1 (edited by ht-never 2012-08-08 09:51:34)

Topic: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

This tipic was updated with new ideas... Follow the thread

--------------------------------- POST #1 ---------------------------------------------------
As parasti said here, DokuWiki isn't the best WikiSoftware of ever. I think Neverball is a great project, and I also want to help with a beautifull wiki. DokuWiki is very poor of functionalities, visual appeal, etc.

Could we install MediaWiki, instead, that is a very usefull software?
It is the Wikipedia's software and he is all we need to work.

parasti wrote:

What I'm thinking of is a "Nevertable for level sets", where people upload their sets and have them rated and commented upon. It's not so important that it be on the official site, but it's important that it be seen as the place to go for custom levels.

Working with MediaWiki, we can have a page for each levelset, you can add categories, store files (such as packages, that now are placed in third-part servers), and you can seriously encorage the partecipation of other people.

~DEV

2

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

Have a look here, I created a draft on wikinet.

~DEV

3

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

I won't have internet connection most of the time for the next 2~3 weeks.
I can take care of installation of mediawiki on the server when I come back.
Maybe I would try a converter from dokuwiki to mediawiki syntax, that can help : http://www.staerk.de/thorsten/Software/Mediasyntax

4 (edited by Cheeseness 2012-08-08 08:18:58)

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

I don't know if MediaWiki is really a good way to go. At the end of the day, it suffers the same problems that we have with DocuWiki (that, for people who aren't familiar with it, it's not particularly intuitive and appears cumbersome).

In case you weren't aware, ht-never, DocuWiki can already have pages for each set, do categories, file attachments, etc., and we can theme it up if that really is an issue (DocuWiki has things called templates for that sort of stuff).

I think it'd be worth making sure we a) have solid reasons for migrating, and b) have a number of people who are comfortable with the change before moving forwards. IMO, we'd be in a worse position than we are now if we migrated to a new wiki and only had one person who was willing to edit it.

I'm not specifically against the idea of using MediaWiki (in fact, I may even have suggested it in the past), I just don't think it's a good idea to plough forward unless we can demonstrate that it's a good idea that has at least a couple of people in favour of it. At the moment, I don't know that we have that.



P.S. I also think that if we were going to end up creating some sort of Neverball level repository that it would probably be better to invest effort there and plan a wiki migration to coincide so as to reduce any wasted effort.

Cheese
==========
cheesetalks.net

5

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

1) For example, I'm more confortable using MediaWiki. I think many people edited some Wikipedia's page before today, so I think a Wikipedia-like interface will enhance the partecipation.

2) MediaWiki is very cleaner than doku, it has a better graphics

3) I know that DokuWiki can have categories, but I also know that MediaWiki can easily have Templates, Project, Portals, namespaces, categories, automatic categories and some other usefull stuff

4) ~DEV

~DEV

6

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

ht-never wrote:

1) For example, I'm more confortable using MediaWiki. I think many people edited some Wikipedia's page before today, so I think a Wikipedia-like interface will enhance the partecipation.

How many people on the internet have edited Wikipedia is irrelevant. How many people who are Neverball players and/or existing members of the Neverball community is much more important at this point.

ht-never wrote:

2) MediaWiki is very cleaner than doku, it has a better graphics

Both systems are customisable. Our DocuWiki installation hasn't been customised at all. Before saying this is an advantage of MediaWiki over DocuWiki, we need to first need to understand what options we have with what we're using.

ht-never wrote:

3) I know that DokuWiki can have categories, but I also know that MediaWiki can easily have Templates, Project, Portals, namespaces, categories, automatic categories and some other usefull stuff

DocuWiki also has categories, namespaces, and templates. Equivalents to projects and portals in MediaWiki are achievable using normal wiki pages, IMO.

ht-never wrote:

4) ~DEV

DEV

Cheese
==========
cheesetalks.net

7 (edited by parasti 2012-08-08 16:25:46)

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

It is no secret that I dislike DokuWiki. I'm sure it is extremely capable and can do everything and more than what MediaWiki does, but I just find it really tedious to navigate around and do basic tasks in DokuWiki. Much of it is plain non-intuitive layout, but there are also some absurdities, like viewing page changes, where an obvious feature like "show a diff of this change" is non-existent and instead you prominently have a "show a diff to current version", which I'm having a hard time finding a use for. Edit: BTW, the fact that DokuWiki can be customized to match MediaWiki in look and features shouldn't really be taken as an excuse for its shortcomings. It assumes there to be someone who's willing to do the customization. In all likelihood there isn't.

That said, I don't want to come across as "passionate" about this, because actually I don't really care. I never edited the wiki and there is a small chance that I will even if it used different wiki software. I'm not even convinced that we need a wiki.

8

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

parasti wrote:

I'm not even convinced that we need a wiki.

If we implemente the system we are discussion on the other post, we really don't need a wiki

~DEV

9 (edited by Cheeseness 2012-08-08 21:50:36)

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

parasti wrote:

Edit: BTW, the fact that DokuWiki can be customized to match MediaWiki in look and features shouldn't really be taken as an excuse for its shortcomings.

I was highlighting it as a shortcoming of the process of comparing the two. I personally dislike DocuWiki, but saying that recommending an alternative without first thoroughly investigating its capacity would be pretty sloppy.

MediaWiki itself will likely need a degree of work (vanilla MediaWiki's look and feel isn't particularly exciting), so it's not like implementing an alternative to DocuWiki is obviously less effort than polishing up DocuWiki itself.

parasti wrote:

That said, I don't want to come across as "passionate" about this, because actually I don't really care. I never edited the wiki and there is a small chance that I will even if it used different wiki software.

I'm more or less in the same boat - I just prefer well thought out and rationalised plans over less thorough ones wink

parasti wrote:

I'm not even convinced that we need a wiki.

This has been my opinion for a long time (I recall suggesting a while back that we consolidate the wiki with the Trac wiki to get rid of it, but that wasn't well received :b  ).

Cheese
==========
cheesetalks.net

10

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

Hey, I just noticed that we've switched to docuwiki.
herp-derp!
Also noticing the several page of spam.

Shino, is it possible to delete user accounts from an admin role?
Challengespace yeard has removed a few but noted the username that created them.
I won't erase those until someone (you I guess) has a chance to delete those users.

Thanks!

11

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

We haven't switched to dokuwiki, I just installed latest update which change the style.

That's right some spam pages were removed (actually, not totally removed, edited to keep trace of it as you mention). I just removed them completely to clean-up and no user accounts are associated, this spam came from a time before I disabled non-authenticated user editing.

12

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

Oh yeah, doh.
thanks for cleaning those up. There's an error message on the wiki now: "No ACL setup yet! Denying access to everyone."

13

Re: MediaWiki vs DokuWiki

Sorry, I've done a mistake while cleaning up. It should be fixed now.