Talk:Comparison of wiki software

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)

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)

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)