Talk:Comparison of wiki software/Archive 1

Table format
This table is really hard to read. Can someone rotate it 90 degrees? 171.67.73.10 22:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree that it's hard to read, it forces you to page up each time you want to try to figure out whether some software distribution has feature X.
 * I inserted the column of headings every 5-6 software descriptions to address this concern -- Trödel 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I got to say that it is still ridiculously big. Is there any other option to make it easier to compare different wiki software without annoying lots of scrolling? 71.250.35.162 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the table format is totally wrong... The items to compare should be listed vertically and the properties horizontally. A table with lots of entries expands vertically, a very detailed table expands horizontally, that's just the way tables are meant... not to mention the loss of space because some fields have whole sentences in a very narrow but high cell. --194.109.234.123 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, different wikis should be on the x-axis, features should be on the y-axis. In addition, stuff like webserver required is already on the table above, and required software could be moved to the table above. SavantEdge 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for layout and organization -Michael 68.51.39.136 08:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC) ...
 * (bump) anyone willing to go through the 90° rotation for the second table? I know it's a lot of work but it would be sooo useful! The proposal below looks sensible to me --DarTar 09:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison table
Basic general information about the distributions: creator/company, license/price etc.

Other Notable features
-Michael 68.51.39.136 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says: 'Basic general information about the distributions: creator/company, license/price etc. (Microsoft Excel or OpenOffice.org Calc does a great job rendering this table useful)'. So, how do you do this?

- Don.209.217.75.155 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by Comparison of Linux distributions
Inspired by Comparison of Linux distributions, this is meant to evolve into a sane replacement for the list found in Wiki software and should also absorb Wiki software using MySQL (why does that page exist?).

Some of these are content management systems. That will definitely need to be figured out.. what CMS' qualify as wikis? I would say that it's the internal markup language and link handling. I'll have to go through the List of content management systems to see what ought to be copied into this comparison list.

-- Suggestions

I am interested in hearing ideas on organizing this effectively. What categories of information would be good to display? Are there any other items of comparison which should be added? Comment freely.

I transposed the first table. It is now harder to edit, but much, much easier to read. This page is hopeless compared to the chart at splitbrain, but it is a start. I would suggest we put everthing in one big table to make comparison easier.

-- Sy / (talk)

This page, in my opinion, is a very good idea, yet desperately needs more data. Showing 4 wikis and claiming that the table is "The Comparison" is also rather dangerous, as it suggests these are The Best Ones, and that there are nearly no other - while I doubt the first statement, and the latter is absolutely false. I wanted to move the 'stub' mark to the beginning of the page, only I saw that there were many edits recently, so I hope it quickly gets better.

My $.02 said --Akavel 15:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. It was meant to be very roughly stub-like, and a beginning tool to be added as I or others explored other wikis. Wikis tend to not present their information cleanly enough to allow for really easy comparison, so this table is really leaning on the research and experience of others. -- Sy / (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Inline importing / Inline exporting
What do you mean by that terms. I do not undrstand them. They need more explanation, please :) --213.140.17.106 13:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. There are no wiki engines listed that support it, and one listed as ?.  Does this refer to inline RSS importing? If so, what is meant by inline exporting?  -- Josquin 03:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ack, I totally forget why I put those there. I think I was meaning to describe the ability to import/export content directly using the wiki interface.  So a wiki which can dynamically generate a PDF would qualify.  Still, it's WAY too vague.. so I'm going to remove that.  -- Sy / (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Other possible features

 * Report generation and user-specified templating/css etc
 * Markup languages supported
 * Show an example of the wiki syntax
 * grouping syntax "comptible" wikis
 * how about a [Comparison of wiki-hosting sites]? i only know of wikispaces.org and i like it, but since i'm so new to this, i don't really know what features i should really be looking for or what exactly is the best one. i think that could be helpful. maybe it should be a whole new entry? i don't know, but this seemed the most rational place to put a comparison idea.
 * This wouldn't be the right page to start this, and I'm not evven sure that this is appropriate for Wikipedia at all. I do my hosting at home, so I only have peripheral experience.  Why don't you make a little list in this talk page or your user page and I'll see if I can work with it to help you out. -- Sy / (talk)


 * And how about listing wether or not it will run in PHP Safe-mode (for PHP based wiki software). Some hosts (Sourceforge?) only allows safe-mode.
 * Jouke 13:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * List whether root access is required for installation, or answer the question: How hard it is to install in an ISP hosted environment (without root access)? -- DBooth 04:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Add a "Hide Column" link to each column? I don't know how difficult this would be with JavaScript or CSS (or whether it would even be permitted on wikipedia), but one difficulty in trying to read the table is that it is too wide to be able to see the first column, which lists the comparison axes.  If this feature is feasible to implement, perhaps column might collapse into a single "+" link, for re-expansion. -- DBooth 04:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki installation
WikiEngineComparison at MoinMoinWiki lists MediaWiki installation as easy, but it is listed as Difficult here. Which is it? --Pmsyyz 15:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well i cant really see a wiki stating that their own wiki software is difficult to install, also since the author probably use MM i'm sure they think it is very easy to install. I would suspect that it was listed here as difficult because it requires python to be installed and since in most cases it is not it may be taking into account it is using a language that isnt terribly common for web applications. To be perfectly honest from browsing through the installation tar.gz i would rate it as very hard to install. Although it does come with an install script it requires a lot of other work ( added special folders outside the html folder for the database, make sure the chmods are right, etc. )--2mcmGespräch 21:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's easy, but the question is POV. I don't see how it can be justified in an encyclopedia article. Angela. 20:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Integration
MediaWiki can integrate with phpbb via a plugin, other wikis like DokuWiki require hacking source. Other wikis don't support integration at all. This is a make/break decision for some sites, it would be useful to have this info in the table.

OddMuse/UseMod
Okay, am I blind (damn you, LASIK procedure!) or are there no entries for these two major types of wiki software here? I'm trying to figure out whether/how to improve this list w/o stepping on toes... nae'blis (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, there aren't. I was wondering that myself. &mdash;User:ACupOfCoffee @ 00:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, and add it yourself! It's the WikiWay!

"Ease of use"
I am not a computer programmer. All of these "easy" programs to install are almost impossible to install. That is why I added a footnote that the "ease of installation" is terribly misleading.

Wiki programs are obviously still in their infancy, because only computer programers can understand how to use them. Travb 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I read your link for the installation instructions for istwiki. They amounted to downloading the file and unzipping it to a specific directory.  what could be easier? -lethe talk 09:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be worth noting that these comparisons ("easy", etc) are in relation to other server-side software products, and not to general desktop applications. Manning 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Demo section
I thought I'd add this as I'd like to see a simple link to a plain demo of each wiki software.

Please add more direct links to a demo (preferably on the official site of the wiki software)

cheers Treelovinhippie 02:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A (pretty sparse) demo section has been added some time after this note. Antonrojo 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Advice section
The Advice section mentions that a point of consideration might be wether pages are stored as (plain) text files, or in a database (ie MySQL), but this is not mentioned in the comparisson table! Jouke 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Link Format
Hi. I think it would be useful to have link format discussed in the table. I personally find CamelCase rather yucky, so I wouldn't want to install a wiki that used that for its links. (In fact, since wikipedia is almost certainly by far the biggest wiki on the net, I imagine that many people would be expecting a format similar to mediawiki's - anything else could be confusing...) Jamse 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Page History
I just noticed that page history isn't listed in the features table. This seems like a key feature. Also, I think the 'WikiMatrix' link which includes a nice wizard for selecting a wiki should feature more prominatly. The table on this page is quite extensive and while helpful it can be hard to do direct comparisions. Antonrojo 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki standards
I don't know if anybody is tending this page, but a big question I have about the software is whether there are any standards any of the groups are trying to work toward for page storage format. Also I would like to see whether the software has a corporation, foundation, partnership, or other stabilizing cooperative effort behind its future. Without asking anybody to immediately add this info to the article, could I discuss these issues with anybody knowledgeable here? Thanks. Tom Haws 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Math support
Could someone please add how and ahow much these wiki's support writing of mathematical equations? This would be a valuable information to have. Thank you!

WYSIWYG
WikiEdit is not WYSIWYG - it is buttons that do the wiki edit markup. Benjaminhill 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

wysiwyg;

wYSIWYG

What You See Is What You Get;

what you see is what you get.

hopiakuta 01:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

DokuWiki isn't WYSIWYG either. It's listed as 'yes; quickbuttons', but the buttons just help you enter code - while you're editing, the page is displayed as markup, not as the final product. Overall, it looks like the info in the WYSIWYG column isn't entirely accurate - someone needs to check the entries, but that's a hell of a large job!--202.55.158.11 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WikiEdit, quickbuttons and the like are usually called editor toolbars, a concept totally different from WYSIWYG. Check out wikimatrix for a comparison table of wiki engines with WYSIWYG vs. toolbar support (these features are listed in the Usability section of the feature table of each engine). --DarTar (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible software to add to the list

 * TiddlyWiki. It's easy to use and instantaneous.  Is it appropriate for this list of software?  --A vivid dreamer 11:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pbwiki. Fully hosted.  Limited functions.  --216.132.47.20 13:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ProjectForum. One of relatively few cross-platform wikis that are dependency free and distributed as a fully self-contained application.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.230.17 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Need suggestion for Wiki selection
Hi, I am trying to choose a wiki for a small user group. I am getting really confused reading all the artilces in discussions posted on different websites. Here are my basic requirements. It will be great if anyone could suggest one.

Usre group: -
 * 1) About 20 – 25 users – very savvy, smart, and busy people but not very technically inclined
 * 2) So I want to have a very easy to use editor
 * 3) Will not have dedicated admin so need easy installation and maintenance. (don’t want to go for hosted service because of sensitive content)

Wiki Features: - 


 * 1) Must supports large attachments (presentations and educational videos)
 * 2) Must be easily searchable, hopefully to the attachment level
 * 3) Should not have anonymous read access.
 * 4) It will be great if I could integrate it with the user authorization system my university offers
 * 5) It will be great if users could export & import pages from word and not have to use the wiki editing tags
 * 6) I am not sure whether I will have a unix or windows server. Will the choice of server maker a difference in installation and performance?

Thanks again --Varij 18:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)varij

Platform neutrality
I'm a little confused as to why Windows is singled out. I'm doing some research with a coworker (I use Mac and Windows and she is currently experimenting with Ubuntu) and found this comparison chart fairly helpful except for the "Runs on Windows" section. We need to know if these wikis will run on several different platforms as well as windows. Maybe the category should just be "Platform" and then list all the OS's that the wikis can operate under.


 * I renamed the column from "Runs on Windows" to "Platform" and replaced "Yes" with "Windows & others" on each item. TODO: Those with specific info please indicate which packages also run on Linux, Mac, etc. (Renamed this section in the same spirit. :-) ) --71.181.46.151 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the data in "Platform" column is unsatisafactory. What does mean "No"? _Vi 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an artifact from the heading name change -- corrected. Please feel free to research which platforms those wikis run on and add it to the table. --71.181.46.151 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

EditMe ?
This is comparison of wiki software (the software that you can install on your server), not comparison of hosted services - so why EditMe is in the list?

MediaWiki does not *need* Apache/IIS
Web-server required: Apache or IIS with PHP 5.0+

that's just not true.. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Installing_MediaWiki_with_Lighttpd

I don't see why it would need any specific server; it just needs PHP and MySQL, right? rewriting URLs is not compulsory.

And, based on Wikipedia, it supports searches.

wysiwyg;

wYSIWYG

What You See Is What You Get;

what you see is what you get.

hopiakuta 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

GetWiki
GetWiki should be included on the list for comparison. --165.230.46.150 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Installed base (or relative popularity)
I often go to Wikipedia to see what software options I have to chose from. It would be very nice to be able to discern the most-used programs.

I usually want to chose a major program and not a "fly by night" program that will be gone in a few months.

Thanks for considering this! --Calan 06:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular wiki engine
I'd like to know what's the most popular wiki engine running on Windows/IIS platform in terms of installation base? Mahanchian 12:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

ZWiki should be Zwiki
The mis-capitalizing of ZWiki makes the link to Zwiki not work. Should there be a ZWiki topic that points to Zwiki or should only this topic be fixed?

CoWiki is dead
as of December 13, 2006. Someone want to make the relevant change who knows more about the appropriate formatting for this page? [unsigned]

It was the reason I made this page in the first place, but I think it ought to be removed entirely, to help reduce the noise of this page. -- Sy / (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is MediaWiki the best?
Is MediaWiki the best? [unsigned]

The wikipedia does not form opinions, and talk pages are for discussing the articles, not for forum-style chatting. -- Sy / (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find a free Mediawiki host?
Where can I find a free website host which uses Mediawiki? I've got a PBWiki, but I want one which uses Mediawiki. Long story. I don't want to do all the uploading and stuff. I just like the look and feel of Wikipedia in general, so I want to use this. Thanks! 77.98.109.114 10:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ZWiki
Why does ZWiki say "Python (included with most Zope installs)". Isn't Zope written in Python? How is it possible to have Zope without Python?

Adding new entry for a new wiki product
How do I go about adding in an entry for Jive Software's Clearspace product? Barrytallis 18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my comment to "see talk". Thought there was a description here already.
 * The product (or company creating the product) should already have it's own article, demonstrating it's notability. --Ronz 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PBwiki
Hi! PBwiki is the largest WikiFarm, with over 200,000 unique wikis registered. I was surprised to see that neither PBwiki nor WetPaint (the second largest) were represented in this list, but entries like JotSpot, a now semi-defunct WikiFarm (with broken links) and Central Desktop (a site with far fewer users than WetPaint or PBwiki according to Alexa and Compete.com) is featured prominently. (DISCLAIMER - I am the CEO of PBwiki.) Dweekly 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (bump) Dweekly 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some sources to verify what you're saying, as well as provide the information necessary for entry into the table? --Ronz 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of our public wikis, which are about a third of the wikis hosted on our service . Here is an Alexa graph showing PBwiki and Wetpaint in the Top 10,000 websites. . I'd be happy to help fill out the info in the table, which should be simple to do. (We use PHP & MySQL.) Dweekly 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm
Per WP:EL and WP:NOT, the home page and demo columns should be removed. Looks like there are many more inappropriate external links in the Comparison Table which should be removed as well. --Ronz 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The two columns are removed from the first table. Looks like some of the links in the Comparison Table are there as footnotes. --Ronz 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The new "Creator" column restored many of the links that I previously removed, and attracted many more. I've removed the links per above. Looks like there could be additional cleanup work on the linking here and there still. --Ronz 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorting by dates is broken
I haven't looked at the JS code used to sort the table by column, but sorting by release date doesn't work. I wonder if this depends on dates being formatted as links. Any ideas how to fix this? --DarTar 09:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Compatibility/interoperability (Cross-wiki support)
Are there any programs that convert databases between any of the formats, or are you pretty much stuck copying and pasting stuff by hand if you decide to switch? --68.44.13.236 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a column in the Feature2 table for this. --71.181.46.151 23:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Should that column be renamed to "Markup Language" and list the supported markup languages for each? Also, see Comparison of lightweight markup languages --71.181.46.151 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What does a blank table cell mean?
For example, in the Target Audience table, in the MediaWiki row, there is a blank cell in the Education column. Why wouldn't mediawiki be suitable for a wiki aimed at an audience in an education setting?139.133.7.37 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ease of installation - Major POV problem
This really needs to be addressed. This is like a text-book definition of a POV and/or OR violation. Is there some kind of objective measure we can replace the coloum with? Or, can we find a reliable source to cite? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria
I propose all entries that do not have their own article be removed per WP:LIST, at least until we come up with better list inclusion criteria. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)