Limited info and experience. But I think the idea behind a Wiki is that it will adapt itself to various needs, and if it doesn't you just bend and fold it.
When we were working on the Tsunami relief effort, we used three different kinds of Wiki engines to get our work going. The main one was the standard MediaWiki, but apart from that we used engines like SocialText and ProcessWiki, which had specific purposes. ProcessWiki for instance is designed to aid process documentation at a later stage. SocialText was extremely functional to allow a high level of interaction between users, and to allocate specific fields to teams.
But apart from this rather non-techie interpretation, I really wouldn't know. But man.. I am in a talkative mood. *Grin*
Ok, that explains much of it. What I thought that it would be the relative effortlessness in developing a wiki or something. Every programmer who wants to try their teeth on a new programming language goes ahead to write a wiki using that language :)
SocialText and ProcessWiki are new to me. Had been trying some wikis recently and found that instiki and dokuwiki are quite good. But I am just overwhelmed by the sheer number of wiki software... I think someone like me who just needs to setup a wiki for their projects will need to do a good amount of experimentation.
Specifically speaking neither socialtext nor processwiki are engines, but extremely modified products. Mediawiki has a lot of issues that made us terribly unhappy because it works on a 'storage of knowledge' basis, as opposed to processwiki, which accepts a more dynamic usage of the data. Because I am involved in some amount of Process Documentation (typically involves tracing genesis of idea, team, timelines, obstacles and various levels and stakeholder perspectives), an engine like processwiki was pretty useful.
The way I see it, even Wiki 'development' has gone into the supposedly non-techie turf. You should see the way we marauded the engine into accepting our needs. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 11:59 am (UTC)When we were working on the Tsunami relief effort, we used three different kinds of Wiki engines to get our work going. The main one was the standard MediaWiki, but apart from that we used engines like SocialText and ProcessWiki, which had specific purposes. ProcessWiki for instance is designed to aid process documentation at a later stage. SocialText was extremely functional to allow a high level of interaction between users, and to allocate specific fields to teams.
But apart from this rather non-techie interpretation, I really wouldn't know. But man.. I am in a talkative mood. *Grin*
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 12:35 pm (UTC)SocialText and ProcessWiki are new to me. Had been trying some wikis recently and found that instiki and dokuwiki are quite good. But I am just overwhelmed by the sheer number of wiki software... I think someone like me who just needs to setup a wiki for their projects will need to do a good amount of experimentation.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 12:41 pm (UTC)The way I see it, even Wiki 'development' has gone into the supposedly non-techie turf. You should see the way we marauded the engine into accepting our needs. :)
Go forth and wikify. (Or, something like that)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 01:22 pm (UTC)Doing it, doing it :)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-09 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-10 05:03 am (UTC)