[Mediawiki-l] WYSIWYG support

[Sheldon Rampton]

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:

http://www.wetpaint.com/

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
--------------------------------