wiki.dlang.org: How about replacing MediaWiki with a Git repo?

[Mindy Batek (0xEAB)]

On Tuesday, 4 August 2026 at 12:34:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
> If we wanted to entertain that thought, I think the conclusion 
> is then that we should enable logging in via GitHub, not throw 
> the baby with the bathwater.

We should scrutinize the current solution to the same criteria 
that we apply to other proposals.

> I appreciate the feedback, but I think the kind of feedback 
> that would lead to any actual changes needs to come from a 
> place of proven and long-term experience from running such 
> community services, as well as commitment to support these 
> choices going forward.

We tried MediaWiki for documentation at work. A coworker said he 
had used it in a previous workplace.
In my opinion, it was a bit clunky. It was rather unhandy. It 
didn’t fit in with other workflows. People didn’t write 
documentation. They couldn’t be bothered to bother using the tool 
provided.
When we switched to a Markdown-based solution (MkDocs) and used a 
Git repo for versioning, documentation got suddenly taken 
serious. People could use their favorite editor for authoring. No 
complicated data transfer for such a workflow, just save the 
files to your filesystem and let Git handle the rest. The thing 
is automatically deployed to a webserver where docs can be read 
and searched.
Those who aren’t as familiar with Git or text editing just use 
the web interface.
Thanks to GitLab’s Web IDE, we even use it for meeting protocols 
these days.

We even have repositories shared with less tech-savy clients so 
we can maintain their documentation together. It works.

Obviously, this isn’t all that comparable. At work we do not use 
pull requests (or merge requests, how GitLab calls it). The 
content is internal only, not publicly on the internet for 
everyone to view. And after all, it’s just my anecdote, not a 
scientific study.