Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
2,157 bytes added ,  00:26, 1 February 2018
Adds summary and link to BlueSpice analysis
Ultimately, this comparison matrix will probably live on MediaWiki.org - because it's useful to the wider MediaWiki community. And, there will be a modified version that compares the '''QualityBox''' distribution of MediaWiki hosted on https://demo.QualityBox.us/wiki/QualityBox_vs_Confluence
This article builds on the information at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software Wikipedia] which is rather superficial but does allow you to dive into each product page. There is also the 'WikiMatrix' site that provides a more in-depth analysis and comparison of wikis (eg. [https://www.wikimatrix.org/compare/BlueSpice-MediaWiki+Confluence+MediaWiki BlueSpice vs MediaWiki vs Confluence]. ) But, that site is often incorrect, or at best stale.  == Comparing MediaWiki to Confluence == In comparing MediaWiki to Confluence, we're also looking at what other vendors or analysts say about their comparisons. BlueSpice, a MediaWiki distribution which is specifically aimed at the enterprise market, is built by the German company Hallo Welt!. They offer an [https://blog.bluespice.com/2017/05/17/bluespice-mediawiki-vs-confluence-the-wiki-alternatives-1/ in-depth point-by-point analysis of the MediaWiki platform compared with Confluence] (and give you the spreadsheet to see the details: 275 metrics in 18 categories!). == Executive Summary ==A simplistic conclusion when considering the origin of these products and their respective strengths would be that if your organization is a bunch of developers trying to push code out the door, then Confluence may be better because it does the essential "wiki" work; with integration into other tools needed in Software development. If you're an organization that has "Knowledge Workers" and you want to increase productivity, and revenue or decrease expenses around managing "company knowledge" then MediaWiki is probably the best solution. It excels at finding relevant information, collecting knowledge centrally, giving it context and structure, and curating its quality. Are you a MediaWiki expert or consultant? Discuss this topic over at the [https://discourse.equality-tech.com/t/confluence-v-mediawiki/191 QualityBox Discourse]. Edits, corrections and contributions here are welcome!!
== Comparison Chart ==
|}
 
== Talking Points ==
=== WYSIWYG editor ===
Confluence has a WYSIWYG editor. And so does MediaWiki. Whereas the Confluence editor understands XHTML markup, the MediaWiki editor was built exclusively for the MediaWiki project and '''understands''' wiki markup, templates, parser calls, magic words and features of the MediaWiki system. These advanced features are things that advanced users generally prefer to type directly (faster), but Confluence took away the ability to use straight wiki markup. You now have no choice but to use the WYSIWYG editor in Confluence.
 
=== Search ===
Both Confluence and MediaWiki have search powered by Lucene. However MediaWiki takes it one level higher. By using ElasticSearch, there is a lot more search capability built into MediaWiki. And new documents are indexed in near real-time.
 
=== Demo ===
* https://demo.qualitybox.us/ QualityBox
* https://en.demo.bluespice.com/ BlueSpice
* https://templates.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CW/overview Confluence
== Users ==
4,558

edits

Navigation menu