Objective reasons for using a wiki tool over Sharepoint?

Question

Duplicate

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/587481/developer-documentation-sharepoint-document-management-vs-screwturn-wiki

I have been tasked with picking a wiki tool for a development organization, comprised of several different development teams. Sharepoint is installed and upper management would prefer this to be used, but in the past it has only used when PMs are forced to use it. None of the developers will update it with content that needs to be shared. I developed in Sharepoint and I liked it, so I have nothing against it. But for this to work I need something I can get everyone using, so Sharepoint will not work. Step one is to convince management why Sharepoint will not work. We need the typical wiki features:

WYSIWYG, Clean interface, Easy to use, Attach Files to pages, Support for groups of users, Open source, Hosted Locally. (Maybe others I am not considering now?)

Can anyone provide a list of objective reasons why Sharepoint is not the solution we can use to take our first step? There are many such products out there so step 2 should be easier.

Answer 1

SharePoint is best when using many of it's features (eg DM, WCM, workflow, collaberation etc) - you get a lot of it's benefits from the synergy of using all these things together with a common interface.

In any one area though, it's far from the 'best of breed' application - so, if you want a product for a specific job (eg a wiki), SharePoint isn't the most fully-featured/easy-to-use/delete-as-applicable product to be using - there will be products that do that (single) job far better.

Answer 2

Which version of SharePoint are you using WSS 3.0/MOSS 2007 includes both wiki and blog functionality.

Although the SharePoint wiki isn't as feature-rich as most, the fact is that if your developers would not update a SharePoint wiki, chances are that they would not update any other kind, either.

I recommend creating a SharePoint wiki, and then actually reading the starting page, where it gives the definition of wikiwiki. I recommend only using a wiki (of any kind) for documents that can be written quickly, so that developers can get back to developing as soon as possible. Let the structure and accuracy grow over time. Just get the facts into the wiki quickly.

Answer 3

I have absolutely no sharepoint-foo at all, but the sharepoint setup by IT at my employer has a wiki that we can use for documentation. Wouldn't that be good enough? Works ok-ish in firefox on mac, so I'm a happy camper.

Answer 4

SharePoint is the exact opposite of a wiki: A wiki is lightweight, easy to use, obvious, quick, doesn't get in the way.

To elaborate: A wiki allows your to jot down an idea quickly and moving details to the next page. In SP, people start to create processes, editing rights, workflows.

Wikis are designed to not get in the way. SP is designed to prevent you from doing "something bad"; whatever that might be. Wikis are driven by the idea that brainstorming works in open space while SP is driven by FUD: Who can see this information? Can it be used against me? How can I prevent someone to see/edit something?

Note: This is not a critique of SP per se; it's just how it used in most organizations. If you look at the security settings and edit rights, you sometimes feel like the workers of the company must all have been inmates in some high-profile prison (or should be).

Answer 5

You could also try looking at this question to see others experiences with SharePoint wiki's

Answer 6

I have used MediaWiki, Instiki and Sharepoint. Sharepoint does not work correctly with firefox on purpose. Its wiki functionality is an after thought. All kinds of additional features nobody use. But it does appeal to managers.

Instiki can be up and running in less than a minute and MediaWiki has everything you could need. Sharepoint annoyed most people on our team so nobody wanted to use it which meant a lot of knowledge was lost.