Talk:Confluence (software)

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Computing: Software Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Java Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java 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.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by Czarkoff (talk · contribs) on 15 March 2012 with the comment:
Lack of notability as should be demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources discussing this software in-depth.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 March 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

comment by Italicus1632

I guess it is a bot that added that note. I created this page because I had to see that product in my work and the page does not exist yet. Somebody has to start from somewhere. Note that I have no interest in that company. On [advertising: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Concerning the form I used the same pattern as MediaWiki. If somebody does not like this stub, you are welcome to improve it. Italicus1632 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Question: Does Atlassian Confluence sound like the right name for this article? Italicus1632 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Moved it. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Open Source

This article is in the "Open Source CMS" category but Confluence isn't actually Open Source (as is stated directly in the article text). This is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.57.6 (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source code is available to licensees. So yes, it is "Open Source". --Demonkoryu (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison With Mediawiki

Does anyone know how this compares with Mediawiki? --Robinson weijman (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article describing the differences between Mediawiki and Confluence. Basically Confluence is optimized for collaboration within a business - It has things like a built-in Rich Text Editor, page hierarchies, support for LDAP and includes technical support among other things. (Barconati (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Mediawiki can also import the LDAP and contains Rich Text Editor. The "page hierarchy" is NOT advantage but Information Architecture fundamental error for the wiki projects.

Thanks for that reply. You've summarised the advantages of Confluence - what advantages does MediaWiki have? --Robinson weijman (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki is free software. All the feature mentioned above are available as plugins/extensions. The reason people choose confluence is that it comes packaged with sane enterprise features, (sort of) integration with other systems, both atlassian and third party. And there is official tech support. You don't get restrictive license agreements with MediaWiki, but it would be tricky, and not-so-time-effective to enable the features that "just work" with confluence. But if you're just after a "feature comparison", then MediaWiki wins by a longshot. 81.92.64.5 (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most of the time the Confluece Admins spend to disable all features that are in the package because it makes the tool too complex for end-users (who then feel lost in the jungle). The whole Atlasian Wiki is based on the in-sane concepts which have been considered as obsolete 3-5 years ago. It is typical peace of SW designe by coders without an idea of congnitive psychology, usability and all kind of these stuff.

Comparision of concepts

	Atlassian Confluence	Media Wiki
Content Organisation	1 wiki breaks down in spaces (1 space per working group/project...)	1 common space (eventually organised among "portals"
Content Structure	Tree structure - a child can have maximum 1 parent: encouraging 'bad' behaviours to create file plans	Category - content element can belong to many categories (!and the category is considered as an element too!): gives flexible taxonomical matrix - a mind-map like structures

Information retrieval is better in MediaWiki (MW) based project then in the Atlassian Confluence (AC).

The Category (MW) is unique and allows mind-map like organisation of the content, while the folkosonomies (AC) combined with tree structures are not clear.

The concept of working and personal spaces in AC brings to possibility to create within 1 instance (installation) articles with the same name which in big organisation brings funny search results like 20x article "Meeting". In MW to create new article you are forced to pass by search so there is more less likely to create an article with similar content or the same name. The content management in AC is focused on securisation of access to the information. The (R/W) rights are inherited within the tree and could be progressively restricted. The while uploading a file (img, doc ...) this is attached to the article in AC and also deleted with. This brings the behaviour 1. the information is published when available in the attachment of a page (often with no content), 2. if the attachment is of general interest it is copied to an other article to prevent its loss if the original article is deleted (and to link to the attachment in other page/article you have to include into the path the name of the collaborative space and the name of the article).

The content management in MW is manageable via categories which allows easy creation of multidimensional work-flows (stub/.../archive - request for deletion/vote/ ...); the "attachments" are "floating" in the "space", and so it is easy to find the orphans as well as link them with a several articles. Editing in AC is very much WISIWG - based on JS. This brings at 1st feeling of easy editing, but encourages the visual formatting instead of semantic one. The results of applying of several style over 1 fragment of text is sometime surprising. In the end either users have to learn the Confluence wiki tags which are very extensible and so complex or there is a need to create helpdesk dealing with the correction of the corrupted (formatting of) articles.

In MW the users are forced to learn wiki tagging - which is very restricted and so simple; there are (almost) no wiki tags for visual formatting - MW focus on the semantic values of the text. This brings also an uniformity of the content in MW.

In AC there is only edit button for the whole article - more aesthetic. In the MW there is an edit button at each heading - very ugly. The difference is seen when articles become long. The MW is based on 2 objects - article+category. By default there are 2 articles bind together to have a "result" page and "discussion" page; very simple to learn and extensible. The AC is composed of collaborative spaces, pages (=article), comments (=forum), news (=blog), labels (=folksonomy tags); very complex (already the terminology) and so cumbersome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your both for your detailed replies! Certainly a lot to think about (e.g. attaching documents to articles). Does anyone else have experience of both packages? --Robinson weijman (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?

Why has this tag been added? I expected to see an explanation here. Otherwise, how can it ever be removed? --Robinson weijman (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The banner was added because User:Barconati, who is Bill Arconati, marketing manager at Confluence, has significantly edited the page. That qualifies as a conflict of interest according to our guidelines on the subject. I intend to edit the article to improve it so we can remove it, but have gotten behind with real world responsibilities. Steven Walling (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - how did you work that out? Thanks for the information - I missed that earlier. All I saw was the tag. Surely this is only a problem if someone adds biased information though, right? --Robinson weijman (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "10 Professional Packs" note under language attribute in the Infobox which seemed to fall under this category. --81.92.64.5 (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor article

This is a poor article:

the neutrality issue has been flagged for eight months,
it says almost nothing about the product itself and
no review comments, comparisons with other products etc.

I know it is easy to criticise but I do not have the knowledge to improve it - I am interested as a reader. People with more Wikipedia experience: how can we improve this (other than adding a deletion tag to generate interest)? --Robinson weijman (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the COI tag from April 2009

I have rewritten more than 1/2 of this article so I have now removed the "COI" tag which dates from April 2009. The article still needs quite a lot of work but this tag is no longer required. AWHS (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link to Crowd page which I've proposed for deletion

A few days ago, I created a page for Atlassian Crowd because the link to it in this article was red. Now, I think there isn't enough to say about Crowd to warrant it having its own page, so I've proposed the Crowd page for deletion and took out the link in this article. (The reference in the article to Crowd still exists, it just isn't a link any more).

Marfinan (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with SharePoint

One of the biggest debates for companies is whether to have Confluence, SharePoint, or both. Many articles have been written on this topic and it is a noteworthy point by itself. Being the start of what will be the future of content generation and delivery in the next few decades I suggest having a section on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.89 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]