161–170 of 203 posts
Even simpler Markdown-based: https://www.getoutline.com/
One of the benefits of Counfluence is that it is one of the only Wikis where I've seen non-technical people being able to create content on a daily basis. Linking pages, inserting graphs and images just works. I have yet to see that in anything based on markdown.
Would be nice if they can offer a managed version in the near future
Yeah, this has been requested a few times. I don't come from a hosting background (Outside of managing my own VPSs) so I don't feel it's something I can personally do (at a level of service I'd be happy with) but the idea of partnering with someone that has experience is something I've though about; The tricky part is finding someone I can trust enough to send users to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mediawiki is page focused, needing a lot of tweaking to make it act like something other than a completely open public page editor. Trying to collect pages is annoying ugly; about the best you can do is with "categories." Mediawiki tries to do too much with document metatags and whatnot. Mediawiki is ugly/outdated looking (IMHO) and requires lots of php config file editing. Bookstack has a lot more inherent document…
> Trying to collect pages is annoying ugly; about the best you can do is with "categories." With vanilla mediawiki, sure. If you use Cargo or SMW, you can do pretty much anything you want, especially with Cargo. Add in Lua (Scribunto extension) and you have effectively a full extra layer in your stack. (There's also DPL (Dynamic Page List extension) as an option; if what you're doing is easy enough to express, and yo…
The Collection extension did that, though, but Wikimedia's weird behavior around it and their multiple failed attempts at choosing a tech stack for output — OCG/ZIM, PoD/PediaPress, Electron (not that one)/Proton — much less the next step of building that functionality into a usable feature in MW, turned me off from trying.
I need to dig into BookStack (I imagine like most wiki flavors, it'll lack the templating features in MW that I rely on), but the fact that it's built on the book/chapter paradigm from the ground up instantly catches my eye.
Glad to see any alternatives to confluence (or Atlassian in general). I've used Confluence for a good 4 years or so and for the life of me, I can not fathom why anyone would use this for storing documentation for code etc, as opposed to storing things direct in a repo. I can understand it's use somewhat for business folks, but even then, the way of organising things is abysmal, every solution (such as rich text editi…
In my old (and soon current again) shop we used confluence extensively, to get the best from both worlds we usually kept the documentation next to the code in markdown or asciidoc files and synchronized them to confluence in a CI/CD pipeline (confluence was read only for these sections) maybe I can open source these helpers when I'm back... a two way merge was also in the making :). we could sync whole file trees wit…
Should also check out MediaWiki. The last year the visual editor is finally included with PHP, making the installation simple: https://mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
A visual editor does not solve mediawiki's bloat which is useless for 99% of anyone who isn't Wikipedia or another large organization, nor MediaWiki being entirely organized around pages . Nor does it solve Mediawiki's ugly, Web 1.0 design. In Bookstack, making the server private is one or two clicks. In mediawiki you have to set at least half a dozen config file variables. Adding any of a slew of auth methods is tri…
This isn't really true. During install process you are asked which you want. If you press the private button when prompted you get a private wiki. If you press public you get public.
If you want to change after you installed, you do have to edit a text based config file. You only have to edit two lines, but i appreciate that text based config file is a turn off for some people.
> Bookstack is focused on "books", chapters, pages, sections - not "pages."
I agree that this is a significant difference from mediawiki. You can do that sort of thing in MediaWiki, but you'll be swimming upstream.
[Dislaimer: im a mediawiki developer]
Can anyone with experience with multiple wiki platforms compare this with XWiki and/or MediaWiki. I may be asked to update $WORK's wiki, which is currently MoinMoin (IIRC), and am looking for anyone with more experience so I don't have to start testing from scratch. I've run MediaWiki before, but am not beholden to using it just because of past/current familiarity. Importing from MoinMoin would be nice, but not absol…
I've looked at a few very extensible and featureful wikis (XWiki, Tiki Wiki, TWiki, Foswiki), but for our usecase, they seemed overwhelmingly big (I know, I'm not easy to please). They're all almost application development/scripting platforms, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it would mean we'd have to learn a lot more if we wanted to modify parts of them. Of the four mentioned, XWiki looked like the most "polished", its conceptual model and code looked maintainable and it has a great number of actively developed plugins. If I'm not mistaken it even allows writing pages in Markdown, which was one of our criteria.
I also looked into taking a very lightweight wiki (LOC in the high thousands) and adapting it to our needs, but found that most of those didn't have a code model that would lend itself well to doing things like swapping out a custom format for Markdown, we'd basically be rewriting half the wiki at that point. Even DokuWiki, a relatively large project, is too blasé about running regexes on page contents for my taste.
We looked into BookStack, but didn't think its content model would work too well for our idea of a wiki as a "social" site. Maybe it's just the terminology, though.
In the end, we ended up running MoinMoin 2. It's in a perpetual beta state, but it is actively maintained. The main reason was its code quality: It's small enough that understanding how it all fits together is quick, and it's structured so that adding functionality or swapping out one part of it is easy (as much as it could be for software that's over a decade old, anyway). We're programmers anyway, so we decided to go with the ability to change the wiki to our liking over initial polish. So far, I've made a new theme, wrote a script for migrating from MediaWiki, changed out the Markdown parser and added SSO with CAS. The changes aren't public yet, but will be soon.
So far I'm happy with our decision, but note that my search was heavily subjective, you very likely have other requirements and preferences.
EDIT: By the way, the criteria were loosely:
- Modifiability (I wanted a custom theme, needed a non-traditional SSO option and could see us getting ambitious about custom functionality)
- Hierarchy + ideally tags for organising
- Ability to export some pages into a print version (annually published leaflet/book for new students)
- Permission system (which we hopefully won't need to use)
- Storing pages in Markdown (helps with converting for print too)
- Macros (I'm a fan, easy-to-write extensions would be just fine)
The only problem is that Docusaurus is intended for static public documentation, so it does not provide user-accounts or multi-topic content-management that you would expect from bigger wiki-like projects.
I wish Docusaurus would expand its scope to serve as a wiki, rather than single-purpose documentation - but I understand these are different use-cases altogether.