Websites using MediaWiki

Okay, let s break down MediaWiki, covering its overview, revenue model (or lack thereof), alternatives, pricing (also absent), and customer care details.

MediaWiki Overview

• What it is: MediaWiki is a free and open-source wiki software package. It s most famously the engine behind Wikipedia, but it s used for countless other wikis, ranging from small personal projects to large corporate knowledge bases.

• Key Features:

  • Collaborative Editing: Allows multiple users to create, edit, and manage content collaboratively.
  • Page History: Tracks all changes to pages, making it easy to revert to previous versions.
  • User Management: Supports user accounts, permissions, and groups for controlling access and editing rights.
  • Template System: Enables the reuse of common elements across multiple pages.
  • Extension System: Highly extensible with numerous free extensions that add functionality such as image galleries, user forums, and more.
  • Categorization: Supports organization of content through categories and hierarchical classification.
  • Search: Provides built-in search capabilities, allowing users to easily find information within the wiki.
  • Multilingual Support: Supports multiple languages and character sets.

• Technical Aspects:

  • Written in: PHP
  • Database Backend: Relies on database systems such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, and others.
  • Open Source License: Distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This means you are free to download, use, modify, and distribute it, as long as you adhere to the terms of the license.
• Use Cases:
  • Public knowledge bases (like Wikipedia)
  • Internal corporate wikis (intranets)
  • Project documentation
  • Personal note-taking systems
  • Educational resources
  • Gaming communities
  • Fan wikis

Revenue Model (or Lack Thereof)

• No Direct Revenue: MediaWiki itself is completely free. The project is sustained by donations and the time contributions of volunteer developers and the Wikimedia Foundation (which uses it for its projects).
• Indirect Costs: While the software is free, users will still have costs related to hosting the wiki:
  • Server Hosting: You need a server (cloud or on-premises) to host MediaWiki, which will incur hosting costs.
  • Maintenance: Ongoing maintenance and updates to the server and MediaWiki software also require time or potentially paid technical support.
  • Potential Consulting: If you need a customized MediaWiki setup you may need to hire external consultants.

Alternatives

Here are some alternatives to MediaWiki, categorized by use case:

• For Collaborative Knowledge Bases (like internal wikis):

  • Confluence (Atlassian): A popular commercial wiki solution geared towards team collaboration.
  • Notion: A versatile workspace app with wiki-like features.
  • SharePoint (Microsoft): Used in many corporate environments, also includes wiki capabilities.
  • GitBook: Focuses on technical documentation.
  • DokuWiki: A lightweight, file-based wiki.

• For Simple Personal Wikis:

  • TiddlyWiki: A single HTML file wiki ideal for personal use.
  • Obsidian: A markdown-based knowledge base application with graph-like linking.
  • Joplin: An open-source note-taking app with markdown support and wiki capabilities.

• For Content Management (If a full wiki isn t needed):

  • WordPress: A highly flexible CMS that can create internal knowledge bases or documentation.
  • Drupal: A robust, highly customizable open-source CMS suitable for complex websites.

When to choose an alternative:

• Ease of Setup: MediaWiki can have a more challenging setup compared to some hosted solutions (e.g. Confluence, Notion)
• Features: Some alternatives offer specialized features (e.g., task management in Confluence).
• Ease of Use: While the interface is very familiar to Wikipedia users, others might find it less intuitive.
• Cloud vs. Self-Hosted: MediaWiki requires self-hosting while many alternatives are cloud-based (SaaS)

Pricing

• Free and Open Source: MediaWiki itself is completely free. There are no subscription fees or licensing costs for the software itself.
• Hosting and Support Costs: As mentioned previously, users need to budget for:
  • Server Costs: These can vary widely depending on the hosting provider and the scale of the wiki.
  • Potential Technical Support: Costs for consultants/developers may be necessary if in house teams are not able to manage it.

Customer Care Details

• Community Support:

  • MediaWiki.org: The official website is the hub for documentation, downloads, and information.
  • MediaWiki Mailing Lists: Mailing lists are available for different areas like development, usage, and announcements.
  • Stack Overflow: A popular forum to ask questions on specific coding issues related to the software.
  • IRC Channels: Real-time chat channels (like #mediawiki on Libera.chat) for getting help.
  • MediaWiki Community Forums: There are dedicated forum communities dedicated to the software.

• Lack of Formal Support:

  • No Dedicated Support Team: As an open-source project, MediaWiki doesn t have a paid customer support team, unlike commercial software. Support is primarily community-driven.

• Professional Consulting:

  • Third-Party Providers: You can hire specialized companies or freelance developers to provide paid support, customization, and maintenance services if needed.
• Wikimedia Foundation:
  • The Wikimedia Foundation provides support for Wikimedia projects.
• Other Communities:
  • If the project you need assistance with is a large one such as Wikipedia, those communities often have their own support systems.

In Summary

MediaWiki is a powerful, free, and versatile wiki platform suitable for a variety of applications. Its strengths lie in its customizability, scalability, and the power of community collaboration. However, it requires self-hosting and doesn t offer formal customer care in the way paid software does. If you re comfortable with self-managing server infrastructure and are happy relying on community support, MediaWiki is an excellent choice. If you require more support, a simpler setup, or have very specific requirements that MediaWiki can t fulfill, considering an alternative like Confluence, Notion, or a smaller-scale wiki engine might be a better fit.