We use PMWiki (http://pmwiki.org/) as our wiki.  It's php based,
stable, open source, has a large community of developers, and it's
easy to configure and work with.  It also has a fairly easy to learn
editor.  Not quite WYSIWG, but doable.

You can also set up a variety of skins for different portions of the
wiki.  I've been able to implement new features fairly quickly and
easily.

Laura

Laura Pope Robbins
Associate Professor/Reference Librarian
Dowling College Library

Phone: 631.244.5023
Fax: 631.244.3374

"A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its
edge."  --Tyrion Lannister in A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin

On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Katie Filbert <filbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Nathan Tallman <ntall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's what I'm worried about with MediaWiki. The syntax used when creating
>> and editing pages isn't intuitive and I'm afraid people won't want to use
>> it. I was hoping someone would recommend a wiki with more of a WYSIWYG type
>> of editing interface. Was also hoping to stick with FLOSS, but perhaps I
>> should at least peak at Confluence.
>>
>
> It's still experimental but the Wikimedia Foundation is developing a visual
> WYSIWYG type editor.
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor:Sandbox (try it)
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VisualEditor
>
> The goal is to make it easier to edit without the wiki syntax.  There still
> will be an "advanced" edit option so that people can still use markup if
> they want.
>
> Cheers,
> Katie Filbert
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for the input,
>> Nathan
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Nate Vack <njv...@wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> If you're expecting "everyone" to create and edit pages,
>>> it will be very hard to get widespread adoption with it.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Katie Filbert
> Board member, Wikimedia District of Columbia
> http://wikimediadc.org
> filbe...@gmail.com
> @filbertkm / @wikimediadc

Reply via email to