Jump to content

Talk:Wiki software: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
don't erase threads
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Internet|class=|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Computing|software=yes}}
{{WikiProject Internet |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Wikipedia|class=|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=low |software=yes |software-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Wikipedia |importance=high}}
}}


== Not a web directory ==
== Case sensitivity ==


In the following portion:
This page probably shouldn't be used as if it were just a web directory; please see [[wp:what Wikipedia is not]]. --[[user:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)
<blockquote>By the time [[MediaWiki]] appeared, this convention had been largely abandoned in favor of explicitly marking links in edited source code with double square brackets. Page names thus did not interrupt the flow of English and could follow standard English capitalization convention. '''Case-sensitivity on the first letter but not subsequent letters''' supported standard English capitalization conventions and let writers author their pages in ordinary English, with the linking of particular words and phrases afterward. This proved to be the critical change that allowed ordinary authors of English to write wiki pages, and non-technical users to read them. This policy was extended to other natural languages, avoiding the use of unusual-looking text or awkward capitalization that violates the language's own rules.</blockquote>


Was the reverse meant in the part I've bolded? That is, shouldn't that say "Case-'''in'''sensitivity on just the first letter"? On Wikipedia (and other MediaWiki sites), for example, <nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[wiki software]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> automatically works as a link, but <nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[wIKI SOFTWARE]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> does not. (<nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[Wiki Software]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki> only works because an explicit redirect was set up.) It'd help if the section had citations, too. &mdash;[[User:Undomelin|Undomelin]] ([[User talk:Undomelin|talk]]) 20:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
== Looking for wiki software ==


:Thanks for noticing that, you're quite right! I've gone ahead and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wiki_software&type=revision&diff=1088539428&oldid=1088183488 fixed it] --[[User:RProgrammer|RProgrammer]] ([[User talk:RProgrammer|talk]]) 17:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Might someone be able to direct me to wiki software which could be set up easily with just CGI or PHP scripts (but no database) and which had the features of email notification and/or a watchlist, and a history which highlighted changes made between revisions (as here at Wikipedia) and was otherwise easy to use yet powerful? I would also like to be able to exclude people of specific IP addresses or accounts while keeping it open to all others (preferably even to those without an account--as at Wikipedia). I am not knowledgeable in this area, but I would like to get a site started which could conceivably become very large over time based on the expected contributors. Apologies if this is not an appropriate forum to ask, but I thought the know-how could be here if anywhere....Thanks! - [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] 04:22 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)


== Is [[Confluence (software)]] a wiki? ==
: Brettz9: How about [[PmWiki]]? It's in PHP, uses flat files for storage, and can do most or all of the things you specified. Excluding specific IP addresses could be easily done via .htaccess files. See http://www.pmwiki.org/. (And my apologies to Wikipedians if this isn't the appropriate forum to respond.) - [[User:Patrick_Michaud|PatrickMichaud]] 11:00 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)


I'm seeing the beginning of a slow-motion edit war on this article between what looks like disgruntled [[Confluence (software)]] users and myself. We should stop this now.
== Wiki for personal use ==


On one side we have editors who believe that Confluence is no longer a wiki because it has abstracted away two features (wiki markup and what we would call the creation of a redlink as you are editing an article).
See [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk#Wiki_software_for_personal_use?]] {{unsigned2| 12:43, 3 October 2003|Patrick }}


On my side are editors ... OK, so far just one editor, me ... who take a more ecumenical view of what a wiki is. I believe that the opening paragraph of the current version of [[Wiki]] is correct, and that "A wiki is a knowledge base website on which users collaboratively modify content and structure directly from the web browser." Confluence would continue to be that, even if it lost those two important features.
== Comparison ==


wwdada:
Hi!
For the record, I am also a Confluence user of an older version that still has those features. When I have upgraded to the current version and lost those features, I will also be upset, but Confluence will still be a wiki. [[User:Vadder|Vadder]] ([[User talk:Vadder|talk]]) 18:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I don't think people should take up Confluence at this stage thinking it is a Wiki. Confluence also (despite their size) do not own the definition of Wiki
Does anybody know if there is a feature comparison between different wiki softwares? - [[de:Benutzer:SoniC|SoniC]] {{unsigned2| 10:54, 20 November 2003|217.231.71.78}}
The most essential functionality is the ability to make a link like this to "[Wiki Properties]" or "[Newly discovered Planet]" or "[New Products]".
Many in the comment chain on that issue have also indicated that without this functionality, (and especially with NO wikiMarkup), Confluence is no longer a Wiki (no longer a Quick mechnism for typing linked documents, as originally formulated). No Alternative vision has been put forward, just a web-editing applet.
https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CONFCLOUD-67129


I myself (wwdada), had signed up my company to Confluence Cloud on the basis that we'd be receiving Wiki functionality. This is not as was expected from the name 'wiki' and it is important that other groups do not fall into this trap, without knowledge.
== Cleanup ==

This page should probably be cleaned up and improved to better describe Wiki software as well as to direct people to complete information on setting up Wikis. I hope somebody will share this information, so I don't need to duplicate his or her investigation of the matter. If I do need to, I'll update the page. --[[User:Rlschuh|rs2]] 17:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== How to start a Wiki ==

The link to How to start a wiki brings up a blank article? - [[User:Texture|Texture]] 19:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

: Sorry. I started working on it last night, but it ended up so ugly that I moved it to my space. I started something more useful today, which should now appear in the link. -[[User:Rlschuh|rs2]] 20:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Text Wiki ==

Would this help in being able to convert from one wiki to another (e.g., PHPwiki to Mediawiki)? [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] [[User talk:Brettz9|(talk)]] 02:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

: Would what help?--[[User:Chealer|Chealer]] 06:18, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

== Huge list of engines considered harmful ==

Should we do away with, or at least prune heavily, the list of engines in this article?
* [[Wiki:WikiEngines]] describes itself as "the canonical list of WikiEngines", whereas this list is doomed to being incomplete; that page also links to other resources on the topic.
* It's currently badly layed out (what kind of a sub-heading is "Microsoft"?)
* We have rather inconsistent information ("CitiWiki [8] (http://wiki.cs.cityu.edu.hk/citiwiki) has been called the "Wiki of the next generation"."; by whom, and meaning what exactly?)
* All the engines are <nowiki>[[linked]]</nowiki>, but most of them are probably non-encyclopedic, meriting a mention on this page ''at the very most''.
* As already mentioned, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not]] a [[web directory]].

Perhaps we should just limit ourselves to a list of "popular or noteworthy wiki engines", and be quite harsh in our judgement of people declaring their own wikis "noteworthy". If not, someone needs to go through this list and make it a whole lot more consistent and, well, useful. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] 16:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: We should keep, at the minimum, the ones which we have articles on. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 20:24, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

:: Well, perhaps that should be "at minimum, the ones we ''should'' have articles on": there may well be worthy articles as yet unwritten ([[FlexWiki]], for instance, is arguably notable as being an [[open source]] project developed by [[Microsoft]]), and currently-existent articles on non-notable engines (possible examples: [[CitiWiki]], [[OpenWiki]]). Hence the criterion of "noteworthy": if it's worthy of an article, it's worthy of a place on this list. On the other hand, it may not be worthy of a whole article to itself, but be worth mentioning here in summary. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] 18:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: Don't see the harm - there's also a fairly large list of [[Blog| Blog engines]], for instance (IMO, not even large enough). It will help people find the software that most fits their needs. - [[User:JavaWoman|JavaWoman]] 10:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:: If the page gets too large and cumbersome, it could possibly be split into other sub-pages, depending on platform, software type etc. {{unsigned2| 16:28, 23 January 2005|213.112.113.98}}

== CGI ==

The article says wiki engines are usually implemented as a CGI script. Am I right to doubt about this? I guess the Perl wikis were dominating once, but what now with PHP...and Wikimedia?--[[User:Chealer|Chealer]] 06:33, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

: The term "[[Common Gateway Interface|CGI]] Scripts" encompasses all kinds of server side program, including PHP and Perl, etc. [[User:129.67.109.135|129.67.109.135]] 17:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== List of Example Wikis ==

I think it would be a good idea to put together some sort of list of example wiki sites (not engines). True, Wikipedia is not intended to be a web directory, and that should be avoided, but I think there's room to do something in that direction without crossing the web directory line.

Perhaps something categorized by type of wiki? E.g.

* Teachers/academics -> are doing this sort of stuff with wikis.
* Software companies -> are doing this sort of stuff with wikis.
* Companies ->
* Non-profits ->
* Communities ->

Andor, if such exists somewhere maybe?, maybe link to it under external links?

Thoughts?

- :) [[User:Ozzyslovechild|Ozzyslovechild]] 19:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:0 replies[[Special:Contributions/24.166.222.132|24.166.222.132]] ([[User talk:24.166.222.132|talk]]) 18:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

== Comparison of wiki software ==

I created [[Comparison of wiki software]] and would like to one day absorb the rough list found in this topic into that. -- [[User:Sysy|Sy]] / <sup>[[User_Talk:Sysy|(talk)]]</sup> 16:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== table interface ==

Is there any wiki implementation that is not only based on a database behind, but that offers a database interface on top? I'd like to get the best of both worlds: an open wiki system for modifications and improvements, as well as a database display. That is: Search in certain fields, sort on fields, include/exclude/reorder fields for display - and offer special summary and formatting functions, e.g. in order to group record lines. Maybe you want to read 'fields' as columns and 'records' as rows of a table, including subsummaries and header areas in between the table. I checked the list and comparision, but I did not see any functional recommendations here. --[[User:Traut|Traut]] 15:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== 'Class' heading ==

I removed this because I thought it was a mistake but my change has been reverted with a question as to why I removed it. What is the heading for? What does it usefully add, if anything? Can the person who added it explain? Thanks [[User:Chrisjj|Chris Jefferies]] 12:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

== Couldn't find claim that TWiki is the most widely used on intranets ==

Regarding "(Based on www.wikisym.org/ws2006/proceedings/p99.pdf Corporate Wiki Users: Results of a Survey, TWiki is most widely used on intranets)": I checked this pdf file and searched for "TWiki" and could mainly find a reference to www.twiki.org participating in the survey. Also, a search for "widely" found one hit, but about something other than TWiki. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

: Christian Wagner, Prof. at City University of Hong Kong presented that paper at the Wiki Symposium 2006, http://www.wikisym.org/ws2006/proceedings/ where he showed one slide that had the statistics on wikis used. I asked him to make this PPT presentation publicly available. -- [[User:PeterThoeny]] 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

: The PDF of professor Christian Wagner's presentation is attached to http://www.wikisym.org/ws2006/wiki/space/Paper%3E%3ECorporate+Wiki+Users-Results+of+a+Survey (direct link http://www.wikisym.org/ws2006/wiki/space/WikiSym_2006_Presentation.pdf). Look for slide "Technologies Used" -- [[User:PeterThoeny]] [[User:PeterThoeny|PeterThoeny]] ([[User talk:PeterThoeny|talk]]) 07:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC111)

== I added a sentence to avoid removing pmwiki ==

Page currently has: "It is hard to determine which wiki engines are the most popular, although a list of lead candidates include TWiki, MoinMoin, PmWiki, DokuWiki and MediaWiki ([http://www.google.com/trends?q=TWiki%2C+MoinMoin%2C+PmWiki%2C+MediaWiki%2C+DokuWiki&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all Google trend history comparison])."

According the link, MediaWiki is #1. If I put [http://www.google.com/trends?q=TWiki%2C+MoinMoin%2C+PmWiki%2C+TikiWiki%2C+DokuWiki&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 TikiWiki instead of MediaWiki], we can see that TikiWiki is more popular than pmwiki. I don't want to change this section though because I am part of the TikiWiki project. Unfortunately, Google trends only permits 5 terms. I just added "TikiWiki CMS/Groupware is a popular Wiki-CMS hybrid."
[[User:Marclaporte|Marclaporte]] ([[User talk:Marclaporte|talk]]) 15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:31, 16 July 2024

Case sensitivity

[edit]

In the following portion:

By the time MediaWiki appeared, this convention had been largely abandoned in favor of explicitly marking links in edited source code with double square brackets. Page names thus did not interrupt the flow of English and could follow standard English capitalization convention. Case-sensitivity on the first letter but not subsequent letters supported standard English capitalization conventions and let writers author their pages in ordinary English, with the linking of particular words and phrases afterward. This proved to be the critical change that allowed ordinary authors of English to write wiki pages, and non-technical users to read them. This policy was extended to other natural languages, avoiding the use of unusual-looking text or awkward capitalization that violates the language's own rules.

Was the reverse meant in the part I've bolded? That is, shouldn't that say "Case-insensitivity on just the first letter"? On Wikipedia (and other MediaWiki sites), for example, [[wiki software]] automatically works as a link, but [[wIKI SOFTWARE]] does not. ([[Wiki Software]] only works because an explicit redirect was set up.) It'd help if the section had citations, too. —Undomelin (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that, you're quite right! I've gone ahead and fixed it --RProgrammer (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Confluence (software) a wiki?

[edit]

I'm seeing the beginning of a slow-motion edit war on this article between what looks like disgruntled Confluence (software) users and myself. We should stop this now.

On one side we have editors who believe that Confluence is no longer a wiki because it has abstracted away two features (wiki markup and what we would call the creation of a redlink as you are editing an article).

On my side are editors ... OK, so far just one editor, me ... who take a more ecumenical view of what a wiki is. I believe that the opening paragraph of the current version of Wiki is correct, and that "A wiki is a knowledge base website on which users collaboratively modify content and structure directly from the web browser." Confluence would continue to be that, even if it lost those two important features.

wwdada: For the record, I am also a Confluence user of an older version that still has those features. When I have upgraded to the current version and lost those features, I will also be upset, but Confluence will still be a wiki. Vadder (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think people should take up Confluence at this stage thinking it is a Wiki. Confluence also (despite their size) do not own the definition of Wiki The most essential functionality is the ability to make a link like this to "[Wiki Properties]" or "[Newly discovered Planet]" or "[New Products]". Many in the comment chain on that issue have also indicated that without this functionality, (and especially with NO wikiMarkup), Confluence is no longer a Wiki (no longer a Quick mechnism for typing linked documents, as originally formulated). No Alternative vision has been put forward, just a web-editing applet. https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CONFCLOUD-67129

I myself (wwdada), had signed up my company to Confluence Cloud on the basis that we'd be receiving Wiki functionality. This is not as was expected from the name 'wiki' and it is important that other groups do not fall into this trap, without knowledge.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wiki_software&oldid=1234782415"