Probably old hat to some…but documentation is important. Just for once…I am trying to keep documentation AHEAD of the inevitable bork that destroys everything… so that in 3 months time I don’t have to reconstitute everything out of thin air and swearing.
Anyhow, I came across this lovely little repo a while ago and though “yes, next time, use this”
https://github.com/Zavy86/WikiDocs
And so I am :)
I’ll let the author speak to the perks (no affiliation, I just like wikidocs and wanted to share it)
- Open source
- Plain text files
- No database required
- Markdown syntax
- YAML Frontmatter
- Editor full WYSIWYG
- Support for KaTeX math
- Support for Mermaid diagrams
- Unlimited page revisions
- Uploading and downloading attachments
- Uploading images (also from clipboard)
- Content can be categorized in namespaces
- Public and private browsing
- Desktop and remote sync
- Syntax highlighting
- Multiple languages
- Dark mode
While I show off a happy snap
This project is AI oriented, I think you should tag it with [AIP]
-
No, it isn’t.
-
and even if it was, it’s not my project ; I’m simply sharing it. Tagging is required by devs that share their project.
Do you have any evidence to support your “this project is AI oriented” claims, per the forum rules?
a project that used AI in development in any capacity. Disclosure is required for how it was used.
The number one sign, there is an AGENTS.md file: https://github.com/Zavy86/WikiDocs/blob/main/AGENTS.md
(There are actually 4, depending on the part the user works on)
The readme contains “ready for use with the LLM tools you choose” which is the reason I said “AI-oriented”
it’s not my project
But you’re doing the promotion of it, and I suspect rules need to be clarified here. The most important to me was to flag that AI might have been used here, and it’s not clear, whoever the author is.
EDIT: asked the question here: https://lemmy.world/post/52376145
-
AGENTS.md is a contributor configuration file telling AI coding assistants how to work in the repo. It doesn’t say AI built the project any more than a .editorconfig file means VS Code wrote the code.
-
“Ready for use with LLM tools you choose” describes ONE OF WikiDocs’ use cases, not its construction.
-
The author of the project repeatedly says they coded it, not Claude coded it. Given they are a professional developer that created this project for use in their team, I am apt to believe them. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2nVq9RbG54
-
Rule 7 and the expanded AI rules consistently use language like “your promotional post,” “if you are promoting a project,” and “if you are promoting a project where AI was used.”
I explicitly disclaimed affiliation in my post, because I have none. A community member sharing something they use is not a promotional post in the rule’s meaning. I refer you to direct precedent from one of our mod team:
https://lemmy.world/post/48847985/24538274
" Promo, to be clear, is a self promotion post. ‘I found a neat project’ doesn’t apply, because you aren’t affiliated and wouldn’t know how it was developed, if AI was used and how, etc. You also wouldn’t be trying to get stars, clicks, donations, or payment for that software, so the promotion rules do not apply. It’s just a regular post".
And discussed again by the same mod here:
https://aussie.zone/post/36810313/25081612
-
For your convenience, I have tagged the mod here, because you appear to be confused by how [AIT], [AIP] and [CBH] work while simultaneously wanting to police them. @curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
-
Your [META] thread is on lemmy.world. My post originates from aussie.zone. Whether that’s a temporary federation issue or just an oversight, you’ve opened a moderation discussion about my post somewhere I can’t easily participate in it, on a topic that has already been settled by the mod team, sticked and sign posted. That’s poor netiquette regardless of intent.
Shall we next audit every IDE autocomplete suggestion the dev ever accepted, look at their CV, review their commit history and inspect what they ate for lunch? Or can we just share cool things we find and let end users make up their own minds?
-
-
This is good thinking, and you may still want something like this anyway, as there’s always room for additional documentation, but let me propose an alternative that takes this good way of thinking a step further:
Infrastructure-as-code means my code is my documentation. How’s it configured? Look at the code. What’s it doing? Look at the code. Don’t understand why it’s doing that? Use more descriptive names for things and write more self-explanatory code. Is the code out of date with the current state? Stop implementing things manually and make the code run automatically instead so it’s never out of date anymore.
I have complete confidence in my setup and life is easy now. Except when the IAC breaks. But that’s rarely a panic situation, just mildly frustrating.
I used otter wiki for mine.
I tried both, as well as others, when searching for my wiki, ended up with otterwiki too, it’s just really good, I specially liked that the markdown files don’t need metadata hidden in each one of them, and the concept of the entire wiki being a repository. Also, being able to just drop markdown files wherever and the wiki will pick them up and put them in the correct order
Yeah yeah ill document everything one day, when all is “done”…
Jokes aside I just use outline for everything but I wanted something more lightweight as a kind of backup that works with plain text, other ones I didn’t quite like but this seems just right
This is coop but I tailored my need away by just not documenting.
Or maybe I should say the docker compose files are the documentation?
If no database, how is revision history maintained? Of course while there’s nothing wrong with someone deciding to write yet another self-hosted wiki, is there anything special about this one? “apt install gitit” has worked ok for me when I’ve wanted a low hassle wiki.
On revisions, I am not actually sure how WikiDocs stores the old versions internally. The project advertises unlimited revisions and rollback despite using flat files rather than a database. So…dunno.
Gitit looks very capable too, especially if you already want Git as the storage and revision layer.
What appealed to me about WikiDocs was less that it had some unique technical trick and more that it packaged the things I wanted into one nice interface: Markdown files, WYSIWYG editing, namespaces, attachments, Mermaid, etc etc
EDIT: “WikiDocs stores revisions as timestamped Markdown snapshots alongside each page”.
my-page/ ├── content.md └── versions/ ├── 1790201234567.md ├── 1790287654321.md └── 1790374567890.mdSo I can’t just point it to my current .md folder and let it rip.
Dunno. Try it, see what happens. Probably nothing good :)
OTOH, if you have a local LLM, you should be able to get it to template your existing .md into a sane wiki structure.
Well I assume this is thought to be used in conjunction with a Git repository (as its all just markdown files). So this would handle revision history for you.
