Bwiki

Line 4:

• I really like the appearance, although the unmistakable resemblance to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia ]has both good and bad connotations.

• Setting it up was ~~a bit of a chore~~. Different back end, scripting language and database than I prefer, but it<nowiki>’</nowiki>s all running now.

• Setting it up was harder than you would expect from the documentation. Different back end, scripting language and database than I prefer, but it<nowiki>’</nowiki>s all running now.

• The real deal breaker may be the editor (that everyone who contributes or edits has to use)

Line 13:

===Likes===

• Looks good

* Looks good

• The interface is familiar to anyone who uses Wikipedia

* The interface is familiar to anyone who uses Wikipedia

===Dislikes / Concerns===

* Editor (used for creating and changing content) is not WYSIWYM (What you see is what you meant)

• Editor (used for creating and changing content) is not WYSIWYM (What you see is what you meant)

* I am less familiar with the underlying programming language (PHP) and Database (MySQL), than with the other wiki (.NET and SQL Server).

* A few anomalies running under Windows/IIS. There is better if support if you are running Linux/Apache.

• I am less familiar with the underlying programming language (PHP) and Database (MySQL), than with the other wiki (.NET and SQL Server).

* Documentation is sprawled over several sites (all related to WikiMedia, but all in transition).

===Interesting===

* Strong resemblance to Wikipedia may inspire (unknown) responses

• Strong resemblance to Wikipedia may inspire (unknown) responses

* Challenging Editor interface may deter frivolous contributions

* Has a "discussion" feature which is a less formal area where contributors can discuss individual articles. (Each page is basically and article).

• Challenging Editor interface may deter frivolous contributions

• Has a "discussion" feature which is a less formal area where contributors can discuss individual articles. (Each page is basically and article).

• This system does not have integrated features like blogs, forums as well as wikis. We may not need those other features.

[[category:bwiki]]

Bwiki: Difference between revisions

ST (talk | contribs)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 • I really like the appearance, although the unmistakable resemblance to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia ]has both good and bad connotations.
-• Setting it up was a bit of a chore. Different back end, scripting language and database than I prefer, but it<nowiki>’</nowiki>s all running now.
+• Setting it up was harder than you would expect from the documentation. Different back end, scripting language and database than I prefer, but it<nowiki>’</nowiki>s all running now.
 • The real deal breaker may be the editor (that everyone who contributes or edits has to use)
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ===Likes===
-• Looks good
+* Looks good
-• The interface is familiar to anyone who uses Wikipedia
+* The interface is familiar to anyone who uses Wikipedia
 ===Dislikes / Concerns===
+* Editor (used for creating and changing content) is not WYSIWYM (What you see is what you meant)
-• Editor (used for creating and changing content) is not WYSIWYM (What you see is what you meant)
+* I am less familiar with the underlying programming language (PHP) and Database (MySQL), than  with the other wiki (.NET and SQL Server).
+* A few anomalies running under Windows/IIS. There is better if support if you are running Linux/Apache.
-• I am less familiar with the underlying programming language (PHP) and Database (MySQL), than  with the other wiki (.NET and SQL Server).
+* Documentation is sprawled over several sites (all related to WikiMedia, but all in transition).
 ===Interesting===
+* Strong resemblance to Wikipedia may inspire (unknown) responses
-• Strong resemblance to Wikipedia may inspire (unknown) responses
+* Challenging Editor interface may deter frivolous contributions
+* Has a "discussion" feature which is a less formal area where contributors can discuss individual articles. (Each page is basically and article).
-• Challenging Editor interface may deter frivolous contributions
-• Has a "discussion" feature which is a less formal area where contributors can discuss individual articles. (Each page is basically and article).
 • This system does not have integrated features like blogs, forums as well as wikis. We may not need those other features.
 [[category:bwiki]]