I personally like Dokuwiki a lot. From a usability standpoint, once you spend a few learning the interface, it’s very simplistic and not overwhelming in features. You can always add extensions for stuff you need that isn’t there out of box.
From a technical standpoint, it doesn’t need a database. The entire structure is text files, so it can be run on even a super small VM, and doing backups is as easy as tarballing the data directory. It’s got support for LDAP for authentication too, which might be useful. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 14, 2020, at 7:24 AM, Karl Auer <ka...@biplane.com.au> wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-03-14 at 08:07 -0400, Craig wrote: >> Wanted to ask what WIKI software teams are using to save >> documentation to / >> how to's for staff, etc. > > Like any other software, make a set of requirements and then go > looking. The order of those two steps is important, though you're > allowed to iterate. > > Remember to match the requirements to the people who will actually be > using the thing, not the people who will be managing it :-) > > Personally I think the plethora of formatting options in things like > Confluence tends to distract people into spending vast amounts of time > getting their pages to look just right, that would have been better > spent capturing more actual information. Or it makes them avoid adding > information because it's too hard, or it takes too long, or it invites > odious comparisons with other people's entries. > > Regards, K. > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) > http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer > http://twitter.com/kauer389 > > GPG fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170 > Old fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D > >
