Thomas Dalton wrote:
While there have been lots of suggestions for WYSIWYG, it is very difficult to implement with the current syntax (for technical reasons I don't fully understand). The MediaWiki syntax isn't that difficult to learn, however. You don't even need to use it at all, you can just type in plain text. If you want simple formatting (headers, bold, italic), it's quite easy. Things like tables and templates are much more complicated, but there is no need to use them for most content.
With all due respect, saying that MediaWiki syntax "isn't that difficult to learn" is just like saying that HTML or Wordperfect's old markup language "isn't that difficult to learn." The worlds of word processing and desktop publishing have gone to WYSIWYG for a reason: It really *is* easy to learn, and nothing else really matches it.
MediaWiki syntax is better than CamelCase and may be marginally easier to learn initially than HTML, but once you get past beginner- level editing, there's nothing easy about syntax like {{info | param1=foo | param2=bar}}. For that matter, I don't see how '''this''' or ''this'' is any easier to understand than <b>this</b> or <i>this</i>. The HTML version is a few more keystrokes, but it's actually easier to guess that <b> means bold than it is to guess that ''' means bold, and '' for italic is easily mistaken for a quotation mark.
I think MediaWiki's supposed ease of use is mostly a convenient excuse for complacency and a way of avoiding dealing with the mess that the parser has become. I predict that eventually someone will develop a WYSIWYG wiki platform that does everything MediaWiki can do, and once that happens, even Wikipedia will have to follow suit to stay relevant. Its big advantage right now is that it has great <i>content</i>, not that it is particularly easy to edit.
Umair Imam wrote:
And the only problem is that i have to be bound to a WYSIWYG based wiki. Is there any other wiki which is as stable and simple as Media Wiki ?
You might want to try Wetpaint, which offers free WYIWYG wiki hosting:
I tried them out awhile ago and thought they looked pretty good overall. They weren't a good fit for my needs. (I'm sticking with MediaWiki for now.) However, someone else might find them easier to use.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------
"As quoted by Thomas Dalton "
I totally agree with your point of view ! A Wiki's main purpose should be to publish and edit content just off the fly.
Editors are only concerned with the content they are going to publish, they should not be concentrating on the syntax as how the content should be published !
MediaWiki, though promising, lacks one of the most important modules, the WYSIWYG ! I hope the development team comes forward with integrating some of existing rich text editors (e.g FCKEditor).
By the way, i checked WetPaint, it seems to be a community maintained Wiki. I could not see how i could download the wiki software ! I am looking for a wiki to support my organization's internal usage.
-- Regards Umair Imam
On 7/23/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
While there have been lots of suggestions for WYSIWYG, it is very difficult to implement with the current syntax (for technical reasons I don't fully understand). The MediaWiki syntax isn't that difficult to learn, however. You don't even need to use it at all, you can just type in plain text. If you want simple formatting (headers, bold, italic), it's quite easy. Things like tables and templates are much more complicated, but there is no need to use them for most content.
With all due respect, saying that MediaWiki syntax "isn't that difficult to learn" is just like saying that HTML or Wordperfect's old markup language "isn't that difficult to learn." The worlds of word processing and desktop publishing have gone to WYSIWYG for a reason: It really *is* easy to learn, and nothing else really matches it.
MediaWiki syntax is better than CamelCase and may be marginally easier to learn initially than HTML, but once you get past beginner- level editing, there's nothing easy about syntax like {{info | param1=foo | param2=bar}}. For that matter, I don't see how '''this''' or ''this'' is any easier to understand than <b>this</b> or <i>this</i>. The HTML version is a few more keystrokes, but it's actually easier to guess that <b> means bold than it is to guess that ''' means bold, and '' for italic is easily mistaken for a quotation mark.
I think MediaWiki's supposed ease of use is mostly a convenient excuse for complacency and a way of avoiding dealing with the mess that the parser has become. I predict that eventually someone will develop a WYSIWYG wiki platform that does everything MediaWiki can do, and once that happens, even Wikipedia will have to follow suit to stay relevant. Its big advantage right now is that it has great <i>content</i>, not that it is particularly easy to edit.
Umair Imam wrote:
And the only problem is that i have to be bound to a WYSIWYG based wiki. Is there any other wiki which is as stable and simple as Media Wiki ?
You might want to try Wetpaint, which offers free WYIWYG wiki hosting:
I tried them out awhile ago and thought they looked pretty good overall. They weren't a good fit for my needs. (I'm sticking with MediaWiki for now.) However, someone else might find them easier to use.
| Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org