We use DokuWiki to manage our internal documentation but the page renames / moves are not supported very well (there is no built-in way other than messing with raw files manually and the third-party plugin 'pagemove' is no longer developed). Which is a pain.
I'm looking for an alternative which will be similarly simple as DokuWiki (must be filesystem-based) but handle the page renames/moves well. Any suggestions?
For anyone whose search lands them on this page - you might also be interested in the plug-in that keeps links for moved and renamed pages in DokuWiki:
http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:move
Starting with Comparison of wiki software and sorting them by Data backend, there seem to be quite a few file system based wiki's. Skipping the webpages that are down or incomprehensible turns up the following viable candidates:
MoinMoin
Twiki
PmWiki (after installing a plugin)
JSPWiki
In the end it's up to you to decide which of these best suits your needs & supports migrating your existing contents to the new wiki (no small feat), but at least it's a start.
Related
There are two main schools of thought for doing A/B (Split) Testing:
Javascript-based solutions such as Optimizely, Google Analytics Content Experiments.
Server-side solutions such as Django-AB, Splango, and django-lean. (Also, writing your own.)
My understanding is that Javascript-based solutions are spectacular for "which color button converts better," but not so great for switching out entire page layouts, and completely unworkable for trying out large functional changes such as the sequence of pages in a funnel.
That leads me towards a server-side solution. I'm not crazy about coding my own, and will do so only if there is no other option. I'm trying to add value by improving the core functionality of my site, not by creating a better split-testing framework.
The Django apps I've found for split testing are various mixtures of unmaintained, undocumented, documented incorrectly, and incompatible with Django 1.5. This surprises me, because the Django and Python communities seem to have a strong focus on good documentation. I'm also very surprised that none of the testing frameworks I've tried has been compatible with Django 1.5 -- is testing not as core a part of the philosophy in the Django/Python world as it is in Rails?
Here's what I've found:
Splango https://github.com/shimon/Splango -- Not compatible with Django 1.5 (although most compatibility bugs I found were trivial to fix). Largely un-touched since October 2010, except for a fix August 2012 which claims to make sure templates get included in the install. Since templates don't get included in the install when Splango is installed via PyPI, either the fix didn't work or didn't get submitted to PyPI. Documentation is largely accurate, but doesn't completely cover how to set up tests and get reports. It tells you how to configure the template to gather the data, but there appears to be additional steps required in the admin interface which are completely undocumented, and I'm not sure I've done them properly.
Django-lean. Original at https://bitbucket.org/akoha/django-lean has not been updated since July 2010. There is an apparently "blessed" fork at https://github.com/anandhenry2002/django-lean which has not been changed since May 2012, when it was copied over from the original. The original's documentation is incorrect in ways that make following the examples impossible. (Though you can probably muddle your way through, as I did.) The new version's documentation has formatting problems that make it difficult to read on github. (This appears to be because it's the unchanged documentation from the old project, and BitBucket syntax doesn't work on Github.) The django-lean Google Group has not had a message since July 2012.
django-mini-lean https://github.com/DanAncona/django-mini-lean -- Updated as recently as February 2013, but undocumented.
Leaner - https://bitbucket.org/brianjinwright/leaner -- Last updated July 2012, and no docs.
Django-AB -- Last updated May 2009. Is not a package, and can't be installed via PIP or PyPI. After placing the checkout in my django app folder (and renaming the folder to ab) and following the installation instructions, I get an error loading the template loader that I have not tracked down further.
So far Splango appears to be the winner, as I've actually been able to get it more-or-less working (by manually installing the templates, and then editing them to fix Django 1.5 incompatibilities).
Can anyone point me to anything I've missed?
You have missed this app : https://github.com/mixcloud/django-experiments + https://github.com/disqus/gargoyle/
And then there's waffle: http://waffle.readthedocs.org/
It's simple, updated, maintained, but not very feature rich, it doesn't have any analytics/reporting stuff integrated. But then again, google analytics or mixpanel type of service is better for this.
I first looked at Django-AB and that is almost what I wanted, but I couldn't get it to work either. After looking at django-experiments and deciding I didn't want to mess around with redis yet, I decided to roll my own. I've tried to package it up nicely and make it easy to use for the beginner. It's super basic.
https://github.com/crobertsbmw/RobertsAB
You can swap out entirely different page layouts with Google Analytics Experiments (their default experiment setup will redirect users to a different URL for each variation you have), although in general its much easier to interpret why something is more successful if you test smaller things against each other.
You are right that testing different funnels and user flows against each other using Google Analytics would require a lot of manual setup; although theoretically you could do it by swapping out different links and tracking your users with UTM campaigns.
For smaller A/B tests within the same page, I ended up using Google Analytics Experiments and writing a custom Django CMS plugin for adding a few variant options to a template, which queries the Google Analytics API and displays the correct variant using Javascript.
I've jumped into a project that uses dotCMS. The problem is that there is only one book about this cms (which is pretty incomplete as far as I concern) and..even their official documentation is incomplete as well.
as far as I now, dotCMS is opensource, but I can't find any .java files.
Anyone knows if I can add/remove core functionalities of dotCMS?
I'm trying to add a new field to categories.
Sure you can. The dotCMS plugin architecture can provide 90% of most functionality you would be looking to add and have the added benifit of not breaking your upgrade path. If you want to modify the source (and the core), you also have access to the community code here:
See:
http://dotcms.com/community/svn-access.dot
for instructions on how to download the source files and see:
http://dotcms.com/docs/1.9/Installation#InstallingFromSVN
on how to get it running from source.
I'd like to create a technical wiki site and it requires the full use of HTML/CSS and maybe Javascript when editing a page. Is this something I can easily configure in MediaWiki? If not, is there any other wiki software that you'd recommend?
Thanks!
You can enable raw HTML support by setting $wgRawHtml = true; in your LocalSettings.php:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgRawHtml
However, as noted above this is rather insecure for a public site. (If locked down to registered usage only by known folks it's ok -- but you need to trust your users.)
There are some links on that manual page to extensions organized around letting you put specific known bits of HTML/JS in your output code as well, which may or may not fit your needs better.
Well, while MediaWiki itself does not support this, there are some extensions which allow at least HTML in a page. See for example this extension list. SecureHTML might so what you are looking for.
That said, I'd like to point out that allowing raw HTML rather defeats the purpose of a wiki:
it can and will mess up formatting and create weird problems (clashes between generated and user-provided HTML)
it makes it hard/impossible to convert the wiki to other formats (such as to print it)
it makes searching harder
it makes any kind of security impossible (think XSS)
This is doubly true for allowing Javascript.
So I'd like to ask why you need this. If you need special formatting that MediaWiki does not offer, consider using (or writing) an extension for this.
If you really need arbitrary HTML, a Wiki might not be the best tool for you. You should consider a CMS, or just put HTML files into Subversion.
So what are you trying to do?
Use nowiki tags. Docs can be found here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
We're thinking of moving from our existing installation of MediaWiki to something more feature-rich. I'm trying to find all the pains people have with MediaWiki today (mainly it's poor handling of external documents and less-than-perfect editing capabilities - compared to Word).
We are using a wiki for design, spec, process guidelines. We have several external documents (docs, powerpoints) that we are currently putting on a shared folder and linking to from the wiki (because uploading files is not very convenient in MediaWiki).
We are trying to make the friction minimum, so that nobody will have an excuse or reason for not using it.
Some options we're considering are Confluence, Trac & Sharepoint. Money is not a big concern, only ease of use (and maintenance) and feature-fullness. What would you use?
I would plug the details of my specific feature needs into the excellent WikiMatrix choice wizard and let it make recommendations.
I would advise either
Foswiki ( http://foswiki.org ), (forked by the whole developer community of TWiki to avoid trademark threats), for a feature-rich and fully open programmer's wiki. Drop on #foswiki on irc.freenode.net to chat with the community.
Mindtouch's Deki Wiki ( http://www.mindtouch.com/ ) clearly the most user-friendly advanced and innovative wiki out there, a modern commercial + open source offering. Great integration with Office docs.
I would avoid Confluence. Confluence made a design choice (forbidding mixing html in pages with Wiki syntax) that proves deadly to any attempt at wysiwyg, as it uses a standard HTML editor for WYSIWYG, and this converts it on save in a very limited subset of it, yielding frustrating surprises for the users (foswiki for instance keeps as html the parts the wiki syntax do not handle like bullet lists in table cells). Confluence have many great sides, notably its integration with atlassian great tools as their JIRA bugtracker, (we use it at work for this with good results) but do not plan to customize it.
There are many good choices on hosted wikis too (Google sites, based on the awesome jotspot engine is one).
Never use Sharepoint of course. Its wiki capabilities are a IE-only joke, and Sharepoint whole architecture is braindead (storing all data - even huge docs - in a non-distributed database goes against Microsoft own recommendations). If you want a DMS with good Office integration, have a look at KT (Knowledge Tree) instead. http://www.knowledgetree.com/ . For political reasons we were forced to use Sharepoint at work but we limited it to basic document managing (never use the MOSS higher layer, as it breaks compatibility between versions) and integrated a foswiki frontend to it (dumped document list & metadata in xml and provided navigation in foswiki, and search with a google box)
But my real advice would be to ... wait for Google wave, that promises to revolutionize the wiki concepts.
Disclaimer: I am part of the foswiki community.
Before you move away from Mediawiki I would urge you to consider the many extensions available. IMO there arent many wikis that offer more features that MW, especially when you consider the number of extensions. See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Extensions
For example, for editing there are browser based editors similar to Word. And there even macros for Word that allow you to export from MS Word to your Wiki, from within Word.
Also, check out the Semantic Mediawiki extensions. These give enormousness benefits in the area of Knowledge Management.
I would personally recommend against moving from Wiki to SharePoint. The huge problem there is SP's dreadful handling of images.
First of all I would stay away from Sharepoint. Period.
I would not consider switching to Trac either, since Trac has special focus on issue tracking, and poor support for external documents.
I would consider switching to Confluence, since:
Money is not an issue (as you said)
You want to minimise maintanance work (as you said)
You want to use wiki to handle external documents (as you said)
I'm typically a strong advocate of open source technology, but with the requirements you gave, I just don't think they would make you happy. For instance if you had personnel available for maintaining and providing customisations to your system, I would definitely suggest trying out Foswiki, which also would otherwise fit your needs very nicely. However, if you really want to stay away from any extra maintance work, Foswiki is not a good option.
I work on Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware and I'll share a few links. This question comes up quite a bit so we have a dedicated page: http://tiki.org/Tiki+vs+MediaWiki
We're thinking of moving from our existing installation of MediaWiki
Tiki & MediaWiki are both PHP/MySQL so you can use the same server.
Tiki has a built-in importer: http://doc.tiki.org/MediaWiki+importer
to something more feature-rich.
Tiki is the http://tiki.org/FOSS+Web+Application+with+the+most+built-in+features
We are using a wiki for design, spec, process guidelines. We have several external documents (docs, powerpoints) that we are currently putting on a shared folder and linking to from the wiki (because uploading files is not very convenient in MediaWiki). We are trying to make the friction minimum, so that nobody will have an excuse or reason for not using it.
http://doc.tiki.org/WYSIWYG
http://doc.tiki.org/File+Gallery (instead of your shared folder)
http://doc.tiki.org/Docs (web-based ODFs)
http://doc.tiki.org/Spreadsheet (web-based)
http://doc.tiki.org/Slideshow (web-based)
http://doc.tiki.org/Draw (web-based)
Some options we're considering are Confluence, Trac & Sharepoint. Money is not a big concern, only ease of use (and maintenance) and feature-fullness. What would you use?
Tiki is Free/Open Source. But if you have money burning your pockets :-)
http://tiki.org/Donation
You can also hire a consultant to provide training/support and to accelerate the implementation and/or sponsor feature development
http://info.tiki.org/Consultants
Have you considered sharing your Word documents with Google Docs? It has revision control and collaboration features like a wiki, as well as a rich text editor that can import and export plenty of formats.
It sounds like TWiki would be a great option for you as well. I haven't used it myself, but it also has a rich text editor, as well as tons of enterprisey project management features in it.
A lot of people seem to like Confluence. I personally don't know it. If you are not already at it and you want something feature-rich than xwiki could be something for you.
I'd add FCK Editor for WYSIWYG, get a decent document management system to run alongside the wiki and carry on with MediaWiki!
We're in the middle of deploying a new software system to lot's of users in lot's of places (200+ users over 8 countries). In the past we've written a manual for the users, then update it every so often. This works ok, in that all the users ahve the same manual and it covers the main things but it has it's problems, like it doesn't get updated that often, we sometimes miss updates, and some users will have old copies.
We've been talking about using a wiki during the testing and deployment phases to build a knowledge base about the system. Ideally we'd then like some way to convert that into some form fo electronic document that we can then 'pretty-fie' and send out as the official manual, as well as letting users use and update the wiki.
Has anyone else done anything similar ? Any suggestions for wiki systems, workflows, document formats etc?
Most wikis support export via PDF e.g.:
MediaWiki PDF Export
DokuWiki PDF Export
TWiki PDF Export
You can write something that generates LaTeX from the wiki and renders a manual to PDF. With packages like hyperref you can retain cross-references as hyperlinks.
Additionally, you can integrate content from multiple sources such as a data dictionary into the LaTeX document, which can be mixed and matched with the wiki content. You could also set the architecture up so it can support cross-referencing that goes either way.
Framemaker could also support this using generated MIF files, and you could also use Lout in a similar way or convert your wiki content to docbook, which would allow you to use any of the many rendering options available to that format.
As an aside, the following Stackoverflow postings discuss various systems for maintaining documentation.
Application (Not a Markup Language) for Producing a User Manual
Can LaTeX be used for producing any documentation that accompanies software?
What tools are used to write documentation?
What tools does your team use for writing user manuals?
How best to write documentation (ideally in latex) targeting both the web (html) and paper (pdf)?
Best tool(s) for working with DocBook XML documents?
What is the recommended toolchain for formatting XML DocBook?
Is a successor for TeX/LaTeX in sight?
Madcap Flare is a help-and-manual authoring tool that uses HTML for the source of each topic. You could pretty easily do a mass import of the Wiki pages. Would then require some cleaning but after that you have a nice single-source system that can output CHM, web-browsable help, PDF, DOC/DOCX, etc.
How are you storing the help source at the moment? Is it MS Word files, MS help, LaTeX?
If you put your help source files under version control then you will get all the benefits of a wiki without having to migrate to a new system - people can make edits to the help files easily - those changes can be tracked, reverted etc. and you get the prettified manuals as before.
I followed Node's links and came across some mediawiki pages that I thought were noteworthy.
Extension:OpenDocument Export
Extension:PDF Writer
Category:Data extraction extensions
I gave a previous answer which may be useful for the "wiki to PDF" part -- look at using the open source PediaPress code or functionality. You can get ODFs from it too, although their PDFs are already quite pretty (but you might want to rebrand it and restyle it for your company I suppose).