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
>
>