edit]

"The SharePoint CVE-2019-0604 vulnerability has been one of the most targeted security flaws" FBI: Nation-state actors have breached two US municipalities, ZDNet. - A876 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

webstack -> webpack?[edit]

For this quote: "The technical stack is yeoman, node.js, webstack, gulp, npm", it sounds like they meant webpack, not "webstack". Everything here is involved in frontend building, and I've never heard of webstack, and webpack is a frontend bundler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest51690 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SharePoint&oldid=1205266099"