Mike Ellis wrote:
I'm in danger of heading out onto thin ice here, but powerful though
> MediaWiki is, it is far (FAR) from being easy to either set up or edit. As
> soon as you have a requirement for authors to write in CamelCase you've
> immediately lost maybe 80% of your potential editing audience to geek-types.
> And yes, I know you can implement a rich-text editor, but that isn't easy
> either...
>
I can't resist the opportunity to point out Mike's mistake - MediaWiki
doesn't use CamelCase at all. Admittedly, the syntax they use for links,
which is to surround them in [[square brackets]], is no more intuitive.
There are advantages and disadvantages to all the different wiki programs,
although they all tend to have a learning curve of some sort. If it's a
public wiki, one of the important considerations also has to be how well
they can prevent automated spamming, unfortunately...
> I obviously second what Frankie and Mia have said - way more important is
> whether this is the right tool...
>
Indeedy - wikis can take a fair amount of committment, but might lead you in
interesting directions you hadn't anticipated. Placeography (
http://www.placeography.org/index.php/Main_Page), from the Minnesota
Historical Society, is pretty inspiring...
Frankie
--
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
|