This article is collecting user feedback that should be available in a next generation Microsoft communities like forums, blogs, Wiki, Gallery...

This article is pretty large, and you might experience issues when saving it.
If you can't save this article, post your suggestions on this forum post or this blog post on the same topic. We'll collect the feedback and add it for you.

Back to top


Use the codes below to indicare how important the feature is to you, as a community contributor. Add your remarks and reason in the comments when you add a priority code.

Code Identification Description
[P1] or [MUST HAVE] Priority 1, Must Have  Cannot work without
[P2] or [SHOULD HAVE] Priority 2, Important but not a must  Needed, but can be added later
[P3] or [NICE TO HAVE] Priority 3, Optional  Can work without
[KEEP] existing feature keep this feature, feature parity

Back to top

Shared features to all tools


  • All common browsers must be supported!
  • easy integration
    • one-click to create a wiki article from a forum thread (capturing forum topic an forum answer to Wiki article)

User Interface

  • User Friendly GUI,  which fit children and non developers as well
  • Editor/GUI: Tags (auto+from list only Moderators can manage, not manual)
  • Editor/GUI: Support Languages + RTL languages (Language spanision?)
  • One click export of user owned articles
    • export in HTML (or other general) format
    • including images
    • (on top of the current GDPR privacy export in JSON format, from the user profile)


  • Multi language support
  • Contextual translation and switch back to English capabilities as we have in Docs.

External (API) Interface

  • API for developers to
    • pull articles, forums threads (same as in stackoverflow), blogs content, statistics from all tools, ...
    • create analytics, weekly overviews, BI (page views, references), leaderboards, ...
    • etc.

Content editor

  • WYSIWYG editor is a must
    • by preference HTMl, but also other options like using using markdown languages )
    • Have the option to select either HTML / Markdown to edit the article
  • Attachment/content upload:
    • Scan files when uploaded
    • Scan for or block dangerous or marketing content (exe files, 3rd party software...)
  • Editor:: upload files should work fast and secured like any common website

Content management

  • [KEEP] piracy, violation reporting
  • [KEEP] do not allow normal users to delete content
  • [KEEP] report "candidates for deletion" (eg by using tags, as we do now)


  • Only upvote, No down vote
  • No negative points
  • remove points when content is deleted


  • Private Messages to user, OP or article author, without exposing private data
    • eg user contact form
  • Comments: appreciation, feedback, some people do not feel comfortable to make a change and they want to report it; social chatter due to lack of personal messages in MSDN today
  • Allow gamification (improve, highlight & promote interaction with and between users)


  • Multi-factor authentication, captcha forany new
  • New user limitations
    • preventing new users from posting/editing content (as we have today, based on reputation threshold),
    • but in addition option to manually approve new authors, as we have in the MSDN forums today
  • permissions/privilege based on rules/roles
  • Sync with the MSDN users is a must (current users), prefer to based on the Microsoft key for all tools, which mean we use the same, central user account


  • Microsoft platform for credibility
  • CContent governed by the community
  • Distinction between Microsoft-authored content and community content

Functional / Technical management

  • Microsoft owned, community moderator managed
  • content administration & moderation by selected community users
  • technical ownership/management by Microsoft


  • Official Community Council which include a very small number of community representatives + Microsoft representatives (can engage directly with the team behind the scenes if needed and the communities users)
  • Microsoft owned platform, trusted community moderators fully manage content/User
  • Administrators/operators mainly from Microsoft employees but trusted admins/moderators from the community as well if needed - better then none. Including the blogs and if needed for forums in languages that there is no administrator from Microsoft
  • Trusted Moderators based on community (like today)


  • Rules: MVP and other unique groups can get more privileges (like using the API for developers)
  • Roles: Administrator (not moderators) can ban users without the need to contact the engineering team and wait for them


  • [MUST HAVE]: easy piracy reporting
  • piracy protection
  • A checkbox for "Please let me know when you're going to sunset my many years' worth of contributions into oblivion"
  • A cast iron promise that contributions will never be thrown away 
  • Migration planning & migration support
    • Keep content as read-only or redirect
    • Clean up duplicated articles
    • Clear communication on expectations if content goes down

Back to top


Business justification

What's the added value, or the reason for existence for a Community Wiki? In comparison/addition to 

  • other community platforms like Forums, Blogs, Gallery and ?
  • other "Microsoft owned" content like offical product documentation on Docs or Microsoft download center?

1. Community Wiki = added value to official documentation

The Community Wiki is not a replacement for the official Microsoft Documentation, but a parallel channel which is a must! 

2. Real life expert experience

The community uses and operates the Microsoft platforms in many more ways than the Microsoft product and support teams can.

3. Fast content creation

A wiki offers a fast way to create added-value documentation (compared to the orchestrated way of publishing official MS product documentation)

4. Community owned - Microsoft branded

It must be opened to all and be much more accessible & user friendly. It should work with the documentation, a bit like open source projects which have a "community version" and a "paid version" (for example it is very common in Linux OS).

Wiki specific Feature requests

  • See shared/common features
  • Comments: on editing, and on the content (same as today where we have two types of comments)
    • Full page width display

Wiki editor

  • Images
    • option to upload images
    • remove option to use external images,
    • option to use navigate and see all existing images and use them in the article 
    • [NICE-TO-HAVE]: bulk upload images
  • [MUST HAVE] Auto-features:
    • auto-creation of TOC (Table of contents)
  • [NICE TO HAVE] auto-feature
    • back to top link (eg point to TOC)
  • Basic layout options
    • limited font support
      • Normal text font
      • SourceCode/Script text font
    • H1-H5 header options (auto-added to TOC)
  • Template articles
    • Precreated layout
    • Allow administrators to add templates

Wiki Governance

  • [MUST HAVE] Keep the TN WIki community council
  • [MUST HAVE] Keep the TNWIKI governance model, best practices & guidelines (as based on Wikipedia model)
  • Piracy protection (as far as possible)

Back to top


Business justification

What's the added value, or the reason for existence for forums? In comparison/addition to 

  • other community platforms like Wiki, Blogs, Gallery and ?
  • other "Microsoft owned" content like offical product documentation on Docs or Microsoft download center?

Forum editor

  • option to upload images
  • Security: captcha for any new/edit article
  • Add poster/responder signature to post or response

Back to top


  • Upload files, including compress files, images,  
  • block executable (.exe) upload
  • Q&a on gallery item
  • Allow posting
    • scripts (powershell)
    • office templates
    • samples (scripts, documents, ...)
  • block encrypted zip upload
  • scan zip files for content

Back to top


  • blog deprecation announcements 
  • blog archival (lock for edit, but kept for a while, x YEARS) 
  • blog export option (common format to allow tranfer to author owned system)

Back to top

See also

Back to top


Back to top