FierceCIOFierceCIOTechWatchFierceMobileITFierceContentManagementFierceGovernmentIT   FierceComplianceITFierceHealthITFierceFinanceIT

The WordPress CMS debate continues

March 30, 2010 — 12:21pm ET

Guest post by Scott Liewehr
I don’t think of WordPress as a web content management system (WCMS). There, I said it. If you live and breathe content management like many who subscribe to this publication, you’ve likely just had one of two polar reactions:

1) You’re seething right now, only reading onward to find slip-ups to use to pick this article apart and “educate” me via the comments, or

2) you just shouted “Thank you!” aloud and are interested in finding more ways to support your own reasoning (which may be based more on intuition than logic). There aren’t many who are neutral on the subject. In fact, as Jeff Cram points out, the debate has gotten a bit religious lately.

“We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are”

As the French author Anaïs Nin once explained, we each view the world through our own lenses based on our own background and experiences. I don’t think of WordPress (WP) as a WCMS, but that’s just me. I’m happy to call it a blog publishing application, or even a web publishing system, but having worked in the content management industry for over ten years as a practitioner, consultant and analyst, I have a pretty clear understanding of what a WCMS is…at least in my own mind. Maybe I’m a purist. Maybe I’ve been playing the role of subject matter expert for too long and I’m no longer seeing clearly. Either way, for me, WP just doesn’t pass the WCMS sniff test.

Here are a few things that just don’t sit right with me:

  • Any topic with so many evangelists touting “How to use ABC as an XYZ”, probably means that either 1) ABC is admittedly not an XYZ, but it can be used in a similar fashion if tweaked or used in a certain way, or 2) ABC is not quite as intuitive as we might have thought, and these how-to videos, articles and blogs are required to educate users. I tend to think number one is more likely.
  • The all-too-easy argument that WP is a system which manages web content; therefore it must be a WCMS. Sorry, this doesn’t hold water for me. Using that logic alone, toilet paper and disposable napkins are both paper towels. We know this doesn’t make sense, so let’s not get literal. I’ll grant you that the WCM term could be better defined--more on that later.
  • The notion that a WCMS is a process and that every organization that updates a website has one by default, even if it’s 'some guy named Sergei FTPing Dreamweaver files.' I certainly agree with my friend Robert Rose that much of what makes or breaks a website is non-technical, but to prey on the multiple definitions of the word system is to seriously over-simplify [read: avoid] the argument. [Note: Rose was not addressing this debate when he wrote those words, but I’ve seen them quoted in this context more than once.]
  • The argument that if someone uses WP as a WCMS, then that makes it one. If you’re being honest, it won’t take you more than ten seconds to come up with five examples of tchotchkes you use for unintended purposes. Laurence Hart came up with three clever ones to start you off--too easy.

So, then what defines a WCMS?

I could list all of the features and functions that I believe serve as the guts of a WCM, as others have done, but I’m not so sure that matters. Why? Because if you agree with me then we likely have similar experiences with WCM and I don’t need to convince you. Unfortunately, there is no feature [set] I can list which will help you conclusively win this argument at the [virtual] water cooler…at least not within the fast-approaching word limit of this post.

On the other hand, if you disagree with my position, then you would either write me off as a WP novice and tell me there’s some new add-on I should download to account for the lacking feature (the geeky response), or worse, you might play the “user” card and tell me that it’s not about me or my viewpoint, but rather that of the end-user. Ooh, and that would be unfair.

“It’s the end-user, stupid.” 

I consider myself a staunch user advocate, and anyone who knows me knows I rarely turn to technology as the first answer (or problem). Actually, I usually turn away from it. So to those who channel James Carville in this debate: Right, I get it. But the simplicity required for a political campaign doesn’t necessarily suffice when it comes to answering the seemingly age-old question of the definition of WCM. I tone down the tech jargon when interacting with my business clients in the same way that I appreciate my doctor speaking to me in plain English, but that doesn’t mean that an academic argument about the boundaries of WCM amongst industry professionals isn’t worthwhile. I understand it’s a trivial point in the “real world”, but as a father of two toddlers, so is everything other than molding our youth into responsible young men and women. So, that’s a bit of a cop-out. I agree we can let the end-users call it whatever they want, but they stopped reading this post about eight paragraphs ago.

If not us, then who?

My stance on this subject is a gut response based on my experiences. I could attempt to retrofit a bunch of arguments together to try to convince you, or I could make a feeble attempt at yet another car analogy to make my point, as Ian Truscott called me out for doing once before. But I’m not here to evangelize. Actually, I’m not black-and-white on the subject myself. And, as many have noted, I’m not even sure it matters. If the tool fits the need(s) [and those of the foreseeable future], then by all means use it. The interesting point which makes this debate so sticky is that it has shone a flashlight on yet another reason why we need to clarify our industry’s terms, and for that matter, the profession itself. As Lisa Welchman points out, “most people barely understand what [we] do." Maybe those refinements will result in the inclusion of WP as a WCMS, and if so, then I’m all for it. If not, WordPress is still a great tool. But, if we cannot define our own terms, then who’s going to do it for us?

Scott Liewehr is a Senior Consultant at The Gilbane Group in the Web Content Management practice as well as a founder and Principal at onesta where he leads the Strategy team. He is also considers himself fortunate to serve as the President of CM Pros, the association of record for content management professionals worldwide.

SHARE WITH:
Email Twitter Facebook LinkedIn StumbleUpon
Get Your FREE FierceContentManagement Email Newsletter:
Comments (14) | Post a comment

Comments

By Jeff Cram | Posted 10:29pm | March 30, 2010

Scott, Scott, Scott. We kicked this one to the curb weeks ago. What are you doing? At least you presented it as your opinion and not a fact. One that the hundreds of thousands of folks that use WordPress as a CMS would likely disagree with. Then again they all probably use toilet paper as paper towels too. ;-)

Jeff

By Bob Miller | Posted 10:55pm | March 30, 2010

Your points are understandable.

Visually, this site is a joke.

By Randy Hoyt | Posted 10:57pm | March 30, 2010

I'm really curious if it matters whether or not WordPress is properly defined as a "CMS". If we could all agree that it is one or all agree that it is not one, what difference would it really make? I'll keep using it to build web sites for some of my clients, and they'll keep using it to manage their content -- whether or not it is properly defined as a content management system. Am I missing something obvious?

By Ben Tremblay | Posted 11:09pm | March 30, 2010

I was going to comment, "Surely we can break this down. (De-construct?) I mean definitionally. What's sufficient? What's necessary" and then thought better of it, and deleted what I'd written.

But then I read your, "we need to clarify our industry’s terms" ... so ok: let's!
"Detailed Requirement Specification" comes before "Detailed Design Document" ... and there's good reason for that.

Isn't linking the reason TimBL came up with WWW?I've started a list of plugins that might comprise core functions for CMS. [1]

p.s. I see no "subscribe to comments", and no "preview" or no "reply" to individual comments. Okie Dokie But no links allowed?!

1) http://bentrem.wordpress.com/plugin-roundup/

By Anonymous | Posted 12:13am | March 31, 2010

For me it's simple:

WordPress is a CMS
WordPress is NOT an enterprise level CMS

I would use WordPress to run one of my personal sites.
I would not use it to run the websites at work (I lead a government web team).

By Mark. | Posted 12:28am | March 31, 2010

"Using that logic alone, toilet paper and disposable napkins are both paper towels."

Really? You've NEVER used a napkin to wipe something up?

http://bit.ly/dnUw3C <-- The link will probably be moderated, but everybody who is wondering if WordPress is truly a CMS should google "ozh wordpress cms" for the definitive answer.

Nobody uses it as a CMS, it IS a cms. Maybe it's not your preference, but that's fine. You wouldn't use a fork to eat soup, so if WP doesn't fit your needs, don't use it!

By Robert Rose | Posted 2:18am | March 31, 2010

In the immortal words of Billy S....

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a WCMS.
What's WordPress? it is nor workflow, nor versioning,
Nor DAM, nor Workgroups, nor any other part
Belonging to a WCMS. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So WordPress would, were it not WordPress call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which it owes
Without that title. WordPress, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

By Mark | Posted 6:06pm | March 31, 2010

Hey Scott - good article! I'm a WP fan, and yes - I use it as a CMS :-) I also design non-WP sites, and have been looking at other CMS options as well (I like Perch, and am going to try that out next). I'm curious - what have you used? I'd love to know!

By Chris Jean | Posted 10:38am | April 1, 2010

I always wonder why people say that WordPress is not a CMS. Every time I happen upon such a topic, I read it to find out the "why" behind such views. Unfortunately, every article I've read stating that WordPress is not a CMS doesn't substantiate the view with a list of features, functionality, or concepts that makes a product a CMS. Such a list would seem reasonable to provide as it would quickly and easily substantiate what the writer believes a CMS is and would easily allow the reader to determine whether the writer is correct in such claims and whether they agree or disagree with the definition. However, without that information, such articles boil down to "WordPress isn't a CMS because I don't want it to be a CMS", which isn't a sufficient argument.

Your post does no better. You state that providing the needed information to substantiate your claim would do nothing but cause WordPress users to come out to mindlessly and ignorantly defend it. However, all you've done is posted a rant that boils down to "if you agree with what I've said, you're right, and if you don't agree with what I've said, you're wrong."

You keep citing your years upon years of CMS experience. So why don't you provide value and share some of that experience. Defend your definition of a CMS by actually defining it.

As for me, I'll keep thinking of WordPress as a CMS as it does what I believe a CMS is. Oh... I'll leave it up to you to determine what I believe a CMS is as I'm sure you already have your mind made up about that as well.

By Dash Riprock | Posted 4:49pm | April 2, 2010

"Doorstops are what doorstops do."
- The Bhagavad Gita

By Steve who McMahon | Posted 1:55pm | April 4, 2010

Language changes.

Those of us who worked with content-management systems before the advent of light-weight web publishing systems like WP have a mental model of what makes a CMS. What we think of as "management" isn't just web publishing or RSS; it includes business-rule functionality like sophisticated access-control, workflow mechanisms and versioning.

However, the current adopters of the term CMS for light-weight web-publishing systems outnumber us dinosaurs several thousand to one. Maybe it's time to stop fighting linguistic adaptation and come up with a new term for systems that fulfill the older definition of CMS.

By JamieO | Posted 11:03am | April 20, 2010

You can make the argument that "out-of-box" or "downloaded" it is not a highly capable CMS. But how many clients ever run an installation of any CMS without any customizations? The term COTS (customize off-the-shelf) is example of how common this tendency is.

Is WordPress a social network? No. But BuddyPress has shown that a focused set of plugins and development community can turn it into an excellent one quite easily. I believe it is worth looking at the individual features / functionality that people hold up as examples of "Why Not?" and how they can be added into Wordpress. I've explored this concept in my latest blog post - http://idealienstudios.com/blog/wordpress-not-yet-enterprise-level-cms/ - Wordpress is not (yet) an enterprise-level CMS - which I'd be curious of your comments on.

By Anonymous | Posted 2:42am | April 30, 2010

Umm, just FYI, COTS stands for Commercial, Off-the-Shelf. Kind of takes the wind out of that sail, no?

By martin451 | Posted 2:37pm | May 5, 2010

Good comment above by Chris Jean - really hit the nail on the head.

Perhaps Scott Liewehr should note that WordPress was awarded the Overall Best Open Source CMS Award in the 2009 Open Source CMS Awards:
http://www.packtpub.com/award

QED

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.