Talk:Enterprise wiki

Required Feature Set
The page says, "Wikis with the required feature set include..." but it never describes what they mean by "the required feature set". Required by who? Why is it required? Do you mean the required feature set that makes one thing a wiki and another thing a simple web page? This is either hazy language or bias. Bubblesort (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Corporate wiki vs. corporate wiki software
The lead section of currently says: A corporate wiki is a wiki application designed to be used in a corporate context. In addition to the regular features of a wiki, corporate wikis often have features specific to organizations, like contacts management and to-do lists. The current wording muddies the distinction between a wiki (which is a website) and the software which runs the wiki (the wiki software). Elsewhere on Wikipedia the distinction is clear; for example, the Wiki article says: A wiki is a collaborative website which can be directly edited by anyone with access to it. Also see: List of wikis, List of wiki software, and Comparison of wiki software, all of which use the word "wiki" to refer to a website, and "wiki software" to refer to the software which runs a wiki.

To be consistent with the definitions elsewhere, then, we should have:


 * Corporate wiki: a wiki run by a corporation (or more generally, by any organization such as public sector or nonprofit).
 * Corporate wiki software: a wiki software package used to run a corporate wiki.

We might further subdivide both things:


 * Corporate wiki:
 * Private (behind the firewall).
 * Public (run by a corporation, but at least partially readable by the public, and perhaps editable by the public).
 * Corporate wiki software:
 * Intentional corporate wiki software: software specifically designed to run corporate wikis, with special features desired by many corporations, and not present in "regular" wiki software.
 * Accidental corporate wiki software: "regular" wiki software not specifically designed to run corporate wikis, yet pressed into service by a corporation to run a corporate wiki.

On Wikipedia we do not advocate the use of any software package above another. Instead we merely report on what can be reliably sourced. If reliable sources tell us that corporations are using particular types of wiki software for particular applications, that's what we report, avoiding suggestions (implicit or explicit) about what they should be running. For example, while it may well be that corporations which use, say, MediaWiki for their corporate wiki software would be better off if they used, say, TWiki, Wikipedia does not take sides on that. That would be like telling Muslims they should be Christians. Also see Editor wars. However, if we can cite reliable sources for qualified opinions by notable experts on what software is "better" for particular uses, we may present their opinions as their opinions, for example in sections that discuss pros and cons or describe an ongoing debate. --Teratornis 19:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MoinMoin is a Clean Design Corporate Wiki Software ...
One of the few deciding criteria for use in Corporations is usually fine grained access control. For years the only clean open source solution in this respect was MoinMoin. TWiki, XWiki and others did not implement that at all, or leaked information via the search functionality. Checking the security alerts of TWiki does not reveal that this has been fixed.

Moin has probably the most complete feature set combined with simplicity, is easy install/upgrade/maintain and has excellent integration possibilities. TWiki has probably the most plugins and biggest installation base. Currently the situation imo is: if you need dynamic tables, choose TWiki, if you need security/access control or want to have it stressfree, choose Moin.

Therefor I do not find it very appropriate that the author of Twiki, User:PeterThoeny, removes Moin completely, and in a second try puts it in the "does not have security", "does not have per page attachements" section.

--77.56.92.252 08:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * MoinMoin is popular according to the stats on WikiMatrix, and it is a nice wiki. However, there is no evidence that MoinMoin is primarily used as a corporate wiki. suggests that MoinMoin is mainly used on public websites, hence not specifically built for corporate use. Instead of self-proclaiming MoinMoin as a "prominent corporate wiki", please provide verifiable sources before listing it as such. -- PeterThoeny 08:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Moin is even to your criteria one of the most popular wiki softwares. Despite Moins restriction of only collecting working links to moin installations MoinMoinWikis show quite a lot of corporations, including, Skype, Nokia, Ubuntu. WP:AUTO and WP:POV/WP:NPOV should be valid for everybody - it is very bad style to remove a competing and technically superiour product. --77.56.92.252 11:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at the edit history:
 * 25 July 2007 - Anonymous user 77.56.76.69 adds MoinMoin to list of "most prominent corporate wikis"
 * 25 July 2007 - PeterThoeny restores sort order by popularity and removes MoinMoin from the list (no evidence that this wikis is built for the corporate environment)
 * 28 July 2007 - Anonymous 77.56.92.252 adds MoinMoin back, based on "biased person removed competitor"
 * 28 July 2007 - PeterThoeny restores sort order by popularity and moves MoinMoin to the "not specifically built for corporations" list
 * 28 July 2007 - Anonymous 77.56.92.252 adds MoinMoin back, claiming "Biased person again removed competitor"
 * 29 July 2007 - PeterThoeny restores sort order by popularity and removes MoinMoin from the list (based on Wikipedia:Verifiability)
 * 29 July 2007 - Anonymous 77.56.92.252 adds MoinMoin back
 * 29 July 2007 - PeterThoeny removes MoinMoin, based on "no self proclamation, verifiable sources are needed before listing a wiki as one of the most prominent corporate wikis."
 * 29 July 2007 - Anonymous 77.56.92.252 adds MoinMoin back with "please do not touch your competitor"

First time for me (Peter) to be engaged in an edit ping-pong (this after 9 years using wikis.) Lets stick to the facts. There is no evidence that MoinMoin is built for the corporate environment and is "most prominent corporate wikis". The success stories on the MoinMoin site suggest otherwise. Anonymous user: Please read Verifiability and provide evidence that MoinMoin belongs in that list before adding MoinMoin back to the list. (On a personal note, this has nothing to do with "competition"; diversity of wikis is good.)

-- PeterThoeny 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * undid moin removal and took out "most prominent" as it seems to attract controversy, and it seems also difficult/impossible to verify. added reference to sorting as suggested here by peter. --ThurnerRupert 13:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)