Talk:Intranet

Need separate "Intranet (network)" vs "Intranet (website)"?

There are distinct mean from the network view and website view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ? (talk • contribs) ?

indeed 129.2.227.119 02:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No. This article can describe both. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This article could describe both usages. However, it currently doesn't properly distinguish between the earliest use of the word as describing an internal (usually RFC1918) internetwork and its more-modern use to mean an internal, corporate website. Scott.pt (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC1918 does not actually define the word intranet. However the assumption that it is web pages is similar to the assumption that the internet is the WWW. I think the article needs to add a note about these two common-use meanings. --Zaurus (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Outdated? [Query]

The dates entered here seems to be old by IT standards. If you are knowledgeable on this topic, please check it for outdated information.

In view of the seriousness of recent site hacks (Russians, Anonymous), please explain if this kind of system is secure from external attacks. If so, how? If not, why not? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

In addition to an "Update" template, I also added an "Expert needed" template. Perhaps an expert can address the concerns entered above on this Talk Page and update the information, if needed. Again, thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Enterprise private network

There was old merge tag for a proposed merge of Enterprise private network into this article. The discussion wasn't created, so I'm doing it here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the usual confusion between a random buzzword and a Wikipedia topic. Please do as time permits, thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that there should either be a merge, and have Enterprise private network re-direct here with a message saying why this should happen, or additional information on Enterprise private network for a clear distinction between the two64.16.149.178 (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing this merge now. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing "Intranet Software" Section

Hello,

I would like to propose a small edit to the "Intranet Software" section of this article. In particular, I would propose that the following section:

"In 2018, there is a range of intranet software in use. They can be placed into a few different categories such as enterprise social networks like Workplace by Facebook, traditional intranet like Microsoft Sharepoint."

Be rewritten as:

"As of 2019, a wide variety of intranet software is in use. They can be placed into a few different categories, including enterprise social networks like Workplace by Facebook and traditional intranets like Microsoft SharePoint or Liferay."

You can view more details about Liferay's intranet offering here: https://www.liferay.com/solutions/intranets. User:Spintendo, User:ToBeFree or C.Fred is this something one of you can help with?

Please note that I am a Liferay employee.

Yotaml2 (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Yotaml2, it's a pleasure to meet you again. Thank you very much for the ping.

The current source for the "2018" statement is behind an email-wall and can't be used for the "2019" statement anyway. Let's replace it by an openly accessible, up-to-date source. An important point here is that the source must be really independent of Liferay, independent of Facebook and independent of Microsoft, must be reliable and actually mention the year "2019" as state of the statistics. This may be very hard to find on January 04, but maybe you'll find one. If not, we may need to wait until such sources exist. The year has just begun.

For the "or Liferay" addition, I think that the source needs to name "Liferay" in the same sentence as, or on the same level as, Microsoft Sharepoint or Workplace by Facebook. The source needs to show that Liferay is actually so popular that it can be used in this sentence. It would, especially, need to be at least the third-largest competitor in this area. Else, the third-largest competitor would logically be named instead of Liferay.

Good luck and have a happy new year! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey ToBeFree, happy new year and great to connect with you again! I agree that the current source for the "2018" statement should be replaced. Just to clarify, I did not cite that source in the article nor make any edits to the article. While, at least as far as I can tell, there are currently no sources for 2019, there are independent sources for previous years. For example, this article (https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-leading-enterprise-intranet-portal-and-collaboration-platforms-for-2016/) from 2016 cites the leading providers at the time, with SharePoint listed as the leading provider followed by a series of others (including Liferay) in no particular order. The article was published in ZDNet, a well-respected technology publication, by an an industry analyst that has no connection to Microsoft, Liferay or any other provider.

If you're looking for additional evidence, you can also see this article (https://www.cioapplications.com/vendors/top-10-portal-software-solution-providers-2018-rid-83.html) in CIO Applications, an independent publication aimed at an audience of technology professionals, which lists Liferay among the leading providers. The CIO Applications article does not even list SharePoint. Finally, you can see a list of intranet solutions from codeasite, an independent system integrator, citing a list of intranet providers, including Liferay, here: https://blog.codeasite.com/the-complete-guide-to-corporate-intranet-providers/.

With this in mind I'd like to propose that the "intranet software" section be rewritten as follows:

"As of 2016, Microsoft SharePoint was the most commonly used intranet solution. Other providers include EXo platform, IBM WebSphere and Liferay.⁽¹⁾

Yotaml2 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2, thank you very much!

I'd love to replace outdated, email-walled data by openly accessible data from 2019. A mere lack of accessibility, however, isn't reason enough to prefer a different source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility

For your first suggestion, we can use "Age matters" as a reason to use new sources instead of outdated statistics. For your latest suggestion, one may instead say: "Liferay may have become unpopular in the meantime. We should use the newer 2018 data."

Let's wait for up-to-date information, I'd say. But maybe someone has access to the 2018 reference and it mentions Liferay too? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, thank you for the quick response and apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I think there is a little bit of a challenge because the term "intranet" is often not used on its own. For example, you may be familiar with Gartner, a well-regarded technology research firm not affiliated with any vendor. If you were to search Gartner's review section (Peer Reviews) - https://www.gartner.com/reviews/home - you will not be able to find a separate section for intranet because it's been folded into the category of "Digital Experience Platform." In other words, new solutions being created typically include functionality to produce a wide range of online experiences, rather than just an intranet.

If, however, you were to search for "Digital Experience Platforms," you will see that Liferay is one of the top results - https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/horizontal-portals - on Gartner's review site, which is kept constantly updated. You can also see a 2018 article from a technology publication called IT World Canada that cites Liferay as one of the top performers in the space according to the 2018 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Digital Experience Platforms report - https://www.itbusiness.ca/news/liferay-leaps-into-digital-customer-experience-market-seeks-growth-in-canada/102817.

Given this, perhaps the "intranet software" section should be rewritten as follows:

In today's environment, intranet solutions are typically wrapped into the wider category of Digital Experience Platforms (DXPs). According to the 2018 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Digital Experience Platforms, the leading providers were Adobe, IBM, Liferay and Sitecore.⁽²⁾

Yotaml2 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2, these two sources (Gartner reviews and the ITbusiness.ca article) appear to be rating software according to self-defined, subjective criteria. Let's wait for a 2019 source that provides usage statistics or usage share percentages, I'd say. If the statistics are not about "Intranet software" but "Digital Experience Platforms", we may also need to provide proof that these two terms have a similar meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, thank you again for your response and continued attention to this matter, I really appreciate it :). I understand your point regarding the sources I cited, however, if these sources are not regarded as acceptable then I feel that the entire section on "Intranet software" should be removed. This is because none of the existing sources strike me as fulfilling the criteria for reliable sources as stated in Wikipedia policy - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources - and, also per Wikipedia policy, if reliable sources do not exist than that article or section should not exist - Wikipedia:NRSNVNA.

Wikipedia policy defines "questionable sources" as "those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." I believe that defines the existing sources cited in this section perfectly. Please allow me to explain why. Citations 22 and 23 are from the same website of someone selling services (with a lack of editorial objectivity and a clear conflict of interest) and published in 2012 and 2011, respectively. If an article published in 2016 is regarded as too old to be relevant I find it puzzling that even older articles are considered acceptable. Citation 24 is from 2016 and, in any case, is a comment about software vendor SAP that cites SAP's own website, another clear conflict of interest. Finally, citation 25 is, as you've already pointed out, an outdated, walled, source from a software vendor with a clear conflict of interest.~ Yotaml2 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2, your analysis about the reliability of the sources is correct; I must have been blind.

About WP:NRSNVNA, the treatment of unsourced information in Wikipedia outside of biographies is usually not as strict as described in that essay. The essay also seems to focus on articles and notability, not the relevancy of specific sections within a non-biographical established article. A guideline that partly counters the essay can be found at WP:NNC; the verifiability policy also explicitly mentions the "citation needed" tag at WP:UNSOURCED and WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. When in doubt, these statements are usually considered to have higher acceptance in the broader community than an essay.

I have done a bit of research regarding the three sources you've mentioned. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/happeo.com and Special:Contributions/Roowright may be interesting. Three users, Iloveintranet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jacker333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Roowright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have apparently only registered to add promotional links to this article. Thank you very much for discovering that problem.

I would normally, keeping WP:POINT in mind, strongly advise against deleting the section "Intranet software" as a part or result of this discussion. Instead, I would normally remove only the citations from the article (current revision is 872486997) and replace them by maintenance tags like {{disputed inline}} and {{citation needed}}. However, because the spam problem is so egregious, I will completely undo the following two edits:

• Special:Diff/571318076
• Special:Diff/852790978

Maybe other editors will agree to lower requirements. I personally would be uncomfortable with re-introducing similar statements unless we have an openly accessible 2019 source that provides reliable, objective data about the current market allocation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, this strikes me as perfectly fair solution and I have no further suggestions. I want to thank you again for your time and for sharing these policies with me. I am still fairly new to Wikipedia and am not familiar with every policy, so the education is helpful; I hope you will agree that I have always endeavored to follow Wikipedia policy as closely as possible. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can ever be of help in any way .~ Yotaml2 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yotaml2, this is very kind, thank you very much. Your work to find a middle course between the interests of the company and Wikipedia has proven multiple times to be effective and has benefited the encyclopedia in ways that we can normally only dream of. Your honorable attitude is strongly appreciated and a shining example of how open communication between editors with a conflict of interest and the larger community should ideally work. I rarely see this when patrolling recent changes on Wikipedia; the most common interaction in similar cases is an exchange of spam and warning messages. Neither help any of the involved parties in the long term. I believe that positive counter-examples like you are the reason that Wikipedia does not strictly forbid contributing with a conflict of interest.

Kindly keep us posted; feel free to ping me when the awaited statistics have been published, so that we can rebuild the section that had to be removed for now, with up-to-date information and perhaps actually a wikilink to the Liferay article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Saas .. Is the term "intranet" still valid?

The company I work for does not own a single server. It does not run an own network. SaaS gets used. I guess about 20 SaaS solutions get used. Do we have an "Intranet"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guettli (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Image

Is there an alternative image or a translated version of the current image available? The current image is in turkish, which makes it difficult to understand, especially on ENWiki. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

With the help of machine translation and general understanding of English, I have edited the image in GIMP so that it it's in English. Not sure about wiki best practices on doing this, but if someone knows it's good wants to put in in I uploaded it here - https://files.catbox.moe/iiujzv.png. Remember to credit the original author (M. Murat Albayrakoglu), since the original requires attribution. I don't care if you attribute me, I'm just glad to help lol ~the.one.and.the.only~ (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)