Difference between revisions of "Bwiki"
(→Interesting) |
m (→To b or not 2 b) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
• I really like the appearance, although the unmistakable resemblance to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia ]has both good and bad connotations. | • I really like the appearance, although the unmistakable resemblance to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia ]has both good and bad connotations. | ||
| − | • Setting it up was | + | • Setting it up was harder than you would expect from the documentation. Different back end, scripting language and database than I prefer, but it<nowiki>’</nowiki>s all running now. |
• The real deal breaker may be the editor (that everyone who contributes or edits has to use) | • The real deal breaker may be the editor (that everyone who contributes or edits has to use) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
===Likes=== | ===Likes=== | ||
| − | + | * Looks good | |
| − | + | * The interface is familiar to anyone who uses Wikipedia | |
===Dislikes / Concerns=== | ===Dislikes / Concerns=== | ||
| − | + | * Editor (used for creating and changing content) is not WYSIWYM (What you see is what you meant) | |
| − | + | * I am less familiar with the underlying programming language (PHP) and Database (MySQL), than with the other wiki (.NET and SQL Server). | |
| − | + | * A few anomalies running under Windows/IIS. There is better if support if you are running Linux/Apache. | |
| − | + | * Documentation is sprawled over several sites (all related to WikiMedia, but all in transition). | |
===Interesting=== | ===Interesting=== | ||
| − | + | * Strong resemblance to Wikipedia may inspire (unknown) responses | |
| − | + | * Challenging Editor interface may deter frivolous contributions | |
| − | + | * Has a "discussion" feature which is a less formal area where contributors can discuss individual articles. (Each page is basically and article). | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
• This system does not have integrated features like blogs, forums as well as wikis. We may not need those other features. | • This system does not have integrated features like blogs, forums as well as wikis. We may not need those other features. | ||
[[category:bwiki]] | [[category:bwiki]] | ||
Revision as of 10:12, 7 August 2006
To b or not 2 b
I have installed and configured MediaWiki (same software as is used for Wikipedia). After a couple of days with it ...
• I really like the appearance, although the unmistakable resemblance to Wikipedia has both good and bad connotations.
• Setting it up was harder than you would expect from the documentation. Different back end, scripting language and database than I prefer, but it’s all running now.
• The real deal breaker may be the editor (that everyone who contributes or edits has to use)
• Readers get to enjoy the overall interface which is pretty good, but contributors have to learn a somewhat non-intuitive interface.
http://toonz.ca/bwiki/
Let’s refer to it as the bwiki site for now.
Likes
- Looks good
- The interface is familiar to anyone who uses Wikipedia
Dislikes / Concerns
- Editor (used for creating and changing content) is not WYSIWYM (What you see is what you meant)
- I am less familiar with the underlying programming language (PHP) and Database (MySQL), than with the other wiki (.NET and SQL Server).
- A few anomalies running under Windows/IIS. There is better if support if you are running Linux/Apache.
- Documentation is sprawled over several sites (all related to WikiMedia, but all in transition).
Interesting
- Strong resemblance to Wikipedia may inspire (unknown) responses
- Challenging Editor interface may deter frivolous contributions
- Has a "discussion" feature which is a less formal area where contributors can discuss individual articles. (Each page is basically and article).
• This system does not have integrated features like blogs, forums as well as wikis. We may not need those other features.