• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.


Online Training Wiki Analysis

Page history last edited by PBworks 11 years, 11 months ago


And the Results Are:

After careful analysis and review of each of the Wikis, two Wikis stood out in terms of meeting the needs of the Online Training Use case.  These Wikis were Twiki and Media Wiki.  Twiki overall had a higher score than MediaWiki (131 to 125)but both wikis were in close enough proximity in terms of ranking and evaluation that further analysis was needed.  Even though Twiki scored higher, Media Wiki is the recommended wiki for this use case.  MediaWiki scored better or on par with Twiki in terms of core or Must Have functionality.  MediaWiki had a significantly stronger multi-language feature support which will allow the business to deploy this throughout the global to match its global footprint.  In the categories of Hosting Features and Statistics MediaWiki was superior to Twiki.  These sections will help the company analyze the happenings and ensure that the wiki is in fact assisting in the meeting the end goals of the business. 

MediaWiki excelled in two categories, Hosting Features and Statistics.  MediaWiki meet all of the requirements in the Hosting Features categories while Twiki was limited in storage space.  The big difference was in terms of statistic features.  MediaWiki provided functionality for all requirements while Twiki fell short, scoring five points below MediaWiki.  Twikis’ overall scoring edge came primarily in the extra categories with which is not considered core functionality. 

Twiki was only slightly better in a number of high level categories, scoring higher marks in Design, Output, and Media files.  MediaWiki and Twiki had the two highest scores in the design category, each meeting all of the Must Have requirements for this section.  MediaWiki had a stronger overall language interface which will allow it to be used throughout the world, while Twiki did have this functionality, it was more limited in scope only partially meeting the requirements.  Twiki appears to be more user friendly as it has greater functionality in terms of page templates and ease of page editing/updating.  This will be extremely useful catering towards the non technical user community which this use case targets. 

Twiki scores marginally (3pts) better than MediaWiki in the Output category.  Twiki’s ability to easily export and be printed is a feature the user community will like and will assist with user adoption.  Furthermore, Twiki is mobile friendly which while not necessarily a core requirement of the use case is something that the users may use significantly going forward.  This feature was rated as a nice to have.  MediaWiki does not support mobile applications at this time.

Overall Twiki scored higher; however, each Wiki met a significant portion of the Must and Should Haves that allowed them to be evaluated on means of best reaching the end user and accomplishing the end goal.   In the end the additional number of supported languages will allow this global organization to implement this to their entire user base, where Twiki might limit that implementation.  Furthermore, the Statistical features offered via MediaWiki were the difference.  An additional item that was not contained within the scoring document was is MediaWiki is a format that many people are accustomed to due to the widespread popularity of Wikipedia.  It is assumed that this increased familiarity would help increased user adoption.


The Other Players:


DokuWiki was a strong third candidate, finishing with 113 points.  This was 17 behind Twiki the high scorer and only 12 behind MediaWiki the preferred solution.  DokuWiki scored well in the categories of design, output and hosting features.  There feature set was competitive but came up short in terms of meeting the requirements when compared to MediaWiki and Twiki.  DokuWiki does not provide strong statistics as compared to the other wikis which was the primary reason this wiki fell to third place during the evaluation.  The Hosting and Media/Files features score about on par with the other wikis


ClearSpace much like DokuWiki provided an extremely comprehensive and feature rich wiki site.  ClearSpace performed well in the output and Hosting Feature Categories.  ClearSpace is missing some core/critical functionality as it relates to this Use Case.  Overal the editing features are not as rich as some of its competitors.  Clear space was rated 16pts behind and clearly a second tier wiki in this regard.  In addition to the lack of Design functionality, ClearSpace lacks many of the nice to and should haves in the Statistic category.  ClearSpace is the only one of the wikis that was examined that charges a licensing fee ($29 per user).  These are the reasons that ClearSpace was rated well below the top tier of wikis.


Zoho Wiki

Zoho Wiki scored the lowest of the evaluated Wikis; however, some of the critical information could not be identified and thus no points were awarded.  Zoho does an excellent job in terms of creating an easy to use wiki site for non technical users.  This is the primary target audience of the use case and thus Zoho would make a good fit in this regards.  The primary intended use of this wiki does not seem to meet the general needs of the use case.  Primarily Zoho lacks the ability to create or mask your own URL.  Due to the fact that this is customer facing, this is a requirement and something that would eliminate Zoho from contention.  Zoho also lacks any meaningful statistics or analysis which would allow the company to analyze the happenings of the wiki and ensure that it’s meeting the end goals.



Wicked is currently in beta and is being developed as part of the Horde Project.  Its not know at this time, if like MediaWiki, Wicked will be used commercially going forward.  Wicked, scored significantly lower than its peers in all categories, except hosting where it was on par with the top performers.  It is suggested that Wicked be evaluated again in the future, once it is no longer a beta release, to determine its full feature set and capabilities. 


Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.