There is no standards body who formally define and enforce terms like "CMS" or "WCMS". It's probably not worth battling over such terms, other than in a specula

There is no standards body who formally define and enforce terms like "CMS" or "WCMS". It's probably not worth battling over such terms, other than in a speculative sense. I've spec'd out potential CMS features, and there are a lot of features that various orgs may or may not need for their Internet sites and/or intranets. I don't see any solid line(s) between CMS and "CRUD": it's often a fuzzy boundary. CRUD tends to be for a specific domain need, whereas a CMS is intended to be more general purpose: for different departments or groups in a org. What's a show-stopper in terms of missing features for a given org depends on the org. Slapping CKeditor on top of a database or dynamic file/folder creation system can get you a quick-and-dirty self-rolled CMS. You can add groupings and org hierarchies as needed using typical relational modelling. But in the longer run, one tends to end up reinventing wheels already found in formal CMS's, I find.