Which Open Source Wiki Works For You?
by Shlomi Fish11/04/2004
Editor's note: as of July 2006, the author has produced an update to this article discussing developments since its original publication. See "Which Wiki" update for details.
A Wiki is a web site that can be edited directly by people browsing it. That way, they can add new content, correct errors or inaccuracies, and add their own comments, among other things. Since the debut of the original Wiki Wiki Web, many publicly available, usually open source, Wiki implementations have appeared, enabling webmasters to set up their own Wikis on their sites. These Wiki implementations vary in their features, ease of installation, syntax, and semantics.
The purpose of this article is to give an overview of several popular Wiki implementations and see how they fare. It is not trivial to switch from one Wiki implementation to the other, because this will usually require translating all of the pages from the old syntax to the new one. Thus, choosing a Wiki engine requires some care, taking possible future developments into account. This article will hopefully help you make that choice if the need arises.
Common Features Offered by Wiki Implementations
For their pages, Wiki implementations offer a markup language, usually very different than HTML. The alternate syntax helps to prevent HTML injection attacks and also allows easier editing. Some Wikis support a subset of HTML, but this is uncommon.
Most implementations identify Wiki pages in the markup by using an identifier, usually formed
from capitalized words (for example, ThisIsAWikiPage). Wiki users refer to
this form of capitalization as CamelCase. Any such identifiers in the page
create links to other internal pages in the Wiki. Following a link to a non-existing page
often gives the opportunity to edit the page's contents, thus creating a new
page.
There are other common rich-text paradigms. Some allow users to designate
portions of text as external links to URLs. One embeds images based on the URLs.
It's usually possible to highlight text with bold, underline, or italics, add
numbered (<ol>s) and bulleted lists
(<ul>s), blocks of monospace text (representing program code
or output), and so forth.
Some Wikis have page attachments: binary files associated with the page to which it can refer. This is useful for putting images or directly downloadable files in the Wiki. Another common feature is version control. Version control allows users to save and recall previous version of the edited pages, in order to reverse damage, either accidental or malicious. Most Wiki implementations also have a search feature for searching their pages.
In addition to the above, several Wiki engines offer extra features such as user management and permissions, extendability, and an extended markup that supports various operations such as meta-syntax.
|
Related Reading
Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing |
Evaluation Criteria
For simplicity's sake, I'll assume that you want to install a Wiki on a UNIX machine (Linux, in my case). Should you want to set up a Wiki on Microsoft Windows, you may encounter other or different problems. I'll also concentrate on Wikis written in Perl, Python, and PHP because they are familiar languages, widely available, and well studied.
The criteria for evaluating the Wiki implementations are:
Installation requirements and ease of installation--how easy is it to perform the installation as an under-privileged user?
Does the installation require an SQL database? If so, can the Wiki implementation use a pre-defined prefix for all of its tables? (This is useful in shared-hosting situations where you cannot create your own unique databases.)
- Is the Wiki version-controlled? Does it require an external version-control system?
- How usable is the Wiki markup syntax? How rich is it? Does it allow inclusion of some HTML tags? Are there any useful meta-tags or macros?
- Is there support for attachments?
- Is there support for user management, permissions, page locking, and other authentication and authorization features?
- What third-party installable extensions are available?
- What support does the Wiki implementation have for internationalization and localization? Can page titles contain non-ASCII characters? Can it serve pages with UTF-8 encoding?
- What features does the Wiki offer that most other Wiki implementations do not?
These are not the only criteria you might consider. However, they do cover what I consider the common subset of considerations. If your needs differ, please feel free to use the following comparisons as a starting place for your research.
TWiki
TWiki (pronounced "twee-kee"), is a mature Wiki implementations whose mission starts with "TWiki is a leading-edge, web-based collaboration platform targeting the corporate intranet world." However, I found it to be also useful for public Internet sites.
Installing TWiki may seem intimidating, but I was able to automate it using
some
shell scripts I wrote. The documentation does not explain well how a
non-administrator can install it. While the documentation for the first part
does explain it (though not too clearly), the second part recommends using the
chown command (which only root can do), in order to achieve some
purposes. I finally gave up on that and installed it with administrator
privileges.
The TWiki syntax is very powerful and flexible and also allows the inclusion of many HTML tags. Furthermore, it allows users to include special variables there to accomplish various tasks, including generating a table of contents or displaying the current time.
TWiki is very powerful and includes support for attachments, user management and permissions, and skins. There are many Twiki plugins available. Twiki also supports version control using RCS.
One drawback is that you must have an appropriate HTTP authentication scheme set up in order to use Twiki's user management. Otherwise, the users cannot log in to their accounts, so all changes to the pages are anonymous. I would have preferred a cookie-based authentication and login, but these are not available in the version that I tested.
TWiki is impressive and powerful, but setting it up and enabling some features may be problematic.
Kwiki
The Kwiki motto is a "A Quickie Wiki
that's not Tricky." Installing it is pretty straightforward for a site you
admin: just install the Perl package (from CPAN or elsewhere), and then type
kwiki-install in a CGI-served directory to create an instance. Installing
Kwiki on a server you are not an admin of is more complicated but doable.
I found the Kwiki markup not powerful. Some things are impossible with it, such as hyperlinking an arbitrary piece of text to an email address (mail fooish). I also could not find how to link a Wiki page with a text link different from the Wiki page name (like this link to LinkedWikiWikiPage). There is also no support for attachments, HTML markup as an alternative to the Wiki markup, etc. It is disappointing.
Kwiki can use either RCS or Subversion for version control. (Those who wish to use Subversion should check out the corrected Kwiki version as the CPAN Kwiki does not work with the up-to-date Subversion.) Kwiki is easily customizable and has several Kwiki enhancements available. Generally, however, they are less powerful than TWiki's.
All in all, Kwiki is easy to install and customize, but its formatting rules are lacking.
PmWiki
PmWiki is a PHP Wiki implementation by Patrick Michaud. Installing or upgrading a PmWiki instance is a very simple process with a few steps. It works very easily on a web-hosting server without administrator privileges.
The PmWiki markup rules are relatively powerful, making for a very nice Wiki experience. PmWiki has several useful features, including the ability to lock files under passwords. It also uses its own custom version-control format.
PmWiki is a good choice for a simple public or in-house Wiki.
MediaWiki
MediaWiki is the Wiki implementation used by Wikipedia and the other WikiMedia resources. These are, probably, the largest and most successful Wikis. MediaWiki offers a lot of features, including an optional file upload feature, a very comprehensive markup, very good internationalization support (even supporting bi-directional text), version control, a search feature, back-links, mathematical equations support, and page names that can consist of any character.
MediaWiki is written in PHP and uses a MySQL database. MediaWiki's installation is incredibly simple, especially considering its complexity. It involves setting up a MySQL database, unpacking the distribution, making a certain directory there writable, and accessing a configuration script. It has a lot of configuration options, and you can configure it to your heart's desire. I didn't look for much documentation on the configuration; I just used the code. It should work in almost any web-hosting environment that gives you MySQL and PHP.
The MediaWiki syntax is both very rich and very flexible. You can even use some HTML tags instead of the regular markup, which is useful if you cannot recall the original markup immediately. Its many features may make it overkill for some sites, but that largely depends on your target audience.
My only problem with MediaWiki is the fact that I could not find a way to
make it use a prefix for the tables it uses (for example,
mediawiki_users or mediawiki_articles). This may make
it more problematic to deploy in hosting accounts that give only one MySQL
database. I fear that deploying it along with other applications on the same
database (or deploying two such different Wikis on the same site) would be very
hard.
The MediaWiki mathematical formulae processing logic is written in O'Caml, and requires compilation and
installation using its compiler. If you need that plugin, you can cross-compile
or ask a friend to produce a binary on a machine with a similar configuration.
It also requires a TeX distribution and ghostscript, which may make deploying
it on an under-privileged machine even harder.
Nevertheless, MediaWiki is a superb product. I highly recommended trying it.
MoinMoin
MoinMoin is a Wiki implementation written in Python, derived from an earlier implementation called PikiPiki. MoinMoin's ease of installation is moderate: it's not as hard to install as TWiki, but is not very straightforward either, requiring users to move files around on the hard disk.
The MoinMoin syntax is rich. Several documents included in the site of the
default distribution describe it well. MoinMoin supports internationalization,
but you need to set the default page encoding to UTF-8 first. It also has
i18n-ized page names, but encodes them in a _HH notation, which
makes them unusable in the browser's location bar.
MoinMoin has a nice collection of extensions, but not as many as TWiki. MoinMoin seems like a nice and solid Wiki. My problem with it is that it seems to fall between the chairs of the competition: it isn't as powerful and extensible as TWiki; it isn't as easy to set up as Kwiki, PmWiki, or MediaWiki; and its syntax is not as rich as MediaWiki's (lacking mathematical notation, for example). I would first consider using something else instead.
UseModWiki
UseModWiki is a Wiki engine written in Perl. Anecdotally, Wikipedia used this first before re-implementing their current engine. Other sites also use UseModWiki.
UseModWiki is very simple to set up and upgrade. It has a rich syntax, and allows for arbitrary characters in page names. It also supports using some HTML tags instead of the WikiWiki markup. It has other nice features, including search, a list of recent changes, and page history.
For simple Wikis, UseModWiki is a very good choice. I recommend choosing between it and PmWiki based on the feature list of both Wikis.
PhpWiki
PhpWiki is a Wiki written in PHP that uses a database (supporting popular implementations such MySQL and PostgreSQL). It is easy to set up. As opposed to MediaWiki, it can use an optional database prefix, allowing hosting more than one such Wiki using the same database.
PhpWiki supports rich and powerful text formatting rules that also support some rudimentary HTML tags. It supports most common Wiki features, such as a recent changes list and a search feature. It also supports plugins and skins. PhpWiki has good internationalization in the sense that you can label a page with any sequence of characters. It does not support attachments without any plugins installed, however.
PHP-Wiki seems like a well rounded and useful Wiki, useful for small collaboration Wikis.
Chiq-Chaq
Chiq-Chaq is fairly uncommon, but I review it here because I have had some experience with it. Chiq-Chaq is Hebrew slang for "quickly," giving the name a similar meaning to WikiWiki. The Chiq-Chaq installation is quite complicated but doable.
Chiq-Chaq has relatively good internationalization, with words separated by underscores as Wiki links. However, its syntax and conventions are not very sane. The worst thing about it is the fact that it is a JavaScript hell; many pages only display correctly in recent versions of Mozilla and Internet Explorer, leaving out Konqueror and Safari. It is also unreliable and many times reports errors with no apparent reason.
If you need good internationalization, use MediaWiki (or perhaps UseModWiki) instead. Otherwise, you are better off with another Wiki. Avoid Chiq-Chaq.
Conclusion
TWiki is good for team collaboration, as it is powerful and supports attachments. Its lack of localized URLs may make it unsuitable for some teams who might prefer MediaWiki. For Wikis with a lot of rich content, media, and internationalization, and that have their own dedicated databases, MediaWiki is ideal. Its good internationalization makes it necessary for many Wikis that support localized content.
PmWiki, PHP-Wiki, and UseModWiki are good for most regular Wikis; PHP-Wiki may be inappropriate because of its reliance on an SQL database. MoinMoin may be a viable alternative to TWiki or to different Wikis. I wouldn't recommend the other Wikis mentioned here.
Acknowledgements
I'd like to thank Omer Zak for reviewing a draft of this article and giving important comments. I also would like to thank my editor chromatic for his editorial assistance. I also want to thank many people on the IRC who answered questions I had regarding the various Wiki implementations.
is a software professional, who has been experimenting with programming since 1987 and with various UNIX technologies since 1996. He graduated from the Technion with a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering, and has been heavily involved as a Linux and open source user, developer, and advocate.
His most successful project so far was Freecell Solver, but he also headed several other projects, and contributed to other projects such as Perl 5, Subversion, and the GIMP.
Return to ONLamp.com
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 38 of 38.
-
Wiki
2007-04-03 14:45:42 infoterm [Reply | View]
Found an interesting article..all interested may find it at
- http://wiki-implementations.blogspot.com/
Post your comments here so I can know your opinions.. Thanks
-
JSPWiki
2006-10-06 18:49:16 pconrad0 [Reply | View]
I've had a good experience with running JSPWiki (http://www.jspwiki.org) inside an instance of Tomcat.
Since relatively few commerical hosting sites provide JSP or Servlet support (as compared with PHP support), this may not be a mainstream solution---but since I teach a Java Servlet based web development course, I already have a running Tomcat installation, so it was a good fit for me.
It can be configured to use a MySQL database for username/passwords, but the default install doesn't require it---it implements its own user database, storing the data in an XML file.
-
Tiddlywiki
2006-08-20 15:27:18 simon_hibbs [Reply | View]
I can't believe nobody's mentioned Tiddlywiki yet:
http://www.tiddlywiki.com/
It's a completely standalone wiki ina single HTML file. It performs this magic by embedding javascript directly into the file, which provides all the functionality.
Ok so this approach has it's limitations, but think about it. A single HTML file. You don't even need a server or database, just open it up in any browser and off you go. There are a number of sites powered by it, and an active macro and plugin development comunity.
-
Wiki engines with watch and notify?
2006-03-24 09:34:09 djstates [Reply | View]
Do any of the wiki engines implement "watch" functions that would allow me to automatically receive an email notice anytime a "watched" page was modified? Also, how about notification lists - a list of users that I specify who will automatically receive a notification email anytime I edit a page.
David -
Wiki engines with watch and notify?
2006-04-27 08:34:20 Srin [Reply | View]
MediaWiki has built in functionality to 'Watch Pages." -
Wiki engines with watch and notify?
2006-03-25 01:44:57 shlomif [Reply | View]
Well, MediaWiki can generate RSS feeds for the entire wiki and possibly also for the user's watched pages. You can use the rss2email program to send an E-mail notification based on this RSS feed.
And naturally, if you want you can instruct rss2email to send the notification to a forward that will forward it to several addresses.
-
MoinMoin - uncluttered, very nice
2005-12-02 11:53:12 pblb [Reply | View]
I really like MoinMoin for having a very uncluttered look. It makes it perfect for sites where you want to maximize the ease with which people can read the text. The 'modern' style (now default) limits wiki buttons to small areas at the top and bottom of the page - very nice.
Installation is also not difficult at all.
And, there is something nice about the pages being kept in plain text - so you can easily get to them in case of (unlikely!) disaster.
-
MediaWiki 1.4 has table prefixes
2005-03-10 11:57:35 Bytesmiths [Reply | View]
I've been watching MediaWiki for some time, and whined to the developers about the lack of database table prefixes. I'm sure it wasn't my influence alone, but within a month, they were there in the 1.4 beta! I've been using several of the betas since, with excellent results -- they are very stable. There are two active mailing lists -- one for users, one for developers -- and the main developers are very accessible.
MediaWiki has a nice extension mechanism where you register a PHP callback with a unique HTML-style tag. Then it delivers whatever is within the tag-/tag pair to your callback, which then produces HTML. This is hobbled by multiple caching mechanisms that essentially make dynamic content impossible. For example, I implemented a Unix fortune(6) extension: http://www.islandseeds.org/wiki/Test:Fortune -- it was very simple to do, but it only shows the same fortune over and over! There needs to be a mechanism for disabling or manipulating caching.
Otherwise, I'm quite pleased with MediaWiki, and am going to jump on the non-beta 1.4 release the instant it happens. (Currently running beta 5)
(Bragging rights: I worked with Ward Cunningham in the '80's at Tektronix Laboratories before he invented the Wiki concept. Ward is an amazingly prolific 'idea generator!' Anyone interested in wiki philosophy needs to visit his site at http://www.c2.com -- the ORIGINAL wiki, still running!)
-
twiki
2004-12-24 16:52:59 sozin [Reply | View]
been administering twiki at my workplace for three months, and used it at my old job for several years. Its completely changed the documentation culture at my shop -- you go into meetings, and see people writing up the meeting notes in real time!
With respect to user authentication, one nice feature Twiki supports (for windows) is NTLM based authentication, so users never even have to "log in" per se to the wiki -- the domain\user name in Windows is mapped over to the WikiName seamlessly. Really nice.
-
handling overlapping/simultaneous page edits
2004-11-08 17:26:15 idallen [Reply | View]
Something I wanted to know for all your examples was:
Which Wikis detect overlapping/simultaneous edits of pages?
The last time I tried Kwiki, it didn't. One person could start to edit a
page, a second person could start, edit, and end the edit, then the first
person would save and the second person's changes would be completely
wiped out with no warning. "Last person to save, wins."
I also echo the comment by the person who said you should use your
evaluation criteria for *all* your wikis examined. You often only
mentioned one or two of the criteria, and you don't quantify how
well each wiki rated for each one. Good start! More details!
-
handling overlapping/simultaneous page edits
2004-11-10 09:55:40 roberthanson1 [Reply | View]
TWiki accomplishes this by locking a page when you edit it. The page is unlocked when the person editing it saves their changes. If a user locks a page, and never unlocks it, it will automatically unlock in an hour (or something like that). There should also be some options to tweak this behavior.
-
Dokuwiki
2004-11-08 15:43:07 knutstaring [Reply | View]
I've found Dokuwiki very appealing, simple to set up without a database, standards compliant, and with datafiles that are readable outside the Wiki. It automatically generates TOCs for pages, and looks more appealing out of the box than UseMod and PmWiki.
-
TikiWiki
2004-11-08 02:25:44 gmuslera [Reply | View]
TikiWiki is not just a wiki engine, but wiki is one of its main features, along with forums, articles, image/file galleries and a lot more.
But as just a wiki, it complies with most of the points of your evaluation criterias:
- Installation: is easier as superuser, but doable for non-privileged users too (there is a doc in the site on how to install it in ftp-only access sites). It uses mysql, postgres, oracle, etc databases, and there are some recipes for prefixing the tables. But installation is not as trivial as other wiki engines, and still have some high space requirements for full installation
- Version control: it have versioning of wiki pages, and see differences between any two versions of a page (at least in 1.9 version, in previous you can see the diff between any version and the last one)
- Markup: Maybe is not as rich at it could be the TWiki one, but is powerful enough, and you can enable the html tags entry, and you can improve it a bit more with plugins.
- Attachments: yes, it supports file/image attachments, and with plugins even some integration with other Tikiwiki features.
- User and permissions: support groups of users (an user can belong to several groups even), and fine-grained permissions for that groups (i.e. a certain group can edit wiki pages, another can rename, and a wiki page can only be seen another one).
- Third-party extensions: plugins are the clasical extension that can be easily provided/programmed. There next version (in cvs right now) will have a repository for dinamically installable extensions,
- Internationalization and Localisation: You can select the charset of wiki page names, from english-only charset to full utf-8 chars names. You can also have languages attached to wiki pages and show your user's language version of the wiki page.
- Unique features: user management/permissions, Illustrations (ok, exist a sort of it with i.e. a TWiki plugin), and the other non-wiki features of the program (if i just need wiki is ok, but what about nested comments on pages? and full forums? file/image galleries? slashdot-like articles? "etc?" and all with the same user base/integrated permissions?).
-
Feature comparison table?
2004-11-08 02:25:37 peteferne [Reply | View]
Having outlined your evaluation criteria you then fail to address them for many of the wikis e.g. which of the wikis listed support user permissions?
It would be great if you could supplement the article with a feature comparison table based on your evaluation criteria.
TIA
--
petef -
Feature comparison table?
2004-11-10 03:18:23 milky [Reply | View]
There exists such a feature comparison table, but it is not all too complete; and if it helps at all with the decision is a different question:
WikiFeatures:WikiEngine
-
Oddmuse Wiki + Correction regarding PHP-Wiki
2004-11-07 13:27:38 shlomif [Reply | View]
Oddmuse is a fork of UseModWiki which has seen many improvements. It may be a good idea to check it out.
Other than that, it seems PHP-Wiki can use .dbm files instead of an SQL database.
-
Application wikis
2004-11-07 01:38:19 ledanois [Reply | View]
Thanks for the overview!
You limited your list of candidats based on the technology they are implemented with. I suppose you did this since you expect to mess around with the implementation and therefore needed an implementation that used a technology you know about. What I suggest however, is for you to try the solutoin called XWiki (http://xwiki.org). XWiki is an open source Java wiki, but its furthermore a so-called application wiki. That means that you can do quite advanced functionality additions and modifications using simple velocity based scripting (super simple) form within the wiki interface. Want to change the look and feel? Just use the wiki interface to override the CSS classes and upload new pictures if you need to.
If you want to try XWiki you can do so (for free) on the xwiki.com site.
-
QwikiWiki
2004-11-06 10:20:36 mwalker [Reply | View]
I wanted a small, easy-to-set-up, wiki, and so I've been playing around with QwikiWiki (http://qwikiwiki.sourceforge.net). It's very small, doesn't use a big database, and it's convenient to use for my own humble purposes. It requires a web server and PHP. I dropped it into my own folder on my ISP and it works just fine.
-
Wrong PhpWiki conclusion
2004-11-05 18:49:55 rurban [Reply | View]
The comments about PhpWiki offering only SQL database backends is just plain wrong.
PhpWiki in fact offers the most backends of all available wiki engines:
flatfile, cvs, dba and of course SQL databases via Pear::DB or ADODB. The default is dba. Wonder how many minutes the author spent with it.
-
Wiki in ASP
2004-11-05 14:12:43 Hervé [Reply | View]
If your are not very lucky and must use ASP, try OpenWiki :
http://www.openwiki.com/
-
Web Collaborator
2004-11-05 13:59:32 cardmagic [Reply | View]
Try Web Collaborator if you need a quick wiki area for a personal project. All you need to do to setup a wiki is a list of email addresses of the collaborators.
-
Instiki
2004-11-05 08:58:57 OhReally1 [Reply | View]
I've found Instiki to be the easiest wiki wiki to setup - especially on OSX. It's written in Ruby, so you'll have to install Ruby first if you haven't already (on OSX the install package comes with the latest version of Ruby, so there are no worries on OSX).
Instiki also allows you to export pdf, TeX or http.
Here's a list of features:Included
* No dependencies: Ships with an embedded webserver (WEBrick)
* Regular expression search: Find deep stuff really fast
* Revisions: Follow the changes on every page from birth or rollback a revision
* Export to HTML or markup in a zip: Take the entire wiki home with you
* RSS feeds: Track recently revised pages by headlines or content
* Multiple webs: Create separate wikis with their own namespace
* Password-protected webs
* Authors: Each revision is associated with an authorwho wrote what?
* Reference tracker: Which other pages are pointing to the current?
* Speed: Uses Madeleine for persistence (all pages are in memory)
* Three choices for markup: Textile (Red Cloth), Markdown (Blue Cloth), RDoc
* Internationalization: Write Camel Case Wiki Words in all Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, or Armenian characters or Bracket Style Wiki Words in any language.
* Specialization: Add rules to the stylesheet to change the look entirely or just pick one of the predefined colors.
* Keyboard Shortcuts: ALT+E for edit page, etc.
-
TikiWiki
2004-11-05 08:29:25 nirwana [Reply | View]
Hi,
One Wiki that I missed in this review is TikiWiki. To me that project looks like a big Wiki-based CMS and I would have liked a review of a current version of that CMS.
BTW, I found it pretty hard installing a MediaWiki-installation to a shared hosting-account. It is possible, but at the time of installation the only way the creators thought of was installing it using shellscripts (where I only have access to FTP and MySQL).
-
Spam
2004-11-05 06:53:19 chneukirchen [Reply | View]
And which one gets least wikispam in the default install? UseMod is pretty bad at that...
-
non open-source alternatives
2004-11-05 05:44:55 roseman [Reply | View]
Good article - thanks. It's probably worth mentioning that there are closed source alternatives out there. The open sources ones are great, but not for everyone.
The ProjectForum wiki that I'm involved with for example, is so easy to setup that anyone can do it - forget setting up databases, or even knowing what language the thing is written in. The better open source ones definitely appeal to techies, but some others may be more appropriate for a general audience - really easy to install (or use a hosted service), and feature sets that target regular users.
We gets lots of people who look at the open source ones and then pick ProjectForum; at the same time we'll sometimes recommend one of the open source ones to people who have looked at our stuff first. It's all about finding the right match for peoples' needs. -
non open-source alternatives
2004-11-05 08:33:00 nirwana [Reply | View]
If you consider commercial Wiki-implementations you could dedicate a special article about them, I guess.
JotSpot is the last one I heard of to get some raves in this area. -
non open-source alternatives
2004-11-09 19:50:40 mcannon [Reply | View]
Confluence gets a lot of raves too - and the licensing is Open Source friendly, even if the code isn't under an OSI license.
Evaluate your wiki needs like everything else I suppose - based on features, not license.
m
-
not a P wiki
2004-11-05 02:24:39 riffraff [Reply | View]
Nice article, even if not so rich of details.
Anyway, give that you checked all P languages let me plug Instiki, a wiki written in ruby wich I really like.
It's installation is super simple, download and run instiki.rb (it come with it's own webserver and storage engine), features multiple markup systems (textile and markdown are the most known), *wikinames* and pages can be expressed in unicode, it has a good revision system, RSS feeds, authentication, and the ability to export sections of the wiki in LaTeX or pdf. Give it a try.
-
instiki
2004-11-04 23:53:20 look_to_windward [Reply | View]
You missed out instiki
http://www.instiki.org
cross platform and written in ruby.
-
MediaWiki table prefixes
2004-11-04 18:21:17 BrionVibber [Reply | View]
Use of a table prefix is indeed not yet supported in the current 1.3 release of MediaWiki, but will be available in 1.4, which we should have out by the end of the year. (This release will also support a PostgreSQL backend.)
-
SubWiki
2004-11-04 18:18:49 logic [Reply | View]
An alternative for folks looking for a relatively simple, version-controlled wiki without a lot of fluff might be interested in looking at SubWiki, based on the Subversion version control system:
Installation isn't quite for the faint of heart yet, but if you're familiar with Python and Subversion, you'll be right at home.





It has a very extensible backend that includes and interface for integrating web services.