Talk:Collaboration tool

Essay-like - more work needed
Obviously there has been a lot of good-faith effort to develop this article, but large parts of it read like a personal essay rather than an encyclopedic article. Some basic flaws of essay-like writing: Usage of first-person phrases and directly addressing the reader. Overemphasis on statements of opinion and vague generalizations, instead of focussing on the topic's objective "dry" facts. Biased language to present the topic in an overly positive (or negative) way. For example, the whole section "Future of ..." was dedicated to information about how great future collaboration tools will be, and how much easier life will be with them - based almost entirely on PR publications and speculative opinion pieces. Such predictions or hypothetical content can only be based on high-quality sources from independent experts, and would need to be written in a much more uninvolved manner. I have removed some of the most problematic content, but the article needs a major rewrite in content and overall structure. GermanJoe (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed
Agreed, but until we have a top level Collaboration tools article, this will at least point readers in the right direction. I cleaned up the taxonomy terms and listed major related wikipedia articles, but that's all I have time for.

The collaboration breakdown was self-referential: collaboration=communication+coordination+collaboration, just about as bad as the cited title:C3=communiation+coordination+coordination (which is the actual title in the document!). LarryLACa (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)