[waf]

Did you look at wiki.js ( https://wiki.js.org/ )?

I've been evaluating wikis too, and that's at the top of my list because it checks the boxes of having a git backend, markdown, and third-party auth providers.

Only downside is that it's NodeJS, which I'd rather not deal with given our existing tech stack, but as an internal app it should be fine.

[_odey]

I've installed wikijs for a small team of developers at their request.

The biggest selling point for this piece of software, compared to showing them 5 other alternatives, is that it looks good, it's eye candy. And that is exactly what I've seen people want from software like these. They want to feel good when they open it and browse, they want to see a modern look, it makes the experience of using and maintaining a knowledge base more appealing so they engage more. Feature wise it's no confluence, nor xwiki, it's just a page editor with user management, but it's quick to set up, uses extreemely little memory by default, feels fast and looks good, so they don't mind if they see some functionality missing.

Among more and more tools that I install for people I see this pattern where they are judged by their looks above features, and it's not easy for me to fully understand it... But then again I started learning and programming ruby for the same reason, it looked and felt good, so I stuck with it.

So I guess the big takeaway here is not a large pepperoni pizza from domino's, but the fact that software looks matter, a lot, and it's probably going to matter more and more in the future.

[mekster]

What's not so easy to understand that the looks matter?

I've gone through a list of wiki apps a few months ago as DokuWiki was showing its age, every time the demo page looked like some web from the 90's, I don't care what features it has but closed it instantly.

I do full stack web but I make sure it's also visually pleasing for anything I build because there's no reason to give users eye pain.

I'd rather think that anything that doesn't look good means the author had no time for visual adjustment as the internals still has a lot to be desired.

[waf]

ah, interesting. I guess the implication in your comment is that there are other, more capable alternatives (but not as "pretty"). What are some of the criteria where wikijs is lacking? For me, wikijs was leading in all the criteria I mentioned in my original post.

[mekster]

Second wiki.js.

I've used DokuWiki for over a decade but it's showing its age. It's just a collection of hacks to add features and sometimes third party plugins are too buggy but wiki.js has most of what I wanted built-in.

It had WYSIWYG editor. Frankly a bare markdown editor is out of the question as it is never intuitive for anyone but some techie who likes remembering all the tags and I'm s programmer for a long time but I'd take WYSIWYG any day for managing structured documents.

It has plenty of auth targets from LDAP to oauth and many others.

It doesn't force you with some weird rule such as "link first and create page" but just hit the "New page" button and since it has list of pages for both front side and the admin panel, you'll never have some page left in limbo.

Admin panel is good. It lets you put custom CSS, so you can control the look pretty well including removing the parts you don't want.

Custom navigation let's you add any links in the menu and access control is good, so it's easy to allow a group of people access certain pages.

And it looks good.

I'm just a user.

[chsasank]

I did. It's interface is not as intuitive and streamlined as Outline. Our team found outline super intuitive because Outline's collections and Slack's channels are equivalent.