PmWiki vs. MediaWiki: Which Is Right for Your Project?Choosing the right wiki engine can shape your project’s workflow, security posture, customization options, and long-term maintenance burden. PmWiki and MediaWiki are two mature, open-source wiki platforms with distinct philosophies and trade-offs. This article compares them across installation, architecture, editing, customization, extensions, user management, performance, security, and typical use cases to help you decide which fits your project best.
Quick summary
- PmWiki: Lightweight, file-based pages, simple syntax, highly configurable through PHP recipes, minimal dependencies — suited for small-to-medium teams, intranets, documentation sites where simple setup and flexible look-and-feel matter.
- MediaWiki: Robust, database-backed, feature-rich, large ecosystem (notably Wikipedia), advanced permission and extension framework — suited for large public wikis, projects needing scale, structured data, or extensive community features.
1. Architecture & data storage
PmWiki
- Stores pages as flat files (one file per page) under the filesystem.
- Uses PHP for rendering; configuration held in PHP files.
- No database required (though some users add database-backed features via recipes).
MediaWiki
- Uses a relational database (MySQL/MariaDB, PostgreSQL, sometimes SQLite) to store content, history, users, and metadata.
- PHP-based application with a layered architecture optimized for large datasets and concurrency.
Implications
- File-based PmWiki is easier to back up (copy files) and can be simpler to host on minimal shared hosting. But large wikis with many pages or high write concurrency can suffer from filesystem bottlenecks.
- MediaWiki’s DB model is better for scale, concurrent edits, search indexing, and complex queries (e.g., categories, page transclusions).
2. Installation & hosting
PmWiki
- Very simple: upload PHP files to a web host, configure a few settings. Works well on basic shared hosting with PHP.
- Minimal requirements: PHP only; no DB required.
- Quicker to get started for small sites or intranets.
MediaWiki
- Requires a compatible database and more configuration (database setup, web server tuning).
- Installation is straightforward but more involved than PmWiki; recommended for hosts that support LAMP/LEMP stacks.
- Better suited to VPS or dedicated hosting if you anticipate growth.
3. Editing experience & markup
PmWiki
- Uses its own lightweight markup syntax (easy to learn for users familiar with Markdown-like constructs, but different).
- Editing can be configured to use in-place editing, edit pages as plain text, or integrate WYSIWYG editors via recipes.
- Good for simple documentation and collaborative notes where complex page structures aren’t required.
MediaWiki
- Uses wikitext syntax (well-known, used by Wikipedia). It’s powerful but has a steeper learning curve.
- Modern MediaWiki supports VisualEditor (a full WYSIWYG editor) which eases contributions from non-technical users.
- Strong support for templates, transclusion, parser functions, and complex page composition.
4. Customization & theming
PmWiki
- Highly customizable via “recipes” — PHP snippets that add or change functionality.
- Skinning is straightforward; many sites create bespoke looks with modest PHP/CSS changes.
- Less formalized extension API; requires some PHP knowledge and manual integration.
MediaWiki
- Large ecosystem of extensions with formal APIs and well-documented hooks.
- Many ready-made skins and themes, and active community contributions.
- Extensions cover structured data (Semantic MediaWiki), authentication, editing, search, and more.
Comparison (high-level)
| Aspect | PmWiki | MediaWiki |
|---|---|---|
| Out-of-box features | Lightweight | Feature-rich |
| Extension ecosystem | Smaller, recipes-based | Large, formal extensions |
| Theming | Flexible, simpler | Powerful, many prebuilt skins |
| Required developer skill | Moderate PHP | PHP + DB knowledge |
5. User management & permissions
PmWiki
- Simple access controls built-in (per-page or group-based), configurable in local configuration files.
- Authentication can be via htpasswd, flat-file, or integrated with other systems using recipes.
- Better for small teams where complex role hierarchies aren’t needed.
MediaWiki
- Robust user system with groups, rights, central authentication extensions (LDAP, OAuth).
- Fine-grained permissions and features like flagged revisions, abuse filters, and namespace-specific rights.
- Preferred when you need well-tested, scalable access-control for many users.
6. Extensions, plugins, and community
PmWiki
- Community-contributed recipes cover many typical needs (WYSIWYG, search improvements, auth, form handling).
- Smaller community than MediaWiki; fewer third-party integrations.
- Recipes are easy to drop into a site but sometimes lack centralized maintenance.
MediaWiki
- Very large ecosystem driven by Wikimedia and many organizations.
- Extensions vary from small utilities to major subsystems (e.g., VisualEditor, CirrusSearch).
- Active community with extensive documentation and support channels.
7. Performance & scalability
PmWiki
- Excellent for small-to-medium sites with modest traffic.
- Potential performance issues when many simultaneous edits or many pages are stored as individual files; caching can mitigate read load.
- Simpler hosting requirements.
MediaWiki
- Designed to scale: caching (Varnish, memcached), search backends (Elasticsearch), and DB replication are well-supported.
- Better for high-traffic public wikis and projects expecting heavy concurrent use.
8. Security & maintenance
PmWiki
- Smaller attack surface if minimal recipes are used, but security depends on keeping PHP and recipes up to date.
- File permissions and webserver configuration are important because pages are files on disk.
- Maintenance is lighter for small installs.
MediaWiki
- Regular security releases, active vulnerability response from a large community.
- More moving parts (DB, extensions, caching) mean more components to maintain and secure.
- Formal security policies and best practices available.
9. Migration & content portability
PmWiki
- Pages are plain files so exporting and manual manipulation is straightforward.
- Importing/exporting to/from other wiki engines may require conversion scripts.
MediaWiki
- Has robust import/export tools (XML dumps), and Wikimedia tools and community scripts support conversions and backups.
- Better for long-term projects that need reliable dump/restore capabilities and programmatic access.
10. Typical use cases & recommendations
Choose PmWiki if:
- You need a quick, low-cost wiki for an internal team or small community.
- You prefer a file-based system with easy backups and minimal hosting requirements.
- You want simple customization without the overhead of managing a DB-driven platform.
- Example projects: internal documentation, small company intranet, project notes, course websites.
Choose MediaWiki if:
- You expect many users, high traffic, or complex content relationships (templates, transclusion, categories).
- You want access to a broad ecosystem of extensions and long-term community support.
- You need advanced permissions, structured data, and scalable infrastructure.
- Example projects: public knowledge bases, large collaborative wikis, community encyclopedias.
11. Practical checklist to decide
- Hosting environment: shared PHP-only → PmWiki. DB + VPS available → MediaWiki.
- Scale & concurrency: small team → PmWiki. Large community/high traffic → MediaWiki.
- Feature needs: lightweight docs and simple markup → PmWiki. Templates, structured data, VisualEditor → MediaWiki.
- Maintenance bandwidth: minimal admins → PmWiki. Dedicated admins/devops → MediaWiki.
12. Final thoughts
PmWiki and MediaWiki serve different niches. PmWiki favors simplicity, quick deployment, and file-based convenience; MediaWiki favors scale, extensibility, and a large ecosystem. Match your choice to hosting constraints, expected scale, desired features, and available maintenance resources.
If you tell me more about your project size, expected traffic, hosting environment, and must-have features (WYSIWYG, LDAP, templates, categories, etc.), I can recommend a tailored choice and a step-by-step deployment plan.
Leave a Reply