Talk:Comparison of wiki software/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External link to "toptoolsreview" appears to be a listing of hosted commercial interests and not an unbiased review.

Wikispaces

Wikispaces does not seem to offer a software product, and only offers hosting options. I recommend they be removed from this list and added to the Comparison of Wiki Farms page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.156.112 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparison

I have put together a comparison spreadsheet that allows one to filter on all the fields of the various wiki's I would like o upload it to the page but unfortunatly do not have enough edits to my name, would anyoen be interested in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlessren (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have such things as a built in feature... It's really a must for comparison pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berebi (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in a comparison of wiki systems based on their usability w.r.t. editing pages via modern smartphones (Android, iOS, Windows Phone, mobile HTML5, RIM, ...). Access through smartphones would not necessarily have to be browser-based but instead could also be through special Apps similar to those available for Wikipedia on the various mobile platforms, though those are mostly for reading and do not allow editing of pages (see also Help:Mobile_access). Wolfgang Slany (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Installations

Is anyone tracking wiki installations by type and number? Links appreciated! --146.64.68.46 (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IpbWiki

I don't think IpbWiki belongs on this list, as it isn't wiki software - it simply bridges IPB with MediaWiki. Oldiesmann (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And it doesn't even provide the MediaWiki or IPB software! It's not wiki software; it's an extension for MediaWiki. I'll remove it. Reach Out to the Truth 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sharepoint wiki

Can someone please add some information about Sharepoint as a wiki, for comparison? 194.105.120.80 (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the need to incorporate Sharepoint 2007's wiki software.

Some general comments.

1. It's built on Sharepoint's list framework, so it's very easy to extend the metadata.

2. Change tracking is at the list row level.

3. The incorporated rich text editor is quite good.

But only works on IE browsers

4. I have only used it with IE 7, no FF experience.

5. I believe links will update, so if you change the title of a page the links don't necessarily break. My testing is not complete though, I suspect the links can be broken. I'm disappointed Microsoft didn't build links off the row ID rather than the title.

6. You create pages with the same "new page" convention used by wikipedia

7. Image insertion is a PAIN (user has to insert image's URL into a dialog box, cannot look for folders or something like this)

8. No discussion pages

9. No history for media files (images, videos, etc)

10. No easy image placement in the page. If user wants to experiment with layout, has to deal with tables.

Sharepoint wiki works in Firefox, but many features are limited in usability. In particular, the WYSIWYG editor only works in IE; editing in firefox is by the source, which is HTML and not very human-readable.

--71.253.61.102 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Springnote

doesn't belong to the list. It is not a wiki at all, 'just' a web community thing .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.106.130 (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Socialtext Open

Socialtext Open is missing in the comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna.h.bauer (talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DokuWiki

The table "Target Audience" does not contain an entry for DokuWiki, although its present in the other tables. Moreover, is there a place where these target audiences are clearly defined? Its not clear for me what are the differences between Personal and Private and between Intranet and Corporate/Enterprise. Felipefg (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WikidPad

WikidPad is not mentioned... because it doesn't work inside a browser? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrogersfl (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a wiki Ren ✉ 04:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that a wiki has to be used via a web browser in order for it to be counted as a wiki. The core of how content is created and interacted with should be focused on. Is it no longer a wiki when the content is personal? When content history is no longer saved? When pages don't have a wikimarkup? To say that a wiki is no longer a wiki when it is made to operate on the desktop via standard windowing components is quite baffling. Especially when you consider the only core concept change is that of collaboration (as in how does it happen). What happens when you marry wiki with git? That should offer some dynamic collaborative experiences without a central server and without a web browser. Would this git version of a wiki no longer be a wiki?

As a side note I may add this item to the tables later and see if anyone cares to delete it. ~Tiris~ 3:30PM, 12 December 2011

HDWiki

Should add HDWiki by Hudong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 06:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WYSIWYG editors

I was looking for Wiki software with nice WYSIWYG editing. I've ran into 2 cases - WackoWiki and TikiWiki - that are listed here as WYSIWYG editing, but actually just have mark-up that needs quite a dose of imagination-for-what-you-get. Do i misunderstand what WYSIWYG means, are these errors, or am i overlooking the "turn on WYSIWYG editing" checkbox? Add WikkaWiki to that... Also formatting, but definitely not WYSIWYG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burt777 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

TikiWiki has optional WYSIWYG. I edited wiki page to make clearer. Marclaporte (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cross-wiki support

I suggest adding a definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marclaporte (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable software

Non-notable software without articles (redlinks) should be removed from this list, as per the standard for lists and comparisons. I will do shortly. Greenman (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have requested this article be semi-protected due to the constant abuse by the anonymous IP's Greenman (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This page was semi-protected for a short while, and the abuse stopped, but it has begun again now that the semi-protection has ended. I've re-requested, hopefully for a longer period of time. Greenman (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ease of installation

This section *seriously* needs to have some sort of source to it. The whole column seems pretty relative and a huge violation of NOR. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That column was over the top unsorced WP:OR. I've removed it. The rest of the table isn't much better though. Pcap ping 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Features 1, Features 2?

What is up with this it looks stupid. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

whot is "Cross-wiki support"?

94.45.73.56 (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

SocialText

Doesn't offer any open source version that I can see.

Someone should correct that information on the table! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.233.84 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern Wikis Only Option

Many people coming to the page are only interested in comparing current wikis to decide which to use. However, because all of the comparison tables are multiple screens long and compare every wiki that has existed, they find the page to be mostly useless. We need a way to show only current information for those who want it, in order to increase utility. A method for allowing the viewer to sort information and suppress what they don't need would also be good.

This is a general comment applicable to all comparison articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.206.28 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikidot is missing

I have used Wikidot in the past but it is missing. I don't want to break the quality of the page and I don't have time to add it in the same quality as the rest of the Wikis. So just a humble - please add Wikidot if you have time - from me. http://www.wikidot.org/ --DotnetCarpenter (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ward Cunningham - see QuickWiki

Where Ward Cunningham is listed, it says to see QuickWiki, but I don't see QuickWiki on this chart.

Also, I wish there was something that could help a non-technical person set up a wiki. This all looks really complicated, but what I would like to set up is just something simple, like Dropbox with a (Microsoft Access) database folder in it.

Thanks very much for any help anyone can give. I will look at this chart more, and try some of these soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entwhiz (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Entwhiz (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

ScrewTurn Wiki

What happenned to it? Why was it removed? Their website still exist, so is it not a wiki or something happenned? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

00:15, 11 February 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page ScrewTurn Wiki (Expired PROD, concern was: Lack of inline citation of reliable sources suggests the lack of notability. Please remove this notice if reliable sources are added.) deletion log

Given that other wiki software have far fewer installs, I was surprised at the deletion, but "lock of notability" can be an issue if people use it, but don't write about it. I don't know how to view deleted pages w/in wikipedia, but the capture @ archive.org shows only four citations, two to the Screwturn site, and two to Jeff Attwood's blog. A quick google search shows others talking about it, so maybe it can be revisited with better cites. The project has been moribund since late 2011, but is transitioning to a volunteer-based dev-team. FlexWiki has 7 cites, all from 2004. There's got to be more for Screwturn. OtherMichael (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing Wiki Syntaxes

I'm looking for wiki software who at least have the ambition to have a syntax similar to the mediawiki syntax.

I guess that a lot of people argue that the mediawiki syntax is not the best. But I still argue that the mediawiki syntax is the clearly dominating, at least among less experienced users.

It would be nice with a column "Ambition to follow the mediawiki syntax".

If someone can distinguish (and name) other groups of syntaxes one could instead simply have a column "Syntax" where you name what style of syntax is being followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.100.83 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Answering my own entry, (although this time logged in). The dominating syntaxes in wiki-softwares seem to be Mediawiki Markup spec and Creole. See also Comparison of lightweight markup languages.

Regarding a column for specifying the syntax: I'm gonna be bold and change the column "Cross-wiki support" to "Multiple markup languages" pretty much as suggested in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_software/Archive_1#Compatibility.2Finteroperability_.28Cross-wiki_support.29

The "Markup language" is probably better label but with "Multiple markup languages" one can leave the yes/no entries. Magnus Andersson (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Improving the usability of tables in this article

Many of the tables in this article are difficult to use because they are lengthy and the heading row scrolls up off the screen when viewing lower rows. I see that the headers are reproduced at the bottom of the table as well (and sometimes in the middle), but this does not help for rows that are neither near the top nor bottom of the table; and is not optimal IMHO.

I propose to reformat the tables (where needed) so that the table bodies are scrollable, but the heading rows remain in a fixed position. Here is an example: User:Crandmck/Work#General_information (only the first table was reformatted). Unfortunately, this does not appear to be easy with basic HTML/CSS available in Wikipedia, but I created a [User:Crandmck/TableWithScrollBody template] to accomplish this end; though it is currently somewhat limited.

If there are no objections, I will move User:Crandmck/TableWithScrollBody into the Template namespace and reformat the article accordingly. Thanks,

--Crandmck (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

LynxWiki

J. W. Davidson and LynxWiki exist nowhere else but this article. Why is it included? - KitchM (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Using facebook polling/voting to tell which wiki software should be included in the comparison table

I took the liberty to create such a site: http://gavott.se/pollBestWikiSoftware

The polling software is in itself open source, so anyone can change it, or run it on any other server or whatever.

Of course there are different ways how malicious people can sabotage a poll (Like paying people to vote a certain way). But since one can filter the votes on country/hometown/datespan..., then I still think that one can draw useful conclusions, especially when it comes to sorting out wiki software that lacks supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus Andersson (talk • contribs) 08:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Added a normal poll too (like newspaper style). Not as safe, but more accessible. Magnus Andersson (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Confluence / markup requirement

Confluence was recently removed with the note removed Atlassian's Confluence documentation platform because since version 4.0 it's not wiki anymore because lacks markup support.

There's nothing on the Wiki_software page that specifies a markup support as a prerequisite. Specifically Wiki_software#Editing notes that most wiki software uses special syntax, but most is not all.

The editor's own link supports that while wiki markup was downplayed, it can still be typed in (and converted to rich-text automatically), or can be enabled via plugins. This is also noted at Confluence_(software)#Controversy_over_the_discontinuation_of_wiki_markup_language. Finally, despite the presence of non-HTML markup or not, Confluence continues to describe itself as a wiki.

I think that Confluence should be restored to the list.

Michael Paulukonis (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Confluence has support for wiki markup see this | Confluence4 features overview with | video about Editor Wiki features — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.109.6 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

correct, also the general Wiki page doesn't claim "Wiki-Markup" to be a requirement. Yes Confluence has many "collaboration" features, but still in the term "WikiWiki" (fast fast) editing text in a RTE is still a valid option.
so: +1 for restoring this change from an unknown / anonymous user
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_software&diff=601363812&oldid=601351678
—Konqi (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored Confluence because I'd read someone referring to a wiki, which is a Confluence site. I came here looking for further info. Rob Kam (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

More comparisons

We need ideas and prioritisation for selecting columns to work on, ideally from third party sources. It's quite hard to find recent studies, weird.

• Creating a Knowledge Management Wiki for a Structural Engineering Firm table 2 p. 16
• Best Practices on Delivering A Wiki Collaborative Solution for Enterprise Applications
• WikiWikiWebs: New Ways to Communicate in a Web Environment
• Using wikis in software development
• Implementing wiki software for supplementing online learning
• echnical Evaluation Report 27. Educational Wikis: features and selection criteria

--Nemo 10:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Multilingual

I doubt all those engines are really multilingual. Only MediaWiki has a truly multilingual support, with over 350 languages. Other engines focus on intensity rather than extensivity, e.g. MoinMoin has a very simple/rough i18n but does translate almost everything, for instance https://wiki.debian.org/ModificheRecenti while Special:UltimeModifiche here doesn't work. --Nemo 10:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tables are not the most appropriate [source] format for comparisions

Roughly, the columns of those typical comparison tables are properties of the meta-class of the compared entities. As such, I found a semantic storage format much more appropriate. It's ok, to use a table for visualisation purposes, though.

To be fair, this is a far-reaching demand, since it would require support by the wiki[pedia] infrastructure. -- 2015-02-28, Markus Pilzecker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.232.253 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Specify meaning!

All columns shall have a specification of what their content is intended to mean, like "Page access control", "Inline HTML", User-customizable interface". -- 2015-02-28, Markus Pilzecker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.232.253 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy in columns

The meaning of the column "Software License" is more specific than "Open Source" (it is very uncommon, that a proprietary license (what exactly does this mean?) allows open access to the sources). For my taste, this would justify to drop the latter. Furthermore, a reference to the respective proprietary license would help.

Semantically, the column "Data Backend" is a subset of "Other Software Required".

-- 2015-02-28, Markus Pilzecker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.232.253 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there's no need for the "Open Source" column, and similar articles don't have it. Greenman (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Request to add a column of browser requirements

I assume, all wiki applikations are browser applications, right?

Ok, then, it's not too unimportant, which requirements they pose on the rendering browser (Cookies, Javascript, Flash, Java applets, version of HTML, version of CSS, ...)

-- 2015-02-28, Markus Pilzecker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.232.253 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)