Currently we use a MediaWiki installation for writing documentation, but several of us find the markup format horribly arbitrary and awkward, with a mixture of Wiki tags and XML in the text, and the lack of any quick formatting buttons for things like ordered or unordered lists, different heading levels, quick embedding of images, tables, code samples, etc. Sites like LiveJournal provide most or all of this while still generating backwards-compatible markup so it's not like there's a technological impediment here.

There are other niceties that we'd like to see, such as being able to pick a category from a list (ala Wordpress) or maybe being able to apply syntax highlighting to code samples, etc.

Do Wikis exist that provide a decent range of these features to make life easier on the editor? Something with the features and presentation of WordPress but the page organisation of a Wiki would be perfect.

(WikiMatrix returns several candidates, but among them is MediaWiki, which quite clearly is not a WYSIWYG interface except in the most tenuous fashion. I'd rather not dig through each one if it's plain that WikiMatrix is not being entirely stringent about its criteria.)

  • 1
    There is a CKEditor plugin that you can configure to MediaWiki that eases your work
    – Prabhu R
    Sep 24, 2009 at 11:26

7 Answers 7


Foswiki might suit your needs. It has a WYSIWYG editor and has a syntax highlighting plugin.

  • I find Foswiki extremely powerful yet easy to use -- a rare and great combination. It works very well ouf-of-the-box, and can be customized when you needs grow. It's also very mature and has many useful plugins. I recommend you try out the VMware download; it has everything ready to run, and is perfect as a proof-of-concept. Jan 14, 2010 at 11:06

Wikiwig is as free wiki (GPL) with wysiwyg features.

(or) have look on this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wiki_software


For what it's worth, MediaWiki now has a WYSIWYG editor available; in fact, it is the default for new users of Wikipedia.


ScrewTurn Wiki 3.0.2 has WYSIWYG, syntax highlighting as a plugin, categories, subsites,...
Highly recomended.


We use the FCK Editor for MediaWiki and generally it works very well, especially for tables and copying from Office documentation.

  • "This extension has been archived. Obsolete and unmaintained extension with major security issues which is also broken." Jun 17, 2019 at 18:58

Try DokuWiki (needs php, and store wiki in FS, supports hierarchical namespaces, however WYSIWYG is a plugin), or XWiki

But better go to http://www.wikimatrix.org and run the wizard. However, evaluate carefully, because having a feature does not means it has the feature the way you want...

ps: sorry I do not have any reputation to post 3 hyperlinks (ZOMG)


WikiMedia WYSIWYG editor page reference.

In 2009, there is no available 'ready-to-go' package for incorporating full WYSIWYG into the MediaWiki software.

The problem is that any WYSIWYG editor would have to know wikitext grammar, and no full grammar for wikitext exists - the "parser" doesn't parse, it's a twisty series of regular expressions. So present WYSIWYG editors either have to (a) reverse-engineer as much of a grammar as they can, or (b) forget wikitext and just write HTML.

A proper grammar is not sufficient for a proper WYSIWYM editor, as opposed to WYSIAYG (what you see is all you get), but it is necessary. A proper grammar is a highly-desired thing for many other purposes as well, and present efforts are at "promising vapourware" status.
See Markup spec.

For a list of existing extensions providing some degree of WYSIWYG support,
see Category:WYSIWYG extensions

  • anyone care to explain the down vote? this answer was not meant to be pessimistic, just an observation I agreed to working with various wiki markups.
    – nik
    Sep 24, 2009 at 17:18
  • 4
    probably because it isn't an answer to the question at all. What you've provided is just background as to why things are the way they are - it doesn't give any information about how to fix the problem. That reference could have been a good comment on the question, but it's not answer. Jun 21, 2010 at 11:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .