What is Reddit's opinion of
MediaWiki?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ MediaWiki website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
87 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
FYI: You can run a local version of the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia uses on your own computer, copy over any WP infobox templates you like, and set up a full alternate Wikipedia to use for developing your own world.
My summary of the main conclusions of this discussion is:
- It should be easier for potential writing contributors to access the version control system.
- There should be a similarly available list of articles that are felt to be in the most pressing need of update.
- There should be a developer discussion board, also made more available than the current one.
- There are web development and design professionals willing to work on your site. I'm sure that they recognize that updating Erowid would be both a huge societal contribution and a great portfolio piece. Hopefully they'll contact you directly.
- The design, obviously, could use updating and a separate mobile stylesheet.
- The central point, I think, is that an outward-facing, specific, inviting page is needed to engage potential volunteers. If current projects and discussions are on public display, people are much more likely to jump in and contribute. Much of the "dev" stuff, like article renovations and beta stylesheets, could be developed in a piecemeal, version-controlled or wikied system, accessible by those who register and maybe write a short bio. This kind of system is very easy to set up using existing software (MediaWiki is the most obvious choice; Discourse is another good one). It could be hosted on a quarantined system like your Wordpress sites, or even on a separate domain by someone like me. We'd just need your opinions, suggestions, and ultimate approval.
- This kind of project could be grouped with a Kickstarter project to cover the additional resources and time you'd expend (along with some original costs, hopefully).
It's your website, and your approach built Erowid's current success. We just consider this project important and beneficial, and we're eager to contribute. Thanks again!
The website looks to be built with MediaWiki, which is the same software Wikipedia runs on. MediaWiki was actually built and open-sourced by the Wikipedia founders (AKA the Wikimedia Foundation). I've used it myself on occasion, it's a solid piece of software.
Since it runs on MediaWiki, you can just search on Google for anything you don't know how to do. The most common commands for links are the following:
[URL Text] -> Same as Reddit's [Text](URL)
[[Page]] -> It points to an in-wiki link. For example [[Scion]] would point to the Scion class wiki page.
[[Page|Text]] -> Same as before, but you can set a custom text for the link. For example: [[Righteous Fire|The most interesting skill in the game]]
Anything else can be easily found out by googling, but if you got any questions, please ask.
Gamepedia is owned Curse, which is owned by Twitch (which is owned by Amazon) It's only natural that they have some ads for Curse and Twitch on them.
I'm not sure how its "messier" than Wikipedia either. Both Gamepedia's wikis and Wikipedia run on Mediawiki. The only difference is that Gamepedia modified the interface to be Minecraft-themed. They have the exact same functionality, and pretty much all menus and buttons are in the same place.
Can you tell us why the search function is bad, exactly? It works just fine as far as I can tell.
Use an existing wiki engine, even if you're using your own website. Unless you dedicate an enormous amount of time to it you cannot possibly create something more robust than the wiki making tools that have already been created.
Examples:
Sure, you may select a personnal wiki within this list, generally the one you're the most confortable with and compatible with your OS. I write down my journal on it, but properly linking the pages with each others might be a bit tedious sometimes if you don't want to have orphans. You will find tons of doc on the Internet. If you want to go crazy, you may even install a MediaWiki locally or on your personnal server, it will be a lot more flexible.
Since I'm working a lot with R and Python, I also use the Jupyter notebook bundled with Anaconda to organize my progression, be it from a code point of view or for my hypothesis, food for through, etc...
I know people that swear only by LaTeX and if you feel like you're OK with learning it, It's also a nice way to produce reports like Jupyter does. In all cases, the most annoying part is sticking with maintaining the journal every day, no matter the tool :)
Disclamer : Fairly new to the field and CS in general. I have a biochemistry/Chemorg background.
Wikia is not hard at all, but it abounds with that glyph on all accounts.
This listing has absurd modifying ability but hosting is not on that listing on it's own (A big ol' computational-communication box has to work hosting...), but if any chaps in our community own a box of that sort, it could work! (Also it looks all wiki-y and official and all that)
Any not in that I do not know much of.
ANNOTATION: Boards on our forum contain a built-in wiki! If this path is took, it could simply things.
>is a wikipedia-like site possible, where most anyone can contribute information?
Such sites are simply called wikis, and are very easy to make. In fact, Wikipedia published their software so that anyone can use it.
Turning Erowid into a wiki would certainly be possible, but I think it would be too big a change for the administrators to stomach. Also, making it too easy to edit would reduce the reliability of the information. I'm thinking more of a semi-private wiki for developers, from which pages get updated manually.
>could the burden be shared? there is simply too many compounds and too much information for a small number of people to be the only contributors.
Exactly. That's what we're working for.
If there isn't already one, Wikia could host a "Pro Wrestling" community.
​
If not, Wikipedia is built on a platform called MediaWiki, you could always build your own.
I used to use various wikis, mainly MediaWiki and DokuWiki. Doku is nice because it is a flat-file system that doesn't require a database. MediaWiki is the 500 pound gorilla that does a lot.
Both didn't work out for me in the long run. MediaWiki required a decent amount of maintenance to keep running and I found updating/upgrading was difficult. I also had a bit of trouble since I used a program to automatically upload pages/stories from my source control and that took longer and longer (I blame bad code though).
DokuWiki started to choke around the thousand page mark. Updating was great but it took effort to reindex things.
Now, I use a Git repository and some programs to generate a static site and just push that up. I like it better since it lets me write in Markdown (my preferred format), everything is controlled via normal source control, and others can submit changes which are easier to merge than with the wiki's I've used.
It doesn't work for most people but it works for me.
It isn't clear what you mean. Do you want to make web pages that look like Wikipedia pages? Do you want to write articles that read like Wikipedia pages? Or are you looking for something else?
For the look, download the Wikipedia software, MediaWiki. In order to complete the Wikipedia look, you might need to grab some style files from the Wikipedia website.
If you want to create articles that read like Wikipedia articles, then ... learn to write, I guess. You could practice by editing Wikipedia articles. If you're really serious about this, then take journalism classes.
Or, if you're looking for something else, then please explain.
You can download MediaWiki, the same software used by WikiPedia, for free and install it on your own web hosting service. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Quite easy if you're a bit web saavy.
If you prefer something already made, and I think not as customizable, you can use a service like http://www.wikia.com. To the best of my knowledge, it's free too.
Edit: Typos and added Wikia URL.
Get MAMP, LAMP or WAMP (for mac, linux or windows, respectively). Install it on your comp. Then download and install mediawiki to use to catalogue all of your notes. There's a slight learning curve, but if you've ever edited wikipedia, it's the same deal. The way this works is it creates a local server that exists only on your computer (so backups are absolutely essential). It's private, it's reasonably secure, and you can really have at it.
I've run the gamut of paid and free writing software. Nothing has come close to the wiki solution. It's absolutely the best. I was able to convert multiple binders full of notes and research into wiki pages, all cross linked and indexed and searchable.
Any writing software will work at that point. It's just words. All the extra stuff is neatly housed in the wiki.
The best way in this case is to use the open source application <em>Mediawiki</em>, the very same program that powers Wikipedia. This is a trusted, tested, and frequently updated program. Mediawiki is extensively documented and easy to install (fully guided).
Best approach is to have a local web server (like XAMPP) first and to start with a local installation of Mediawiki. Once you have that down and worked a bit with it, maybe even developed your own design for it, you can upload it to a web server on the internet.
There are even plenty free wiki hosts.
The tutorial you have linked is complete crap and has nothing to do with coding as such. It more or less just shows how to install and configure Mediawiki via Softaculous.
Read the documentation on the Mediawiki site and learn how to install and use it from there.
I like using a wiki, that way it's easy to interconnect all the different entries.
You can also start pages for any random bit of the setting or mechanics you think of, add tags/categories, etc.
I like Tiki Wiki, but if you're familiar with Wikipedia, the software for that is MediaWiki. Both of those are free.
I think we need to establish what you mean by 'open source'.
Generally we when we say open source we mean it is where you make it so everyone can read your source code, and copy and re-use your code according to whichever open source licence you decide to use.
I don't believe this is what you are after.
If you want something like wikipedia, where people can change the information contained within your website, through a web interface, rather than by directly modifying the HTML files, you want to use a content management systems (CMS) which will already manage some of the heavy lifting (like user access control) for you.
If you want to build your own wiki, you can create one using the open source MediaWiki
There's no reason not to use MediaWiki. See the Guild Wars 2 wiki for example.
After content, the major issues would be hosting and bandwidth. There are plenty of hosting options available but without knowing what kind of traffic the wiki gets it's impossible to estimate how much hosting would cost, especially in the long term.
If you mean the basic code of the mediawiki software - yes it was written by Jimmy Wales. The localization was done by volunteers as is/was anything that is legit in Wikipedia.
Reinventing a better, rounder wheel is always fun, but it sounds like you're largely describing a wiki, like wikipedia, just much more specialized.
Before you go too far into designing a new XML dialect that'll somehow be intuitive enough for regular folks to write fluently, I'd encourage you to look into MediaWiki and see if it might be able to meet your needs.
Thanks for your hard work in maintaining the wiki. It's a valuable resource. I'm wondering if you have considered migrating the contents of the site to different wiki software such as MediaWiki. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
The current fandom wiki is very hard to navigate and read in my opinion. I understand it's a big ask. If Nexon collaborated with the community maybe better wiki software could become an option, and they could provide a host.
Have you thought about using a wiki, like mediawiki (the system that powers wikipedia). It has categories, which automatically list everything that is related to them, and a moderation system where modifications have to get approval to go online.
Anything that's possible on Wikipedia is possible on Mediawiki. That's because Mediawiki is literally the software used by Wikipedia.
Setting it up can be difficult, but once you have done that you can do anything that's done on Wikipedia. It's completely offline (if you set it up that way), no features are hidden behind paywalls or anything. You can easily transport it from one place to another, just put it on an USB or in a zipfile.
No, it isn't as streamlined as WorldAnvil or some other wikisoftware. It's the real deal though, very powerful.
A wiki (but you'd probably need to install it). I think the Wiki is the only real "interactive" solution (that's affordable) - to make stuff available to others to edit.
So, I guess, it depends what your budget is. Web hosting is cheap but it helps if you know what you're doing. Depending on your confidence installing web apps, you might need to get someone to install your chosen software.
Not all wikis are created equal - MediaWiki (powers Wikipedia) is the "best" but geez, it's a head trip to set up (I did it once).
Another online alternative might be a library program but that's unlikely to allow people to edit.
Personally, I'd use Calibre (library system for ebooks but truly can be used for anything). But is has lots of options for metadata.
I haven't searched, but maybe a Document Management System may do the job (sadly, I think these are expensive).
Make a list of your "must haves" and your "nice to haves". Make sure whatever you choose covers the "musts".
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
MediaWiki is what I used at my last job to create a wikipedia-clone site of all my IT Documentation. All kept locally on my PC, and can be run off a local server.
Just look at how wikipedia functions and that's literally what you get.
Requires some knowledge on how websites work and basic reading of its tutorials and guides, but it was easy to pick up on a weekend.
Difficult to say without really understanding the data, but it definitely speaks of having reference data in the wrong format.
You need yourself a wiki!
Setup a webserver and voila! instant access sitewide.
Generally, Polish is even worse (though it varies on the copy). Also Japanese and Korean can be problematic in the other direction; if your UX design is for "Publishing", "出版" is going to leave a bunch of whitespace. (At work we build for 380 interface languages. Yay.)
Exactly. In my company we have been used SVN + internal wiki.
Few times per day engineers commit their work (on SVN). In case of problems we won't lose a lot of work and time.
Every ordered PCB (prototype or mass production - no matter) has a page on our internal wiki. On this page we put all project files, correspondence with PCB manufacturer and so on. In this way you can always order exactly the same PCB again without any doubts.
Internal wiki is very useful tool. You can use some open source solution like MediaWiki or buy commercial software like Atlassian Confluence.
I think you're talking about more than just a database here. A database would be a back end component of some larger system like you're describing.
You didn't mention if you expected it to be web based or something else. But I'd suggest you look at some of the various wiki solutions like mediawiki.
Absolutely, would love to work on this!
A couple questions for Bob/David/Jimmy/mods/anyone who cares to answer to start...
- Has any official work begun on an episode-specific Wiki yet? I haven't found any evidence of that, but maybe I missed it or it isn't general knowledge.
- Is reddit the best home for the episode-specific Wiki? It seems like it could be a heck of a great place for it, especially looking at the excellent /r/fitness subreddit sited in the reddit wiki tutorial. But maybe the guys had other thoughts in mind? Looks like Wikimedia has open source code available for installation on a separate server, for example, though that could take a decent amount of extra work to admin. (Link: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki) Meanwhile, free sites like Wikia.com are out there, but those have terrrrrrible advertising.
Tagging /u/iliketomakestuff, /u/MakeSomethingTV and /u/evanandkatelyn. Hopefully that worked?
> Kind of like wikipedia.
So why not use a wiki then? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki <- just install that on your website and be done with it.
Or use Google Sites. Just have the user email you the data (since you want to do it with approval) and copy it over to Google Sites where people can view the page.
If you're hell bent on making it part of Shopify, add a contact us page for submissions, and update a blog post.
Would a wiki suffice? You could use MediaWiki and modify it to not store identifiable information, if you're comfortable with advanced PHP. The only problem is that you wouldn't be able to block/moderate your wiki anymore, and anyone could abuse it.
In terms of piecing together software, based on the subject matter of your content, it would need to be open source, and you would have to trust the code not to violate your user's personally identifying information. That would likely lead you to want to develop it from scratch, in which case, we're talking about a massive undertaking for even a professional developer.
I'm using a private MediaWiki install (here, in case you're curious). For public use, you can install it on just about any cheap web hotel/shared hosting service really easily. There's plenty of free MediaWiki hosts (Wikia, Shoutwiki, etc), but the advantage of using your own domain/host is that you control all of the data and settings, don't need ads, and you can easily add any extensions you want.
This also includes access control - if you have MediaWiki on your own host, then you can easily set the site to disallow registration and anonymous editing. Public free wikis rarely let you do that.
Also, be aware that public free wikis may have license restrictions. Wikia, for example, mandates that your material must be Creative Commons licensed (and, by the way, material released under Creative Commons is perpetually released that way - you can't prevent people from distributing the material under the terms that were in effect when the material was originally released). So if you want a more fine-grained control over copyright or are just concerned about the host's terms of use, then private install of the software is the way to go.
Are they worth it? Well, I could just say that all of the wiki software kind of sucks and MediaWiki is the package that sucks the least. =) But that is just the technology. As far as organising information and notes go, wikis are amazing. I really like some of the MediaWiki extensions like Semantic MediaWiki.
If you're trying to figure out what goes into it, you might try wiki-style building. Essentially, you can pick one article--any article--to begin writing. As you write it, you can mark certain words to "link" to other words.
(The most obvious example of this is wikipedia.) On wikipedia, when you're writing an article, you can enclose a word with double brackets: [[unexplained word]] There are special pages through the wiki software that lets you see the entire list of unexplained words.
It can be setup through https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki.
If you want to stick to traditional document or handwritten encyclopedias, then you might look at the "table of contents" of wikipedia, to get a sense of how exactly you might organize yours.
For my worldbuilding, I use a thing called DokuWiki. It's a lot like MediaWiki, but you don't need to deal with databases, running a fancy server, or anything; just HTTP+PHP, and you're off to the races. It's also offline, so you don't have to worry about spam or a cranky ISP.
Once you figure out the formatting, it starts to look really good.
That's pretty simple. I could easily throw up a Media Wiki site. If anyone has any sort of technical skills that can manage the content that would be great. I could build it, but I don't have the time for content management.
Great idea!
This site could use Mediawiki much in the way the Wiktionary does. With some tweaking and good site skinning, it would be terrific.
I'm sure a lot of people in E-UNI would really like to help!
MediaWiki (the software Wikipedia runs on) is open source. There's no reason they couldn't use a local install.
In fact many organizations have private wikis since they're perfect for storing information.
Vector is a great desktop skin but not so good on mobile. The way sites like Wikipedia, Mediawiki, and Encyc do it is they set up Vector as the desktop skin and MinervaNeue as the mobile skin, with the Mobilefrontend extension installed. Mobilefrontend handles device detection and adds some functionality like collapsing sections.
Damn thank you for the offer! If we find a way to get it started I'll definitely let you know.
I've looked into fandom/wikia previously and I think that their terms of use would ultimately put us in a similarly restricted place as on reddit. I'm also not sure if we would be able to download the data en masse to replicate another instance in the case it gets taken down.
I think MediaWiki might be our best bet, as it's FOSS & not ruled by a corporate entity like Fandom is.
There's this list of hosting services that run the infrastructure. I'll look into some of the options real quick here.
Any party that engages the software behind Wikipedia to make their policy platform navigable is taking great strides in the right direction. Good work, thanks for doing this.
Disclaimer: I'm not associated at all but I once torrented Pirates. The Joone one, not the Polanski one.
Okay, you want to make a crowd-sourced game setting. Okay. Are you looking for software and tools to do that? You should start with MediaWiki, I use it for my setting.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
This is the standard, free and open source, and it's what Wikipedia uses. Wikia/Fandom uses a fork of it, so there's no telling what all they've changed to lock their content down to prevent easy exporting and importing onto other sites.
Another big hurdle is momentum. It requires a ton of work to make a viable wiki, and these for-profit companies have all the biggest wikis and thus all the Google presence. Trying to get people to abandon the established one for a new one is... difficult. But if it's backed by the game's own developer/publisher, it might have a chance.
ok a few things:
don't build a static website if it needs 370 differen pages,use some dynamic open source software instead, since you want to have your own wiki look into
Im sure you can get a long way using it without the need for much/any coding.
now you do seem to want some "specific" stuff on your site, so if those aren't covered by the wiki package you might need some customizing HTML and WYSIWIG's are not gonna be enough for that, since you are going to need logic and the examples I gave are made with PHP so you'll need at least PHP skills, or get a webdev involved that is skilled in PHP.
--
monetizing any website is a BIG challenge even for bigger sites with ads/ adsense , 200 visiters is pretty much negligable regarding ads income, so don't expect to make more than a few dozen cents to mayb a few random dollars
--
> 1) Is such a niche project worth the work? Aside from passion and a good heart for wanting to help others? What's your experience as professionals?
can't say, you should do some "market research" to find this out
> 2) Can someone recommend me a good reliable and cheap domain errr "vendor"?
jsut get yourself a reliable shared host, they are cheap decent enough speedwise and they usually let you buy a domain without much hassle, perhaps you could even get a free domain at sign up or sth....
> and perhaps a good WYSIWYG toolkit?
No !!! don't use these tools, they will 99/100 times result is shitty low quality sites with lots of bloat. instead learn proper HTML/CSS/JS/PHP+MySQL or get a proper webdev involved.
Here's an article about finding someone to host a mediawiki. Keep in mind you'll have to shell out a bit of money for this. If you just want to host it yourself (i.e. run it on your own computer), this page has download and installation instructions.
Speaking as a GM of 5 years...what? What exactly are you trying to do? I don't understand. I don't need to create sheets or items for anything, I just write down some notes and send to the players via Discord.
If you need maps, I recommend Wonderdraft or Inkarnate.
If you need to track worldbuilding, I recommend MediaWiki.
Discord is good for communication.
I also use: MediaWiki for campaign and character details
Tabletop Simulator for maps and minifigures and dice rolling. Having infinite free map , scribble space, terrain and 3d figures for just $20 is a steal.
I’ve used a wiki for my games for over a decade. I run MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia, on my own server. Importantly, I run it with the Semantic MediaWiki extension which makes a huge difference.
Semantic wikis take some getting used to, but they are an order of magnitude better than standard wikis. They are a bit hard to explain. One way of looking at it is that, for each link you make on a page you (kind of) specify why the link exists. This doesn’t sound useful at first, but it turns out you can do a ton with the idea.
This isn't a wordpress theme, but this is what a lot of wiki sites (including Wikipedia) use. It might be easier to use an actual dedicated wiki site than trying to mould a wordpress theme into one. Just an idea.
Just start writing. Editing can come later. Organizing can come later. I've created my own system, my own process... but that doesn't mean it will work for you. You might HATE the way I write.
Organization is easy, you just have to divide everything into categories/sub-categories and keep everything in the place they are supposed to be in. I like to write about my world one region at a time.
I use Mediawiki, which is the same software Wikipedia uses. Setting it up is difficult... but once you get it running you can easily start writing in it. There is one master page, with a giant table linking everything. Every page links to another page, etc. I try to write it exactly how it would look in 'real life' Wikipedia. It's all dry information; plain and simple. Just the basic facts.
After that, I opened a Word document and started writing like I was an in-universe scholar talking about the region. Adding some flow and fun into the text.
When that's done, I take my empty book and just write/copy-paste it in the book with pen. I draw some sketches, add some effects. And it's done!
I tried World Anvil; it's online only, it hides features behind a paywall, it limits me, I just don't like it. I see that One stop for writers and Campfire Pro cost money as well.
I just wanted an empty Wikipedia I could fill in myself, you know? I want it to be offline, but very powerful. Well: that's MediaWiki. It's literally the tool Wikipedia is based on, and a lot of other sites as well. Like this Minecraft Wiki, or the Elder Scrolls wiki.
I think it's THE most powerful wiki program there is. It's just a bit harder to use than all those other ones, but it's free. It's a pain to set up, but it should be do-able (if I can do it, so can you).
It has all the features all those other sites have, free of charge. It just takes more effort to get everything set up. It doesn't automatically make your world-building visible to other people, it doesn't claim any copyrights, it doesn't make you dependent on their servers or your internet connectivity.
There are a lot of extensions as well.
Right now you can take the code, deploy it on your own server, copy all the existing articles and continue forward with your own version of Wikipedia, no problem. Few people will visit it and how are you gonna continue to edit the articles by yourself but if you want to create a new wikipedia bender style then you can do so right now!
You can set up and run Mediawiki (the same software that Wikipedia runs on) for free:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
(Or for whatever the server costs to run, so like 5 bucks a month to start)
WordPress security comes down to proper configuration & keeping things updated. As the reverse of your anecdote: I maintain several dozens of WordPress sites with only a couple hours a week of maintenance, and not a single one has been hacked in years.
But I'm not going to try to sell you something you don't want, especially since you'd have a pretty large task in front of you building 30 sites.
It looks like you can download a backup of your sites from Wikidot so, if you do that, what is included? Depending on what they give you, you might be able to move that to another host, or import it into MediaWiki, which can be hosted just about anywhere.
I've never done this, but ran a quick google, and apparently you can install MediWiki locally and use that XML dump with it.
Or use alternative parsers:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers -- tools to convert it to other formats, including HTML pages.
I think this is a great idea but the Reddit wiki is limiting. Someone should set up a Mediawiki server for exactly this. (I can do it if there's enough interest). Exactly like Wikipedia but by leftists for leftists.
This can be done with Confluence - you can have licenses for everyone who will need to edit the content, and then others can view it - they won't be able to edit, or even comment, just view. cPanel does something like this for their documentation.
After that you can put it behind some kind of access control so only registered users can view it.
Of course, you could also do something similar with a tool like MediaWiki. The user interface for editing won't be as pretty, but if you're dealing with developers and project managers they should be able to figure it out fairly easily. If I had to do this on a budget this is the route I'd take. And again it would be just a matter of putting this behind whatever access control you needed.
I use Mediawiki, which allows you to create your own empty Wikipedia and fill it with your own worlds content. You can add images, tables, galleries, etc, into the text itself. Easily link/create other pages. It's all offline, I don't depend on a website being online or my internet connection. Size is really small, I can just put it on a USB drive and take it with me. Information is easily organized.
I write everything down like it would be a Wikipedia page too, except for a few pages where I write about the world generally in my own style.
I try to outline everything as much as possible. My map is open on one monitor, together with a timeline. The other monitor is for writing things down.
Ooh, it seems like nothing's here on this, but my company has it and it's proven to be immeasurably helpful for me as a (now one year old) Jr. Sysadmin. My IT Department built its own internal Wikipedia (MediaWiki) where we can document to our hearts content all day long. When I came on, there's virtually nothing for tasks that I would do and the nuances of how they were done were somewhat just assumed to be known. Now that the company had a Jr. Sysadmin, there was a lot more time to flesh out the tasks and responsibilities left to me.
Now, my procedures are so well documented that I could vacation for a week or two and even the devs could look at the documentation and follow the procedures I do (user management, imaging, basic VM issues, known-but-not-yet-resolved issues etc.).
Is this on Mediawiki.org? If so, you have to place:
{{collapse top}}
before the text you want to hide/collapse then place:
{{collapse bottom}}
after the text you want to hide/collapse.
If not, you're going to have to create a template that collapses text. It won't be as easy as copy pasting everything in the source code because that source code is filled with other templates and parser functions. So if your wiki doesn't have them, you won't be able to use that template until your wiki has everything that calls for that template to work. Adding parser functions to your wiki would require installing certain extensions and that's a more advanced than my skill level. You would have to talk to the people running your wiki about that.
We use a wiki at our office (small, +/- 15 people). We allow anyone on the team to add/edit/delete any article. Sometimes knowledge and learning moves so fast that we can't wait for it to pass thru a gate keeper for approval... plus we are all busy... so whoever is the gatekeeper will fall behind.
We just have 1 rule: If you are teaching it to someone in the office, please make sure it's up to date on the Wiki as well.
EDIT: We use MediaWiki (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki) it's free, but you have to have someone who is able to get it up and running... which could take 2 to 8 hours depending on their expertise.
I use Mediawiki. It basically makes it possible for you to create your own wikipedia.
It's a bit hard to set up, though. So I only suggest you use this if you really want to build on your world as a hobby with lots of pages.
I've used a few:
Scrivener
Scrivener is great and my go to writing software, it's pretty effective as a lorebook as it allows you to make hyperlinks between documents as well as have two documents up at the same time, so you can write while having your lore book open next to you. I would say this is fine for a lorebook that is under 50k words.
Google Docs
Fun, online cloud storage etc - but slow and not efficient. Anything more than 10k worth of lore and it's going to get hard to organize.
MediaWiki installation
Basically installed a wikipedia on a directory on one of my websites, set it to private and used that. Really good fun but it's sensitive to being broken and a hassle if you aren't computer savvy. The effort to get the plugins to behave just so I can have a battle 'info box' like on normal wikipedia was a nightmare. I can see myself coming back to this if my lore goes past 100-200k words.
DokuWiki Installation
I'm currently using this. Basically a toned down MediaWiki which doesn't rely on a mySQL database to store your infomation which means it's super easy to set up and use. Easy to install plugins and it has themes that can make it look like a MediaWiki installation if you like.
Those links aren't going to be useful for most people because they're giant XML files containing the page sources for every article, not normal HTML pages. You won't be able to pick an article and read it immediately in your browser; you'll need to set up MediaWiki first. And their installation guide ends with "There is a lot that could go wrong, so if in doubt, you are advised to read the full instructions!"
Use Kiwix instead. They have their own Wikipedia dumps that are compatible with the Kiwix reader, and they also have Wikitionary and TED talks.
I'd have to agree with those who said the Linux kernel. You could also argue that MediaWiki is one very successful project, though in fact Wikipedia is the success story here and not the platform Wikipedia is built on.
It is a bit daunting, but I am already getting used to it. The MediaWiki website is incredibly robust and detailed in terms of how to actually use the software and resolve issues.
Wikipedia uses MediaWiki, so that's probably the easiest way to get the exact same appearance. There are various services that host it, both free and paid. As far as restricting editing goes, you can lock it down to registered users and then close registration after you create your account.
When we did it originally we got the self hosted $10 Confluence for 10 users, bought it ourselves, if it's only a small IT team using it that's fine. Once management saw it they liked it and we bought the full thing to use off an intranet. The wikipedia one was free I think, Believe it's this one. It's a LOT of work to setup all the pages you'll need but worth it.
Why do you need a personal wiki for this? Can't you just do this in documents or notes. If you're really eager you can take over Wikipedia's design, or invest some time into php and host your own wikipedia: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Anyone can grab a copy of MediaWiki for free and host their own wiki really easily. Its the same software they use for Wikipedia, without the massive database unfortunately, but I think thats been backed up a fair few places as well.
I use mediawiki for internal design projects all the time (not visual design, functional/thought design for games and software). Its really amazing.
You can use the very same software that Wikipedia uses. See MediaWiki.org. There's lots of options on controlling who has access and what they can do.
Speaking of making notes for maths, I will just add that Mediawiki (the thing used to run Wikipedia) has a pretty good support for maths (just like you will find on some Wikipedia pages) and could make a good system for making math notes and maybe even sharing them/collaborating with others.
Not sure if there aren't better alternatives, but just putting it out there.
If you or someone in your league is savvy in Php/MySQL (and has hosting), you can install the free MediaWiki software: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
It's basically Wikipedia, but you customize it for anything (ie your fantasy football league).
This is what our league did and it's nice because then anyone can easily get in and make edits to the pages, so the documenting burden is not all on your back.
I once set up a local install of MediaWiki to keep track of a world I was creating. It proved to be a little bit of overkill for the scope of the story; I could see it as a great tool for someone with a huge amount of characters and places to keep track of.
Sort of your own Wikipedia, not only a Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia is just a website originally powered by a program called MediaWiki.
You can install Mediawiki on a local webserver or on a hosted service (even free ones will do).
There are also alternatives like TWiki (only Windows) that even runs from an USB stick.
Tiki (former TikiWiki) is also another free alternative.
There used to be simple versions of wiki that basically consisted of a single html page and were usable completely offline without even a server. Unfortunately, I can't find the links any more and don't even remember the names. Maybe other redditors can help out here?
I think you can get into that if you have the time on hand. Also if you say it is almost a wiki make sure to check out common wiki software. Especially Dokuwiki what is simple to use/hack and Mediawiki what is a massive piece of software Wikipedia uses. Both are open-source software you can use, both have plugins to extend the functionality, both have free and cheap themes available.
You may be able to just plug together what you want.
If you want a more Wikipedia styled wiki and set up a website, you can use Mediawiki which is what Wikipedia uses. For example, this is what I set up using that. It's more convoluted than these other options, but once you have it set up it's pretty convenient.
Another option if you don't care about ads or use Adblock, Shoutwiki is pretty ok.
Podría ser una alternativa, pero mi propuesta es una herramienta de apoyo, ya que Plaza Podemos aparece como canal en el documento organizativo de la asamblea y el cambio requeriría procesos costosos.
Consiste en montar un servidor, instalar mediawiki y las extensiones Semantic Mediawiki y Semantic Forms. Luego instalar PRAW y hacer un script en phyton para volcar automáticamente todas las entradas de la plaza con el adorno 'propuesta' en el wiki.
Todo esto no es idea mía, lo he tomado del mediawiki que tenía podemos para los borradores, lo estaba probando una usuaria: http://wikisintesis.podemos.info/index.php/Usuario:Rosalind
Y luego desarrollar una página con allourideas para tener un sistema de votación por pares que permita ordenar las propuestas por preferencias, tal como hicieron los de listaabierta.org con los candidatos al consejo ciudadano en las pasadas elecciones.
Eso daría un sistema de documentación abierto, flexible, semántico y muy potente para consultar, debatir y hacer evolucionar las propuestas y llegar a grupos de consenso que pudieran impulsar rápidamente una propuesta bien elaborada en la plaza.
Sería un iluso si pensara que puedo hacer esto solo. No quiero duplicar esfuerzos ni ignorar a nadie así que el primer paso sería redactar en forma y planificar la propuesta y el segundo contactar con los agentes clave de este proceso: el equipo de recopilación de propuestas, el circulo TIC, la usuaria del mediawiki Rosalind, la gente de listaabierta.org, para reforzar la propuesta, sumar colaboración y hacer algo bien hecho.
¿Qué te parece?
I do use MediaWiki, it needs a bit of time to setup and you'll need to get used to the formating but if your project gets big and need a lot of detail then it's pretty usefull cause you're able to connect pages together.
I also use Sigma it's a javascript graph tool I find it very usefull for designing interactive story or rpg skill trees for example.
Just discovered TiddlyWiki, sounds pretty cool !
You may want to start with the real source first. Wikipedia actually runs off of the MediaWiki engine. You should definitely be able to replicate the look (or just use the full package) to do what you desire.