[Mediawiki-l] CMS or NOT? (was: Categories as search filters for a Refined/Advanced Search Tool)

Sy Ali sy1234 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 6 16:50:06 UTC 2006


On 2/5/06, Roger Chrisman <roger at rogerchrisman.com> wrote:
> Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS,
> please explain.

I don't.  In fact, I believe very strongly that a wiki is indeed a
CMS.. since a wiki's primary purpose is to .. be a system to manage
content.  However, some wikis do it in a "wiki way" and break the
common-sense rules found with the older CMS'.

Now it's that "wiki way" philosophical difference that sets a
"real-CMS" apart from the "wiki-CMS".

A "proper CMS" manages its content in the traditionally strict "I am
the management system, I am in charge" most especially with
permissions.  It focuses on the _management_ part of CMS.

A "wiki CMS" merely plays host to its content in a loose "let me help
you put your content somewhere" most especially by allowing loginless
anonymous contribution.  It focuses on the _content_ part of CMS.


Mediawiki is not a CMS in the traditional sense because it has not
been created with the kind of strict security model which a
traditional CMS would have.  Even though there are roles and
permissions in MediaWiki (page locking, administrative pages) I
understand that there is no faith in the existing security to extend
it into CMS-like stuff like per-page unix style permissions.. like
what a "traditional CMS" would have.

So the easy way to explain mediawiki's stance is to say it's not a CMS.

Technically text files in a directory is a CMS.. technically mediawiki is a CMS.



More information about the MediaWiki-l mailing list