This isn't really something you can answer in a HN post. It would literally take writing a book. Or two. Or more. And there have, in fact, been many books (and

This isn't really something you can answer in a HN post. It would literally take writing a book. Or two. Or more. And there have, in fact, been many books (and journal articles, etc.) written on all of this. I have a "reading list" on this topic lying around here somewhere... actually, I thought I'd posted it to HN in the past, but I can't find it here. If I can scare up the list, I'll share it. That said, I'll say that while technological tools are useful and important, making this kind of thing work is less about technology and more about people, culture, incentives, etc. What do I mean by that? I'm talking about things like, the way people in a given firm may be perversely incentivized to not share knowledge and help groom a central KB, because their current state of being the sole possessor of some bit of knowledge gives them (power|influence|job security|etc). And the way people exchanging knowledge in a firm are basically engaging in a sort of market exchange, where market dynamics apply. People "trade" with people they trust, and they engage in heuristics like satisficing, and favoring availability over veracity, etc. So yeah, you can throw up an instance of MediaWiki pretty easily. And I do encourage it, as I am a fan of wiki's, even though they have issues (they quickly become full of outdated and irrelevant content, and become a disorganized clusterfuck without a lot of continual grooming), but don't expect having a wiki (or Sharepoint, or Alfresco, or $whatever) to be a cure-all.