|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wiki software article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Not a web directory
- 2 Looking for wiki software
- 3 Wiki for personal use
- 4 Comparison
- 5 Cleanup
- 6 How to start a Wiki
- 7 Text Wiki
- 8 Huge list of engines considered harmful
- 9 CGI
- 10 List of Example Wikis
- 11 Comparison of wiki software
- 12 table interface
- 13 'Class' heading
- 14 Couldn't find claim that TWiki is the most widely used on intranets
- 15 I added a sentence to avoid removing pmwiki
- 16 Requested move
- 17 Mediawiki & wikipedia
- 18 Structured Wiki
Not a web directory
Looking for wiki software
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! - Brettz9 04:22 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
- 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.) - PatrickMichaud 11:00 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Wiki for personal use
See Wikipedia:Reference_desk#Wiki_software_for_personal_use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick (talk • contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2003
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. --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? - 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. -rs2 20:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Would what help?--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?
- WikiWikiWeb: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  (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 [[linked]], but most of them are probably non-encyclopedic, meriting a mention on this page at the very most.
- As already mentioned, 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. - IMSoP 16:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- We should keep, at the minimum, the ones which we have articles on. 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. - IMSoP 18:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Don't see the harm - there's also a fairly large list of Blog engines, for instance (IMO, not even large enough). It will help people find the software that most fits their needs. - JavaWoman 10:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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?--Chealer 06:33, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
- The term "CGI Scripts" encompasses all kinds of server side program, including PHP and Perl, etc. 220.127.116.11 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?
- :) Ozzyslovechild 19:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comparison of wiki software
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. --Traut 15:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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 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. 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 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 (Google trend history comparison)."
According the link, MediaWiki is #1. If I put 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." Marclaporte (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Mediawiki & wikipedia
I think a nice example should be that Wikipedia uses mediawiki, which logically should be in the article as one is reading wikipedia to start with. Could someone who knows what they are on about add it (self-referencing policy permitting)? --Squidonius (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
A wikilink from another page was for "structured wiki". I'm familiar with wikis but not structured wikis, so I followed the link, which led me to the page on "wiki", so I did a search, found the phrase "structured wiki" and it refreshed the "wiki" page. So it appears someone thought there was a distinction between a "wiki" and "structured wiki" but that distinction has been lost through redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)