I'm not at all a fan of SharePoint(*1). The only project where I approached neutrality (from the general direction of negativity) was one in which the project manager was the de facto librarian and self-managed the content, structure and meta-data (e.g. naming conventions) of the site.
Even on that project, there was a brief period where the live edits/draft versions features were used by a small number of people on specific documents but something happened such that the PM disallowed that practice. I can't recall specifics, but I think some of the elements were the confusion about "rolling back" documents, clobbering intended changes, and poor management of "locking" documents (intentionally or otherwise).
(*1) In my business, we generally have documents that iterate during development and require a formal approval by the author and diverse hands, at which point they become official records that have a prescribed home in some other record retention system. For two-person teams that don't have strict regulatory concerns or can tolerate poor document controls I'm sure it can be made to "work", but even in that circumstance it's basically a problem of (re)inventing a document control system.