Agreed! There are, however, many choices to be made... like what wiki system to use.
There are a *lot* of Wiki systems available. http://www.wikimatrix.org/ lists 129(!!) different wiki systems. Here's a comparison of a few of them: http://www.wikimatrix.org/compare/DokuWiki+MediaWiki+MoinMoin+PmWiki+Tiki-Wiki-CMS-Groupware+Zwiki - By far the biggest, of course, is MediaWiki (same software as Wikipedia). It has several obvious advantages. One is that some free wiki hosting <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_farms>sites use it. Another is that many people already know its syntax. - DokuWiki <http://www.dokuwiki.org/dokuwiki> is specifically intended for collaborative construction of structured documentation, which sounds like what we need. However, a disadvantage is that they seem to have gratuitiously chosen different syntaxes for some things, adding unnecessary learning curve for all editors. - MoinMoin <http://moinmo.in/> is apparently written in Python (rather than PHP), which appeals to me. - PmWiki <http://www.pmwiki.org/> has as one of its goals easing content creation ("favor writers over readers"). Is anyone on this list expert at making these kinds of choices? Dave On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Julian Marchant <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is what I'm afraid of. I would be very disappointed if the > > existence of a wiki led people to believe that maintaining > > proper documentation was no longer required. > > > If I may jump in briefly, how exactly would this be a bad thing? If people > feel that it's no longer required, that probably means that it really is no > longer required. In this case, I doubt there is any advantage at all to > having (in your terms) "proper" documentation. > >
