Designer Friendly Wiki Software

January 14, 2007 6:04 PM

Which wiki software is most beautiful right out of the box? Which is the easiest to customize?

I've decided on trying a wiki for the project that I asked about previously. (Anyone who missed that and has a different take, please speaks your piece!)

As a print designer I have only rudimentary knowledge of HTML and CSS. I have scoured the very comprehensive Wiki Matrix and have a good idea of the capabilities of each package, but I wonder from those who have actually used one, which has the cleanest default design? And which allows the easiest customization of the design?

Several have recommended MediaWiki, and its use seems widespread (including Wikipedia), but everywhere I see it used it is less than elegant in design and appearance.

posted by Typographica to Computers & Internet (13 answers total)

MediaWiki is a code nightmare. Only venture there if you are brave of heart and understand coding.

pbwiki is nice and clean (visually) but it's a hosted solution, which might not solve your needs.

If I were you I would make a technology decision based on desired functionality, not based on how nice a package looks out of the box. A good theme designer can make a Drupal site look freaking fantastic, for instance. same goes for MovableType, Wordpress, etc.
posted by camworld at 6:37 PM on January 14, 2007

MediaWiki has a few good templates - I've used FratMan before with some success (and check out the other ones on that list).

MediaWiki's code isn't all that bad... a little 'disorganized', but fairly logical and you can get help with it.

Instiki has a fairly nice default style, and it's trendy, but I continue to distrust the Ruby on Rails fanatics. The RoR Instiki wiki was down for what, two months?
posted by tmcw at 7:07 PM on January 14, 2007

To really work with pbwiki - customized CSS templates, etc - you have to pay for the premium service. I've worked with this and found it decent.

Though more complicated, MediaWiki has the largest base of open source contributions, hacks, skins, etc.
posted by aladfar at 9:41 PM on January 14, 2007

I just installed MediaWiki, and I can confirm that it's a mess. Most of the documentation is for outdated versions, and it took me a few tens of minutes of googling and grepping around to figure out where to place my Google Analytics code... and I've worked with PHP daily for the past seven years.
posted by SpecialK at 9:48 PM on January 14, 2007

ok, what's the link for WikiPotato?

I like that Instiki has an "access denied" response when you try to visit it...

(snark. snark.)

I've personally used Dokuwiki with reasonable success, but it took a bit of time to get into.
posted by warhol at 11:58 PM on January 14, 2007

I've used dokuwiki, it's ease of setup is pretty awesome (just install and go, no db needed) but I don't know how customizable the graphics are.
posted by delmoi at 12:15 AM on January 15, 2007

Response by poster: I am sure there is no WikiPotato. I gave luriete a mark just for his pure silliness.

Thanks to the rest of you. So far, Dokuwiki seems like the way to go. Any pitfalls?
posted by Typographica at 1:01 AM on January 15, 2007

I gave luriete a mark just for his pure silliness.

Keep in mind that many people will stop reading the thread when a best answer is marked, so that might not be the wisest idea.

When I've used other wikis I've been frustrated about the incompatibility between their markup and Wikipedia's. For this reason I think I will use MediaWiki in the future whenever possible.
posted by grouse at 5:07 AM on January 15, 2007

I suggest emailing the nice folks at Typophile to find out how they made theirs look so nice. I don't know what software they're running.
posted by O9scar at 5:25 AM on January 15, 2007

I am sure there is no WikiPotato. I gave luriete a mark just for his pure silliness.


Mark it as a favorite, but don't mark it as best answer. You're discouraging other answers by doing that.
posted by bshort at 7:43 AM on January 15, 2007

Response by poster: Typophile uses Drupal, but it sounds like that's much more complex and powerful than what I need. The site will be a reference more than a community.
posted by Typographica at 11:43 AM on January 15, 2007

Response by poster: I hope it's kosher to bump this thread. Now that it's been over 6 months and wiki software has certainly developed since I first posted, does anyone have any new recommendations?
posted by Typographica at 12:24 AM on July 29, 2007

mediawiki is great until it breaks. the one i setup at work has gone wierd and refuses to authenticate users. Its insanely complicated so I cant figure out whats wrong. Dont use that.
posted by browolf at 11:00 AM on October 21, 2007