MediaWiki v Confluence: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
slight touch up
Line 69: Line 69:
| {{checkmark|no}}
| {{checkmark|no}}
| {{checkmark|no}}
| {{checkmark|no}}
| <abbr title="A logical falacy that leads audiences towards a false conclusion">This is a red herring</abbr>. There is no way that MediaWiki would ever be listed by Gartner since they review '''vendors'''. MediaWiki is produced by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), a non-profit foundation.  They are not a software vendor. They'll never be listed by Gartner in any MQ unless Gartner changes their methodology. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Quadrant#Criticism</ref>  Besides, Atlassian was named in the 2017 MQ for "Enterprise Agile Planning Tools" <ref>https://www.atlassian.com/gartner</ref>, not for wikis, not for collaboration, not for knowledge management.
| If someone tells you that Confluence is better because MediaWiki isn't in the Gartner MQ, this argument <abbr title="A logical falacy that leads audiences towards a false conclusion">is a red herring</abbr>. There is no way that MediaWiki would ever be listed by Gartner since they review (large) '''vendors'''. MediaWiki is produced by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), a non-profit foundation.  They are not a software vendor. They'll never be listed by Gartner in any MQ unless Gartner changes their methodology. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Quadrant#Criticism</ref>  Besides, Atlassian was named in the 2017 MQ for "Enterprise Agile Planning Tools" <ref>https://www.atlassian.com/gartner</ref>, not for Confluence, not for wikis, not for collaboration, not for knowledge management.
|-
|-
! Cost
! Cost