The wiki I was bugging people about here and here was decided by conference call and MediaWiki won. I preferred Tiki just because I thought the ability to install and administrate was better for normal humans, but the guys who are going to have the say over administration without actually administrating seem to think they'll be able to get what they want if they pay other people to do that. MediaWiki is recognizable, and can do WYSIWYG editing along with many other good things if you customize. If the higher-ups can hire someone to make MediaWiki do all the stuff they want done it'll be awesome. The problem for the developer is gonna be getting a meaningful articulation of what the project is supposed to achieve, as I don't think the decision makers have an understanding of what they'll get. I know what I want and a cuddlier-than-Wikipedia MediaWiki installation is good for me, my colleagues in my office and across the country, but I'm not sure the people who are signing off on it are gonna realize their dream for it if they have a hard time spelling out their desires in words.
An okay result for me if it actually goes live and doesn't get bogged down in meeting after meeting resulting in tweak after tweak. As for the result for them, we hope for a patient developer who is okay with computer baby-talk and handholding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So this will lead to a new website of yours, WikiNonsense?
~
we hope for a patient developer who is okay with computer baby-talk and handholding.
Isn't this the job description of a upwardly mobile sys-ad?
I guess I have to say "I hope so."
I preferred Tiki
No doubt because of the tropical vibe.
Seriously, get XAMPP (assuming the workplace environment is Windows) install Tiki and give it a shot. At worst it's an awesomely coherent notepad and at best it will become indispensable to your workplace, as is the case with my shitty outdated wiki.
Thanks for letting us know the conclusion. Sorry you didn't get your way.
Post a Comment