Other Wiki softwares

User avatar
Konveyor Belt
Gregarious
Posts: 695
kołdry
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:46 pm
Wikipedia User: formerly Konveyor Belt

Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Konveyor Belt » Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:37 pm

Suppose Mediawiki exploded tomorrow, whether it be from a bad line of code, too many features that clog the servers, or otherwise. And Wikipedia needs a new software, and it needs it fast. Never mind the how. I am well aware that Wikimedia would shove their own software down our throats even if it was unusable.

But if we did have to change, what would be best?

I edited a lot at Tvtropes for about 2 years before getting bored with their circlejerk and coming here where all opinions count, even if you lie about them.

I thought that pmwiki was pretty ugly aesthetics wise, but it had some features that I think WP could take advantage of. First, its subpages. All the subpages are listed on the side. In its current form Wikipedia wouldn't be able to make much use of this, but I think it could be used to store things like maintenance tags, references, and extra external links, things that most people do not look for in an article. This would give articles a more polished appearance, like they'd been written by someone who knew what he was doing.

Never mind the content. If the placebo effect is all it takes to draw viewers, then that's all that needs to be done. Here I am focusing largely on readers.

Categories are much better too. They appear as boxes down at the bottom, and they actually show other pages in the category. There are no category pages in TvTropes, making things muddled, but we can certainly make them if we want to, with full documentation and separation of links within categories like a normal page. Because category pages are regular pages with a list on them, it gives us more freedom on what we can do with them. We could embed images, or give short explanations of each.

The talk pages are ok. Not the best, but better than ours and far better than Flow or LiquidThreads.

Images, however, are directly embedded in a page with no File: page. This could provide a legal problem, but we could use one of the handy subpages for that, each image stated with its own licenses and fair use reasons.

Pmwiki does not have some of the features of Mediawiki like Categories or a Wikipedia: namespace, but maybe that's for the better, as it would allow us a greater customization over everything.

I don't know about any of the other wiki softwares. Maybe one of you could shine some light on this.
Always improving...

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by EricBarbour » Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:05 pm

Konveyor Belt wrote:I don't know about any of the other wiki softwares. Maybe one of you could shine some light on this.
Discussed this occasionally before -- general consensus was that the Wiki software world was generally small, backwards, and that MediaWiki was the best available, at least in no-charge or open-source form. But you're taking a risk by using it, because so many people are familiar with its inner workings and with "hacking" into it somehow.

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:56 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Konveyor Belt wrote:I don't know about any of the other wiki softwares. Maybe one of you could shine some light on this.
Discussed this occasionally before -- general consensus was that the Wiki software world was generally small, backwards, and that MediaWiki was the best available, at least in no-charge or open-source form. But you're taking a risk by using it, because so many people are familiar with its inner workings and with "hacking" into it somehow.
The main "risk" with using MediaWiki (aside from the fact that it's a resource hog, thanks to its idiotically slow Wikitext parser) is that there are hundreds of spambots out there, constantly looking for MediaWiki wikis that they can fill with spam. A default installation of MediaWiki will be fairly quickly found by these spambots (at least if it gets any Google juice at all). It's fairly trivial to lock MediaWiki down to prevent this, but many people don't, at least at first....

But, yeah, MediaWiki is the "best" of a fairly sorry lot. Although I'm a bit partial to gitit, a wiki implemented in Haskell and backed by a version control repository (current options are git, darcs, or mercurial). The Haskell front end means the implementation is fast and clean, and the use of a VCS for the backend means that all the issues with "edit conflicts" and other problems caused by MediaWiki's lack of effective version control are abated, and maintenance can be done from the backside with ease.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:37 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Konveyor Belt wrote:I don't know about any of the other wiki softwares. Maybe one of you could shine some light on this.
Discussed this occasionally before -- general consensus was that the Wiki software world was generally small, backwards, and that MediaWiki was the best available, at least in no-charge or open-source form. But you're taking a risk by using it, because so many people are familiar with its inner workings and with "hacking" into it somehow.
The main "risk" with using MediaWiki (aside from the fact that it's a resource hog, thanks to its idiotically slow Wikitext parser) is that there are hundreds of spambots out there, constantly looking for MediaWiki wikis that they can fill with spam. A default installation of MediaWiki will be fairly quickly found by these spambots (at least if it gets any Google juice at all). It's fairly trivial to lock MediaWiki down to prevent this, but many people don't, at least at first....

But, yeah, MediaWiki is the "best" of a fairly sorry lot. Although I'm a bit partial to gitit, a wiki implemented in Haskell and backed by a version control repository (current options are git, darcs, or mercurial). The Haskell front end means the implementation is fast and clean, and the use of a VCS for the backend means that all the issues with "edit conflicts" and other problems caused by MediaWiki's lack of effective version control are abated, and maintenance can be done from the backside with ease.
Add a UI skin and you've got something good.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Hex » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:10 am

For a feature comparison of many, many wiki engines, take a look at WikiMatrix.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Hex » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:12 am

EricBarbour wrote: Discussed this occasionally before -- general consensus was that the Wiki software world was generally small, backwards, and that MediaWiki was the best available...
The thing is that the notion of a wiki has been stretched out far beyond what it was originally meant to be.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:02 pm

Hex wrote:
EricBarbour wrote: Discussed this occasionally before -- general consensus was that the Wiki software world was generally small, backwards, and that MediaWiki was the best available...
The thing is that the notion of a wiki has been stretched out far beyond what it was originally meant to be.
Showing the utter lack of anything vaguely resembling a software architect at the WMF.
They have a few "programmers" amidst the sea of imbeciles, but no software engineers or architects.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Konveyor Belt
Gregarious
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:46 pm
Wikipedia User: formerly Konveyor Belt

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Konveyor Belt » Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:12 pm

Hex wrote:For a feature comparison of many, many wiki engines, take a look at WikiMatrix.
http://www.wikimatrix.org/show/MediaWiki

Mobile Friendly | No

Hitting the nail on the head.
Always improving...

KendriaP
Contributor
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:11 am
Wikipedia User: 由雅なおは
Location: FL

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by KendriaP » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:04 pm

Konveyor Belt wrote:Suppose Mediawiki exploded tomorrow, whether it be from a bad line of code, too many features that clog the servers, or otherwise. And Wikipedia needs a new software, and it needs it fast. Never mind the how. I am well aware that Wikimedia would shove their own software down our throats even if it was unusable.

But if we did have to change, what would be best?

I edited a lot at Tvtropes for about 2 years before getting bored with their circlejerk and coming here where all opinions count, even if you lie about them.

I thought that pmwiki was pretty ugly aesthetics wise, but it had some features that I think WP could take advantage of. First, its subpages. All the subpages are listed on the side. In its current form Wikipedia wouldn't be able to make much use of this, but I think it could be used to store things like maintenance tags, references, and extra external links, things that most people do not look for in an article. This would give articles a more polished appearance, like they'd been written by someone who knew what he was doing.

Never mind the content. If the placebo effect is all it takes to draw viewers, then that's all that needs to be done. Here I am focusing largely on readers.

Categories are much better too. They appear as boxes down at the bottom, and they actually show other pages in the category. There are no category pages in TvTropes, making things muddled, but we can certainly make them if we want to, with full documentation and separation of links within categories like a normal page. Because category pages are regular pages with a list on them, it gives us more freedom on what we can do with them. We could embed images, or give short explanations of each.

The talk pages are ok. Not the best, but better than ours and far better than Flow or LiquidThreads.

Images, however, are directly embedded in a page with no File: page. This could provide a legal problem, but we could use one of the handy subpages for that, each image stated with its own licenses and fair use reasons.

Pmwiki does not have some of the features of Mediawiki like Categories or a Wikipedia: namespace, but maybe that's for the better, as it would allow us a greater customization over everything.

I don't know about any of the other wiki softwares. Maybe one of you could shine some light on this.
PmWiki is absolutely terrible. It would work horribly on WP.

Wikia's software isn't amazing, but I like it better than WP's.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Jim » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:20 pm

Konveyor Belt wrote:
Hex wrote:For a feature comparison of many, many wiki engines, take a look at WikiMatrix.
http://www.wikimatrix.org/show/MediaWiki

Mobile Friendly | No

Hitting the nail on the head.
For goodness sake, don't tell WMF that.
They already think designing primarily for mobile is the thing to do, because we should all be editing encyclopedia pages from iphones on the train.

User avatar
Montoya
Contributor
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Montoya » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:35 pm

KendriaP wrote:
Konveyor Belt wrote:Suppose Mediawiki exploded tomorrow, whether it be from a bad line of code, too many features that clog the servers, or otherwise. And Wikipedia needs a new software, and it needs it fast. Never mind the how. I am well aware that Wikimedia would shove their own software down our throats even if it was unusable.

But if we did have to change, what would be best?

I edited a lot at Tvtropes for about 2 years before getting bored with their circlejerk and coming here where all opinions count, even if you lie about them.

I thought that pmwiki was pretty ugly aesthetics wise, but it had some features that I think WP could take advantage of. First, its subpages. All the subpages are listed on the side. In its current form Wikipedia wouldn't be able to make much use of this, but I think it could be used to store things like maintenance tags, references, and extra external links, things that most people do not look for in an article. This would give articles a more polished appearance, like they'd been written by someone who knew what he was doing.

Never mind the content. If the placebo effect is all it takes to draw viewers, then that's all that needs to be done. Here I am focusing largely on readers.

Categories are much better too. They appear as boxes down at the bottom, and they actually show other pages in the category. There are no category pages in TvTropes, making things muddled, but we can certainly make them if we want to, with full documentation and separation of links within categories like a normal page. Because category pages are regular pages with a list on them, it gives us more freedom on what we can do with them. We could embed images, or give short explanations of each.

The talk pages are ok. Not the best, but better than ours and far better than Flow or LiquidThreads.

Images, however, are directly embedded in a page with no File: page. This could provide a legal problem, but we could use one of the handy subpages for that, each image stated with its own licenses and fair use reasons.

Pmwiki does not have some of the features of Mediawiki like Categories or a Wikipedia: namespace, but maybe that's for the better, as it would allow us a greater customization over everything.

I don't know about any of the other wiki softwares. Maybe one of you could shine some light on this.
PmWiki is absolutely terrible. It would work horribly on WP.

Wikia's software isn't amazing, but I like it better than WP's.
I think it's ok, except for the fact that it is designed to maximize ad space.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"

User avatar
Captain Occam
Gregarious
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Captain Occam » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:37 pm

I used TikiWiki on a website for a little while in 2005 and 2006. At the time, I preferred it over MediaWiki because it was more easily customizable. I'm not sure how it compares to MediaWiki in the present, though.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:42 pm

KendriaP wrote:Wikia's software isn't amazing, but I like it better than WP's.
What do you think is at the core of Wikia's software? I'll give you a hint.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Konveyor Belt
Gregarious
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:46 pm
Wikipedia User: formerly Konveyor Belt

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Konveyor Belt » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:02 pm

thekohser wrote:
KendriaP wrote:Wikia's software isn't amazing, but I like it better than WP's.
What do you think is at the core of Wikia's software? I'll give you a hint.
Wikia Wiki: 30637

So many fanboys and their stupid shit.
Always improving...

User avatar
greybeard
Habitué
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:21 pm

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by greybeard » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:13 pm

Ward Cunningham, creator of the Wiki, has long believed that the centralized wiki model is not a good one. His latest project, release this past summer, is called "World's Smallest Federated Wiki". This is a distributed system without any central controller. You host the pages you create, and control them. More about it (from 2012) here, and an implementation can be found here: http://fed.wiki.org/view/welcome-visitors.

Bear in mind, however, that while Ward is brilliant, his released code is hardly ever up to mass-production (nor should it be). He's trying to popularize the idea of the decentralized wiki. I haven't tried the code yet myself.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Hex » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:43 pm

greybeard wrote:Ward Cunningham, creator of the Wiki, has long believed that the centralized wiki model is not a good one. His latest project, release this past summer, is called "World's Smallest Federated Wiki". This is a distributed system without any central controller. You host the pages you create, and control them. More about it (from 2012) here, and an implementation can be found here: http://fed.wiki.org/view/welcome-visitors.

Bear in mind, however, that while Ward is brilliant, his released code is hardly ever up to mass-production (nor should it be). He's trying to popularize the idea of the decentralized wiki. I haven't tried the code yet myself.
WSFW is intriguing, although I've also found it confusing every time I've looked at it. I'd like to see other people's takes on the idea, perhaps with a different interface. Ward has come up with a number of brilliant things - I particularly liked the HyperPerl annotated code that allowed you to generate a customized version of the original (more or less, to be pedantic) WikiWikiWeb code, and rendered itself in the browser through its own code documentation. And you could edit it.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
sparkzilla
Retired
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:42 pm
Wikipedia User: sparkzilla
Wikipedia Review Member: sparkzilla
Actual Name: Mark Devlin
Contact:

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by sparkzilla » Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:36 am

Konveyor Belt wrote:Suppose Mediawiki exploded tomorrow, whether it be from a bad line of code, too many features that clog the servers, or otherwise. And Wikipedia needs a new software, and it needs it fast. Never mind the how. I am well aware that Wikimedia would shove their own software down our throats even if it was unusable.

But if we did have to change, what would be best?
The best solution is not to use a Wiki at all. Wikis allow for rapid growth of certain types of content, but their use also causes many problems: Groupthink, censorship, bullying, gender bias, harassment, excessive rules, vandalism, edit-warring, conflict of interest, inconsistent page format, unsortable page content, inability to cross-reference data across pages, weird link format, too much text, inconsistent formatting, lack of multimedia, too much power in the hands of a small group, virtual ownership of pages, no incentive to maintain content...

We use a modified version of WordPress, and the way we have set up our system removes all of Wikipedia's problems while giving the writer and reader a better experience.
Founder: Newslines

User avatar
Konveyor Belt
Gregarious
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:46 pm
Wikipedia User: formerly Konveyor Belt

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Konveyor Belt » Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:04 am

greybeard wrote:Ward Cunningham, creator of the Wiki, has long believed that the centralized wiki model is not a good one. His latest project, release this past summer, is called "World's Smallest Federated Wiki". This is a distributed system without any central controller. You host the pages you create, and control them. More about it (from 2012) here, and an implementation can be found here: http://fed.wiki.org/view/welcome-visitors.

Bear in mind, however, that while Ward is brilliant, his released code is hardly ever up to mass-production (nor should it be). He's trying to popularize the idea of the decentralized wiki. I haven't tried the code yet myself.
That site is absolutely unusable. I can't find anything and everything seems to be made using frames of some kind. Also, every little box has dev tools under it, including one to "fork this page". I could do just that, but I'd have no idea where I be forking it to, and how it works. Even Less user-friendly than Mediawiki. Jeez.
Always improving...

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Zoloft » Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:07 am

If I had a startup, and venture capital, and had just thought of Wikipedia, the idea, I would create it as a bundle of applications built in SharePoint (T-H-L).

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Konveyor Belt
Gregarious
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:46 pm
Wikipedia User: formerly Konveyor Belt

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Konveyor Belt » Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:16 am

Zoloft wrote:If I had a startup, and venture capital, and had just thought of Wikipedia, the idea, I would create it as a bundle of applications built in SharePoint (T-H-L).
By default, SharePoint has a Microsoft Office-like interface, and it is closely integrated with the Office suite.
I'm OK with this, because it means that even the layman can design their own site. However, it seems like a bunch of different apps (lists, search, etc.) inserted into a single site. This is ok for the casual user, but not ok for such a large site like Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, everything needs to run on the same software, or else it just becomes a bunch of clashing designs. This is why so many people hate Flow and VE, because it's not the same editor they would use for anything else and feels out of place.
Always improving...

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Other Wiki softwares

Unread post by Zoloft » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:20 am

Konveyor Belt wrote:
Zoloft wrote:If I had a startup, and venture capital, and had just thought of Wikipedia, the idea, I would create it as a bundle of applications built in SharePoint (T-H-L).
By default, SharePoint has a Microsoft Office-like interface, and it is closely integrated with the Office suite.
I'm OK with this, because it means that even the layman can design their own site. However, it seems like a bunch of different apps (lists, search, etc.) inserted into a single site. This is ok for the casual user, but not ok for such a large site like Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, everything needs to run on the same software, or else it just becomes a bunch of clashing designs. This is why so many people hate Flow and VE, because it's not the same editor they would use for anything else and feels out of place.
You can secure it well, build collaborative spaces (even wikis if you insist), and use CSS and themes to make it look however you like. Custom web parts and built-in lists, file libraries, editable views, and scalability for miles if you give it enough server resources. It's proven enterprise software.

Of course, it's the exact opposite of the open-source model, but you could build one hell of an encyclopedia and panopticon using that infrastructure. It's designed from the foundations up for secure collaboration.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


Post Reply