Wiki Software Testimonials

[tonyh]

I'm looking for a "best wiki software," but since that is subjective based upon what the wiki is used for and its features, here is a wanted list:


quick install and simple maintenance with or without database
friendly administration and user interface
minimal knowledge of scripting language for use
'skin' customization with css/html not requiring major script changes
account authorization and public restriction
full CMS features not required
excellent documentation and (optional) support

I am aware of the following wiki software: MediaWiki, DokuWiki, PmWiki, TikiWiki and TWiki.

If anyone would be so kind as to list your, or 2nd hand, experiences with such software or make recommendations based on software you currently use I would appreciate it.

[ray326]

On a Java server like Tomcat 5.5 it looks like vqwiki would handle most of that and is simple enough that you could mod it for the rest. I do like TWiki a lot but it really wants to run on *nix.

[tonyh]

Thanx Ray,

I will consider Twiki, I'm actually running FreeBSD and Apache, so this shouldn't be a problem. Is Twiki simple to install and modify based on my above requirements?

I've been gravitating towards DokuWiki because it doesn't rely on databases. Performance wise is it quicker to load from a text file than from a sql query? I ask because the source material is currently all html and DokuWiki has an html conversion tool available.

If using a database is better performance and maintenance wise are there any 'light weight' recommendations?

I find it difficult to believe that of all the members only one has used a wiki. Although I'm new to cms, blog, and wiki, I am attempting to learn each of them. Can someone point me in the right direction for best practices, including definitions, uses, alternatives, etc? For example what advantages do cms have over using a ftp client to manage a local directory and the online directory?

[ray326]

Dig into Twiki. It's as simple as a powerful wiki can be and the new versions, which I haven't used, seem to have a lot more customization available in the form of many skins and plugins. I believe there is even a WYSIWYG Javascript editor available that overcomes the "yet another markup regardless of how simple" problem for many users.

[tonyh]

Thanx Ray,

Isn't Twiki also a cms? I know that my initial requirements stated that a cms is not required. However, as I continue to research into the current topic of wiki software I cannot but notice the overlap. At first I didn't think a cms would be necessary as all my projects thus far have been under 50 html files. I also intend to update some of those projects into blogs (WordPress, unless there is a better recommendation) to replace their now seldom used forums.

I've read through about 14 search pages using "content management" and have noticed your most common answer is a redirect to OpenSourceCMS (http://opensourcecms.com/), as well as two threads recommending CMSimple (http://www.cmsimple.dk/) and CMS Made Simple (http://www.cmsmadesimple.org/) for basic cms functionality. But few, if any, are willing to make recommendations based on their own preferences. And so far I have not found any posts regarding trying to integrate all three technologies into a single website.

I am curious as to why some online ftp clients with built in html/wysiwyg editing features such as net2ftp (http://www.net2ftp.com/homepage/features.html) wouldn't qualify as a cms? Ironically, I was just thinking that this type of approach would be as simple as it would get for those users that are non-html/css savvy.

[ray326]

Twiki is a CMS in as much as all wikis are a type of CMS as are blogs and forums. It's a rather loosely defined term. Since you asked about wikis I assumed you needed the distinctive feature of a wiki, a collaborative web site editable by all users without additional client software. If it's only for your use then maybe a simple template/project environment would be better, in which case I'd recommend something like HTML-kit or Dreamweaver.

Opensourcecms.com is a good starting point because you can play with live versions of the systems they have installed but I haven't actually deployed anything from there because I don't do PHP/MySql.

why some online ftp clients with built in html/wysiwyg editing features such as net2ftp wouldn't qualify as a cms?They're off the air tonight but a CMS usually denotes a server side management mechanism and controlled user input, which aren't embodied in a purely client application.

[tonyh]

Twiki is a CMS in as much as all wikis are a type of CMS as are blogs and forums. It's a rather loosely defined term.

Sorry, I mistook TWiki for TikiWiki which is a full featured Free Software (GNU/LGPL) Wiki/CMS/Groupware written in PHP (http://tikiwiki.org/).

Since you asked about wikis I assumed you needed the distinctive feature of a wiki, a collaborative web site editable by all users without additional client software.

Please don't misunderstand as I added scope to the thread. However, I am beginning to think, for this project anyways (http://www.ravensgarage.com/a2z/index.html), perhaps all I need is a search engine and a sitemap. I just thought a wiki would be appropriate because they normally include both these features and I wanted the ability to allow users to quickly search for and add entries.

CMS usually denotes a server side management mechanism and controlled user input, which aren't embodied in a purely client application.

If a content management system is often a web application used for creating and managing websites and web content. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system) Why does the application require (usually denotes) server side? For example, ftp can read and write to files the same as a server side script, the only true difference I can see is whether or not a database is used as I don't believe ftp can be used to admin database. But as we've discussed neither DokuWiki or TWiki use database, but that doesn't make them any less of a cms does it?

I have to admit that one discouraging factor in most wiki/blog software I have looked at is the requirement to adapt content to fit their display model. Personally I think it would simpler to build a website using server side includes allowing content and wiki/blogs to be embedded inside divs or table cells. Why code and design a website using html/css to discover it needs to be torn apart to fit some predefined template that is broken into 3+ files? What is the benefit of such a template?

Of course the alternative is the same alternative to the often answered OpenSourceCMS: build your own. Unfortunately I don't have the time, wouldn't know where to start, and as a novice to server side script/sql have read many forewarnings that a cms is an overwhelming first project for a beginner.

[ray326]

ftp can read and write to files the same as a server side script, the only true difference I can see is whether or not a database is used as I don't believe ftp can be used to admin databaseThat's not the relevent difference at all. The relevent difference is that with ftp you are (possibly manually) managing not only the content but the presentation. The purpose of a CMS is present your content in the correct way automatically. You give it the content, it saves it (and metadata about it) in either the file system or a database or both, it presents the content appropriately to people who ask to see the content. As I said, wikis are a type of CMS. The content persistence mechanism is irrelevent.
Why code and design a website using html/css to discover it needs to be torn apart to fit some predefined template that is broken into 3+ files? What is the benefit of such a template?Because it's only done once? Many CMSs "allow" imbedded HTML in the content but it's generally considered a bad idea. They want you to enter plain text, maybe with some simple special markup ala wikis, and they will regenerate it on the fly in the right format and presentation as you defined in your template.

It really sounds like for your purpose you'd be better off with Dreamweaver and its page templating capabilities rather than any sort of CMS.

[tonyh]

The purpose of a CMS is present your content in the correct way automatically. You give it the content, it saves it (and metadata about it) in either the file system or a database or both, it presents the content appropriately to people who ask to see the content.
I thought CSS was suppose to separate presentation and content? My interpretation of what you have explained is CSS removes presentation from mark up and CMS removes mark up from content (text, images, etc). Therefore file management (ftp, database, ect) is irrelevant for CMS use.

Because it's only done once? [...] It really sounds like for your purpose you'd be better off with Dreamweaver and its page templating capabilities rather than any sort of CMS.
I have used Dreamweaver's templates in the past. They do work fine for small projects, but once the project begins to exceed even a couple dozen web pages management becomes an issue. In particular when certain pages require different presentation. Which is why I'm researching CMS as a solution because one of its supposed advantages is managing large quantities of files.

Besides even without using server side includes or Dreamweaver, every previous project I have created begins with a "template" designed in notepad. I simply open the template add my content (including mark up) in designated areas and save the file as the appropriate filename. Very little different from any other template technology I have seen. The difference of course is that my method doesn't automatically embed into web pages like Dreamweaver's templates, forms, or textarea.

For the project linked above I believe a wiki is still appropriate because it's content is primarily text with few images, layout (presentation) doesn't change, and search with meta features are desired. Unless you can recommend a better solution?

[ray326]

My interpretation of what you have explained is CSS removes presentation from mark up and CMS removes mark up from content (text, images, etc).Basically true but there is structural mark up as well as semantic mark up and how the mark up works depends on how the particular CMS works. The structural markup maps content into the page and CSS defines how it all looks.
In particular when certain pages require different presentation.The more variety you have in page layout the less likely a CMS would be the best solution. Wikipedia is a good example of a CMS where 1.5 million articles are managed and presented through a half dozen or so pages.
The difference of course is that my method doesn't automatically embed into web pages like Dreamweaver's templates, forms, or textarea.And the difference between what DW does through a template and what a CMS does through a template is most visible when you change the template. DW has to rebuild the site, which you then have to totally republish. Changing the CMS template can change the site with no rebuild required. (They don't ALL work like that but most do.)
For the project linked above I believe a wiki is still appropriate because it's content is primarily text with few images, layout (presentation) doesn't change, and search with meta features are desired. Unless you can recommend a better solution?If the site's visitors don't need to change the content then it sounds more like a blog than a wiki but a wiki with a restricted page edit is pretty much a blog. I don't know why either one wouldn't work fine.

[tonyh]

Basically true but there is structural mark up as well as semantic mark up and how the mark up works depends on how the particular CMS works. The structural markup maps content into the page and CSS defines how it all looks.
Can you provide a better explanation of the differences between structural and semantic markup? I understand that semantic markup is usually associated with accessibility. When researching structured/structural markup most resources refer to XML (http://dio.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/standards/fileformats/markupformats.html) or claim Structural Markup is also known as "Semantic Markup," giving your content structure in such a way that it can be easily understood with no other formatting and layout. (http://www.fusionauthority.com/Techniques/4424-An-Introduction-to-CSS-and-Structured-Markup-Part-I.htm) I have been practicing this type of design for several years with the exception of XML technologies which I have not researched in any great depth other than adopting xhtml. Also what are you referring to when you describe it as mapping content?

The more variety you have in page layout the less likely a CMS would be the best solution.
When variety is required with high quantities of files what is the best alternative?

If the site's visitors don't need to change the content then it sounds more like a blog than a wiki but a wiki with a restricted page edit is pretty much a blog. I don't know why either one wouldn't work fine.
I intend visitors to have the ability to change content, however the creation of the wiki starts with existing content. As stated before I also want visitors to be able to add entries as well, as opposed to a blog where comments can be added to the blog owners entries. If I wanted the content to remain unchanged then I agree a blog would be more appropriate.

[ray326]

Semantic mark up is the meaningful mark up of the content; headings, paragraphs, quotes, lists, emphasis, strong emphasis, etc. Modern structural mark up is mainly divs with ids; banner, globalnav, localnav, wrapper, content, footer, menu, etc. The page template is defined by the latter and the former are inserted into it.
When variety is required with high quantities of files what is the best alternative?It almost sounds like you're talking about a document management system ala Documentum or LiveLink. They tend to create sites that look more like fancy file systems with metadata, access control, work flow and search.

[tonyh]

Semantic mark up is the meaningful mark up of the content; headings, paragraphs, quotes, lists, emphasis, strong emphasis, etc. Modern structural mark up is mainly divs with ids; banner, globalnav, localnav, wrapper, content, footer, menu, etc. The page template is defined by the latter and the former are inserted into it.
Good so I continue to use my comparison of structural markup to layout.

It almost sounds like you're talking about a document management system ala Documentum or LiveLink. They tend to create sites that look more like fancy file systems with metadata, access control, work flow and search.
I'll look into them. Thank you again.