Being able to run a website doesn’t make a CMS. It makes it a good system for running a website, which is not the definition of a CMS.

My non academic, simple definition of a CMS is pretty simple – it’s a system designed for managing content in a simple manner by the end user, without having to delve into code.

WordPress fits that definition perfectly. Was it originally designed as this – no. Has it grown and adapted to suit user requirements – absolutely. Not everyone uses WordPress as a blog, it can be many things. You can build a whole site based on pages, and in fact that’s what all the templates over at http://www.studiopress.com are based on, and they definitely take WordPress in some interesting directions.

WordPress can manage text pages, manage images via gallaries etc, include other media/forms of content such as video etc. Content can be stored within the system and then put together and published as required. This can be done without coding if required.

So, in my very humble opinion, is it a CMS – definitely – it can be used effectively to publish and manage content and has features built in for this purpose. Is it the most advanced tool for this task – absolutely not. But do many small businesses who only have small amounts of content to manage in simple ways need something more advanced? I would suggest in a lot of cases they don’t.

Thanks for the article, it was a great read.
Matt

Just because something isn’t a CMS doesn’t mean it can’t be used to manage a website. They are not inclusive. I actually think that we have evolved a new category of software, the Website Management System. Post will follow shortly.

But seriously, I posit that WordPress is definitely a content management system. Without using any plugins! That’s right, no plugins whatsoever.

First of all, it seems that everyone in this debate has forgotten that WordPress has PAGES. Every page can be assigned its own, custom template. Your list of pages is easily accessible through built-in WordPress php functions. Pages have hierarchy. Pages are sweet.

Secondly, every post and page can be assigned meta data through the “custom fields,” which you can take advantage of in your templates using built-in WordPress php functions.

Miscellaneous: There’s a media library for uploading and managing photos, pdfs, and other types of files you want to append to your site. It even has some simple built-in image editing now. There’s been built-in version control for awhile for your posts/pages. There’s built-in (weak) protection against editing pages that other users are editing. I sound like a fanboy now.

In conclusion, who cares? I don’t know what CMSes the anti-WP are proposing (I would love to see a list of recommendations!), but I can guarantee you that there are other people on the internet who will e-fight you to the e-death for claiming that Joomla/Drupal/ExpressionEngine/MovableType/Frontpage is a CMS.

What makes a spoon and spoon ? CMS – Culinary Mini-Shovel ?

A guitar is not a piano, but they are both string instruments.

I concur that WP is best suited for a blogging platform. I have used WordPress as a CMS for a conventional website and I agree that there are better CMS tools for conventional sites. Some tools provide functions out-of-the-box that will require custom php or plug-ins with WordPress. But the point of the argument is not whether WP is better or worse than other tools.

If you are saying WP is not a CMS, you are essentially saying that a blog is not content and therefore WP is not managing content and therefore it is not a CMS. [I think Ned makes this point above, and I agree]. WordPress also manages non-blog content (images, ‘pages’, links, media, etc.)

If you agree that a blog is content then I think you have to consider WordPress a CMS. Albeit, not the best CMS for every situation, but a CMS nonetheless.

~Brian

I ‘think” this is what is stuck in Pies craw – we are not obsessed, we are rabid cut followers of the devil(s) we know – I am worship Plone, and that trumps others Drupal god, I am Python-ista, and their Perl is puke and I declare jihad on their .net…

– when a customer is watching all that, they are frozen and afraid they will be sent to the land of bad ideas(tm).

So, yeah – some of us are obsessed with definitions – and with good reason – when the boss man sez ‘which one’ we can’t just put slips of paper in a hat.

my two Belgian fracs
(yeah, i know, i know, i should have exchanged them for Euro when I had the chance)

1. What I call a WCMS someone else (normally the vendor) calls a CMS

2. What I call a WCMS someone else (always a vendor) calls an ECMS

3. What I call a EDMS someone else (usually the vendor, some times the integrator) calls an ECMS

I agree with Pie that standard definitions might help the uninitiated lay person, but as information management or content management professionals do we really need to obsess over definitions ?

Before anyone retourts with a “…but with a plug-in..” comments – my point is that I do not think we will see WordPress listed in the CMIS wikipedia stub anytime soon.

@ Laurence Hart – as you are at HIMSS, what we need is a National MPI (Master Patient Index) so we can see exactly what that dream feature list might be for an Über Medical grade CMS – and then show your CMIS AIIM project to the EMR crowds ! (at least, that is my hope, and you have at least one raving fan of that effort here in Simi Valley, California!)