Take the 2-minute tour ×

Currently we use a MediaWiki installation for writing documentation, but several of us find the markup format horribly arbitrary and awkward, with a mixture of Wiki tags and XML in the text, and the lack of any quick formatting buttons for things like ordered or unordered lists, different heading levels, quick embedding of images, tables, code samples, etc. Sites like LiveJournal provide most or all of this while still generating backwards-compatible markup so it's not like there's a technological impediment here.

There are other niceties that we'd like to see, such as being able to pick a category from a list (ala Wordpress) or maybe being able to apply syntax highlighting to code samples, etc.

Do Wikis exist that provide a decent range of these features to make life easier on the editor? Something with the features and presentation of WordPress but the page organisation of a Wiki would be perfect.

(WikiMatrix returns several candidates, but among them is MediaWiki, which quite clearly is not a WYSIWYG interface except in the most tenuous fashion. I'd rather not dig through each one if it's plain that WikiMatrix is not being entirely stringent about its criteria.)

share|improve this question
There is a CKEditor plugin that you can configure to MediaWiki that eases your work –  Ram Sep 24 '09 at 11:26
add comment

6 Answers

Foswiki might suit your needs. It has a WYSIWYG editor and has a syntax highlighting plugin.

share|improve this answer
I find Foswiki extremely powerful yet easy to use -- a rare and great combination. It works very well ouf-of-the-box, and can be customized when you needs grow. It's also very mature and has many useful plugins. I recommend you try out the VMware download; it has everything ready to run, and is perfect as a proof-of-concept. –  Torben Gundtofte-Bruun Jan 14 '10 at 11:06
add comment

Wikiwig is as free wiki (GPL) with wysiwyg features.

(or) have look on this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%5Fof%5Fwiki%5Fsoftware

share|improve this answer
add comment

ScrewTurn Wiki 3.0.2 has WYSIWYG, syntax highlighting as a plugin, categories, subsites,...
Highly recomended.

share|improve this answer
add comment

WikiMedia WYSIWYG editor page reference.

In 2009, there is no available 'ready-to-go' package for incorporating full WYSIWYG into the MediaWiki software.

The problem is that any WYSIWYG editor would have to know wikitext grammar, and no full grammar for wikitext exists - the "parser" doesn't parse, it's a twisty series of regular expressions. So present WYSIWYG editors either have to (a) reverse-engineer as much of a grammar as they can, or (b) forget wikitext and just write HTML.

A proper grammar is not sufficient for a proper WYSIWYM editor, as opposed to WYSIAYG (what you see is all you get), but it is necessary. A proper grammar is a highly-desired thing for many other purposes as well, and present efforts are at "promising vapourware" status.
See Markup spec.

For a list of existing extensions providing some degree of WYSIWYG support,
see Category:WYSIWYG extensions

share|improve this answer
anyone care to explain the down vote? this answer was not meant to be pessimistic, just an observation I agreed to working with various wiki markups. –  nik Sep 24 '09 at 17:18
probably because it isn't an answer to the question at all. What you've provided is just background as to why things are the way they are - it doesn't give any information about how to fix the problem. That reference could have been a good comment on the question, but it's not answer. –  Michael Kohne Jun 21 '10 at 11:09
add comment

Try DokuWiki (needs php, and store wiki in FS, supports hierarchical namespaces, however WYSIWYG is a plugin), or XWiki

But better go to http://www.wikimatrix.org and run the wizard. However, evaluate carefully, because having a feature does not means it has the feature the way you want...

ps: sorry I do not have any reputation to post 3 hyperlinks (ZOMG)

share|improve this answer
add comment

We use the FCK Editor for MediaWiki and generally it works very well, especially for tables and copying from Office documentation.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer


