nanog mailing list archives
Re: WIKI documentation Software?
From: Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:59:24 -0700
If you intend to fully self host something, the full mediawiki software that runs the back end of wikipedia is suitable. It's entirely composed of BSD/GPL/Apache licensed software. If you have any persons who are competent at administering and customizing stuff on normal LAMP stack servers it should be easy to install and understand. The VisualEditor extension is the same WYSIWYG GUI for editing in browser as is used on full wikipedia today. For an example go to any public wikipedia page and hit 'edit', make some changes but don't save them. https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=mediawiki+visualeditor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:07 AM Brielle <bruns () 2mbit com> wrote:
I personally like Dokuwiki a lot. From a usability standpoint, once you spend a few learning the interface, it’s very simplistic and not overwhelming in features. You can always add extensions for stuff you need that isn’t there out of box. From a technical standpoint, it doesn’t need a database. The entire structure is text files, so it can be run on even a super small VM, and doing backups is as easy as tarballing the data directory. It’s got support for LDAP for authentication too, which might be useful. Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 14, 2020, at 7:24 AM, Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au> wrote: On Sat, 2020-03-14 at 08:07 -0400, Craig wrote:Wanted to ask what WIKI software teams are using to save documentation to / how to's for staff, etc.Like any other software, make a set of requirements and then go looking. The order of those two steps is important, though you're allowed to iterate. Remember to match the requirements to the people who will actually be using the thing, not the people who will be managing it :-) Personally I think the plethora of formatting options in things like Confluence tends to distract people into spending vast amounts of time getting their pages to look just right, that would have been better spent capturing more actual information. Or it makes them avoid adding information because it's too hard, or it takes too long, or it invites odious comparisons with other people's entries. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer () biplane com au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170 Old fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D
Current thread:
- WIKI documentation Software? Craig (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Josh Baird (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Gavin Henry (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Karl Auer (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Brielle (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Bill Woodcock (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Yang Yu (Mar 15)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Grimes, Greg (Mar 15)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Andrew Latham (Mar 15)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Brielle (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Eric Kuhnke (Mar 17)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Josh Baird (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Craig (Mar 14)
- RE: WIKI documentation Software? Ray Orsini (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Anurag Bhatia (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Gavin Henry (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? nanog08 (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Adam Kennedy via NANOG (Mar 14)
- Re: WIKI documentation Software? Billy Crook (Mar 17)