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