nevadabrazerzkidai.blogg.se - Mediawiki vs dokuwiki

#Mediawiki vs dokuwiki install
#Mediawiki vs dokuwiki software

in Drupal there are easy ways of adding rating systems to pages (although I do not know if these rating systems aggregate among translations of the same page.).all pages will have to invite (seduce?) people to share stories about the company in Mediawiki adding stories is cumbersome for users, and besides that, comments normally do not show on wiki pages, you need extra plug ins for that.

I think the book structure, combined with a better editor than Mediawiki has, is a big advantage in Drupal. The book should be on the site, in a user friendly way (so no PDF-download, but pretty pages, linking to each other).

the company has had a book made in 5 languages, synchronized so all books are exact translations of the other.

I proposed Drupal, for the following reasons: Currently he envisions that the whole of the history of the company, can be written in a Wikipedia-like site and eventually, all content can be transferred to Wikipedia. It lets you put custom CSS, so you can control the look pretty well including removing the parts you don't want.Ĭustom navigation let's you add any links in the menu and access control is good, so it's easy to allow a group of people access certain pages.My customer, a communications director of a multinational company, loves Wikipedia. It doesn't force you with some weird rule such as "link first and create page" but just hit the "New page" button and since it has list of pages for both front side and the admin panel, you'll never have some page left in limbo.Īdmin panel is good. It has plenty of auth targets from LDAP to oauth and many others.

Frankly a bare markdown editor is out of the question as it is never intuitive for anyone but some techie who likes remembering all the tags and I'm s programmer for a long time but I'd take WYSIWYG any day for managing structured documents. It's just a collection of hacks to add features and sometimes third party plugins are too buggy but wiki.js has most of what I wanted built-in. I've used DokuWiki for over a decade but it's showing its age.

#Mediawiki vs dokuwiki software

So I guess the big takeaway here is not a large pepperoni pizza from domino's, but the fact that software looks matter, a lot, and it's probably going to matter more and more in the future.

But then again I started learning and programming ruby for the same reason, it looked and felt good, so I stuck with it.

#Mediawiki vs dokuwiki install

Feature wise it's no confluence, nor xwiki, it's just a page editor with user management, but it's quick to set up, uses extreemely little memory by default, feels fast and looks good, so they don't mind if they see some functionality missing.Īmong more and more tools that I install for people I see this pattern where they are judged by their looks above features, and it's not easy for me to fully understand it. They want to feel good when they open it and browse, they want to see a modern look, it makes the experience of using and maintaining a knowledge base more appealing so they engage more. And that is exactly what I've seen people want from software like these. The biggest selling point for this piece of software, compared to showing them 5 other alternatives, is that it looks good, it's eye candy. I've installed wikijs for a small team of developers at their request.