I've recently set up an install of mediawiki - and it's pretty straight forward.  One of the great features is the way it tracks the entire document history.  There is some work to get some of the placeholder pages filled out (some of the help pages, policies, etc)

The syntax is straight forward:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents#For_editors

Categories can be used to group articles.  I'm not sure how much it would be worth trying to migrate some stuff over from the current system (HO's technical series comes to mind as something great to have).

Its primary advantage is that anyone can be a contributing author. An encyclopedia really is a perfect analogy.  Alot of the TOD content seems more like journal articles.  Good material on a specific content.  Something you want to be able to pull back off the shelf, but not something that is easily organized in a bunch of cross referenced articles.  It would be hard to figure out how to post new content in a rolling blog "news" format, and also have it transferred to the wiki (There is a recent pages page in the wiki software, but its no blog).

-Ptone


Obviously you don't read my posts :)
I agree with the prior post that it may be worthwhile to put wiki efforts into the main wikipedia.  Perhaps taking my journal analogy farther, some of the more substantial TOD posts could go through some peer review and be published online (quarterly?) as a "Journal of Peak Oil".  You might be able to gain more exposure among more like minded serious thinkers concerned about the way PO will play out.  What I've always liked about TOD, is that it has less of the shrill doomer attitude and more of the "lets just study this objectively".  Mostly, I'd say keep up the good work!

-Ptone

Adding to the Wikipedia is a great idea, but probably some TOD
contributions will be deemed non neutral. So a TOD wiki where the more controversial, Peak Oil Point Of View (POPOV) can be published, would give an extra flexibility.