Topic on Project:Support desk

Why is this software so complicated?

5
24.47.179.37 (talkcontribs)

Looking at open-source wikis, MediaWiki seems to be the best however, extremely confusing when diving into the back-end of it. I don't understand why they want to use complicated variable names and extremely confusing settings that require hard edits to a config file. Why can't there be one administrators panel that contains everything you need without needing FTP to access the wiki files to manage simple things?

Now the template engine, it's crazy. It's way easier to learn HTML than it is to form a table using their confusing engine. I see many bad practices when diving into the back-end and I'm wondering, why? Why does such a popular wiki software have just bad engines? I'm not going to lie, it's a powerful software however it can be written so much better to make it friendly to other developers.

88.130.118.211 (talkcontribs)

As for the file system access: Sure, config settings could also be done via a web interface. For MediaWiki that already partly is the case with the pages inside the MediaWiki namespace, where you can e.g. define CSS, which then is used for all users. However, usage of the file system amongst other things is an important barrier of additional security: The credentials of one of your admins might get lost and then attackers can manipulate e.g. these pages inside the MediaWiki namespace. However, what they cannot do is e.g. delete your complete database, because in order to gain access to the DB they would have to know the DB credentials, which only are available with direct file system access. And - another security-relevant aspect: You can have a hugh amount of wiki admins, but there should only be a very limited number of people with actual access on the file system level, which strengthens security even more.

As for the complexity of MediaWiki as a tool for the internet just have a look at other tools: MediaWiki is one of the bigger and more powerful wiki engines, no question. However, compared with other tools it is just like baby software: It does not offer full CMS options, workspaces, versioning, sophisticated user access levels, timed display of content, content rotation and so on, just to name a few.

However, I want to invite you: When you know how MediaWiki can be improved - made more simple, using better practises in the backend, then participate in its programming: Get Developer access and contribute your patches! Welcome aboard!

Qiubov (talkcontribs)

You're right, MediaWiki is complicated to use. The quality of the help guides is inconsistent, editing config files directly rather than using a GUI is counter-intuitive, extending MediaWiki is a pain, and Wiki-markup drives away potential editors in droves.

However, there are some very good extensions, the most comprehensive being Bluespice. It has a comprehensive feature list (including a very good WYSIWYG editor) and since I installed it on my work wiki, editor retention is much higher.

88.130.109.101 (talkcontribs)

As I said: Baby software. If you want to know, what is really complex, have a look beyond your own nose. E.g. have a look at TYPO3. After a few months, when I successfully work with MediaWiki since a really long time already, we can then speak back and see, how far you made it.

174.82.239.56 (talkcontribs)

Been my experience that you do get what you pay for. That's why I expect little from open source software. Mediawiki might be more useful and easier to use if there were business customers whose feedback had to be respected. Since volunteering don't feed the bulldog, these folks probably have real jobs that come first.

Kevin O'Connell

Madison Wisconsin

Reply to "Why is this software so complicated?"