[Discuss] Opinions needed: wiki software

[Greg Rundlett (freephile)]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Bill Horne <bill at horne.net> wrote:

> On 3/11/2013 10:06 AM, Peter Jalajas wrote:
>
>> Can you give us a sense of the scale and complexity of their needs?
>>
>>
> I guess some more info won't hurt: the site is http://www.big-8.org/ . It
> is hosted on a server
> owned by the late Alexander Bartolich, who was the Chairman of the Big-8
> Board, of which
> I'm a member. The site has remained online through the kindness of his
> heirs, but of
> course that can't continue forever, and updating the software or deleting
> users or
> doing other things that require root access will necessitate moving it to
> another server
> at some point.
>
> You typically won't need root privileges to maintain your MediaWiki.  SSH
access *is* useful so that you can run various CLI maintenance scripts that
are distributed with mediawiki.  You do need bureaucrat privileges and it
looks like there are many users who have that level.


> The mysqldump output from the existing db is about 22MB in size, so this
> isn't a very large
> site. I want to be sure that I make the best choice for its replacement,
> and that's why
> I'm posting these questions to the BLU. This is, of course, the classic
> "point of pain"
> debate: do I introduce a new paradigm and re-educate the users, or try to
> make the
> old one fit?
>

There are lots of tools that convert wikis, but there aren't any tools to
convert users :-)  I think it's important to consider how well the users
like the syntax and system they've grown accustomed to.  While it's easy to
create web pages in Google Sites, it's not the same as using wiki markup -
which is far more powerful.  (Contrary to some pundits, wiki is not the
Hawaiian word for chaos.  Wiki is the Hawaiian word for "quick".)   With
wiki markup, I can create richly formatted articles; grouped, tagged and
version controlled; that link to each other, in a blink of an eye.

It is very important to understand that not all wikis share the same
syntax.  Actually wikis each seem to have their own variety of syntax.
 Wiki users are usually pretty fussy about using a different wiki because
of this.  I might suggest that some of the online hosting environments
might be a good solution, except that of course there will be a fee
involved to make it (sections) private.  I'm talking about sites like wikia


>
> So the first question is "How much effort will it take to move the
> existing wiki"?
> I installed Mediawiki 1.20 on a test machine with no problems. If we're
> going to keep
> using Mediawiki, I need to move the data.
>
>  * Is there a way to transfer the content when the old site is on v
>    1.18 of
>    Mediawiki and the current version is 1.20? I tried to do it via an SQL
>    dump, but that didn't work, so I'm looking for a way to "roll" the db
>    into the new release.  I don't want to backport the new install to v1.18
>    unless that's the only option.
>

No, you can't dump a 1.18 release into a 1.20 wiki.  Upgrade in-place, then
transfer everything.  Or, copy the code and database to the new environment
and you'll be free to upgrade from there.  See
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Moving_a_wiki


>
>  * Can I use the "export" and "import" options of Mediawiki to move
>    all the pages over? I tried /that/, and had mixed success: the "splash"
>    page didn't change, although it looks like the documents were moved.
>

Import / export can work, especially if you're trying to grab some small
amount of content and import it into a different wiki.  But it's not the
best solution for migrating a whole wiki.  You have to be concerned about
the templates, extensions etc. plus the configuration (in
LocalSettings.php) that make your wiki installation what it is.

>
> Next up on the list is the question "If not Mediawiki, then what"?
>
>  * Can other wiki packages import the XML-formatted data that I
>    exported from the old server? Which ones?
>

There are other systems and tools that can import MediaWiki's XML export.
 At http://www.wikimatrix.org/ you can get a quick view of various wikis.
 There is also http://www.cmsmatrix.org/ to compare Content Management
Systems.  I  think if your members are comfortable with using a new system,
*especially* if there is a champion for that new platform, then you *might*
have a successful migration.

 * Are there more appropriate systems, wiki or other, that would
>    be a better fit for a small volunteer organization with a limited
>    number of technical members?
>

I think the Achilles heel of MediaWiki  is that you need to have a
technical member who will setup, configure, install extensions, upgrade,
create templates, and generally do stuff to make the wiki easy to use for
all the other folks.  Plus, that person would train people on how to use
the wiki.  Without that technical person, a hosted solution starts to make
a lot more sense.  The differentiator in comparing a well-oiled wiki v. a
CMS is basically the nature of the content and what people need out of the
system.  With the dynamic pages extension and semantic media wiki, wikis
become a content database that ordinary users have access to.  This is
great for things like inventories and reporting, or creating relationships.
 CMSes can certainly be easier to use for the WYSIWYG user, but they can be
just as complex to setup, configure, administer, train etc.  Again, hosted
options like Wordpress.com may be a good bet if your group decides to adopt
a new system.

Best regards,

Greg Rundlett
founder
eQuality Technology
http://eQuality-Tech.com