Hypothetically Asked Questions

Isn't needing to use GitHub adding a barrier to entry for editing the wiki?

Yes. However, it is, in my view, a very small one.

Given that the process for editing can be done entirely via the browser and will be sufficiently documented, I do not see that it will be substantially worse than any other platform. As a last resort, it would also be possible for a member to make edits on behalf of another member.

The lack of ongoing maintenance, zero monetary expense, environmental benefits and security benefits of a static site position this as a trade-off worth making.

Would this mean I need to create a GitHub account to edit the wiki?

Yes (technically no, but that is probably not what you are really asking).

However, if we choose an online solution (e.g. MediaWiki), you would have to create an account for that anyway.

Isn't there a lot of individual parts?

Not really, there are effectively three core components, all of which are mature and used widely.

Why not use an online solution like MediaWiki?

Any dynamic site requires hosting somewhere. That means (in general) either paying or having adverts.

If we pay for a compute platform and manage the deployment ourselves, then it means someone has to spend time managing it.

There are also security and environmental benefits to not running a dynamic site when a static one will suffice.

But the GitHub, mdBook, Cloudflare solution does not need payment and does not have adverts? What gives?

We are well within the free tiers of GitHub and Cloudflare for what we need to do, and mdBook is FLOSS.