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 iPhone
On 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