Wiki are generally considered to be collaborative web sites, that anyone can contribute to. But not everyone is interested in collaborating with wiki. You could use wiki for a handy Content Management Software (CMS), just as blogging software can be used for a CMS.

On a very basic level, wiki makes web publishing easier. Depending on what you are using it for, and where you install it, and who uses it, wiki can also be a powerful tool for group work- or it can be a simple way to manage the content of a prepared website.

Wiki:WikiHasManyMeanings says 'Wikis are script-driven Web sites that allow visitors to edit their page'... but not every wiki allows everyone to edit. Some prefer to form a GatedCommunity.

You could use WikiAsCMS, only allowing certain people to edit, and using rigid structure and templating to control content and form. In fact, it could be a great tool, especially for small companies or not-for-profits looking for an economical solution.

It seems like a bit of a missed trick, if collaborative document editing is not allowed- but there's nothing to stop people from using WikiAsCMS.

Some examples


i've pretty much decided to use a wiki + blog as my CMS (replacing my journal), but i intend to allow editing for the general public, at least initially, as an experiment. i'll let you know when it goes live; i want to seed it some more first.

So, uh... I think the very definition of Wiki is a content management system. It's just a particular kind of CMS that throws out most of the anal-retentive hogwash that some other ones use.

Also, I think if you follow Wiki:WikiPrinciples strictly a GatedCommunity is not a wiki. It may use a WikiEngine, but it's not a wiki.

I think the thing that folks looking for an easy CMS need to think about is whether all that locked-up, authorized, authenticated bullshit is really worth their time. I mean, get over yourself, already.


EditNearLinks: GatedCommunity WikiEngine