Why it is less common to use wiki/markup in enterprise as documentation?
They use Word document instead.
Wiki/markup are in text format, which is version control friendly.
closed as not constructive by Doc Brown, gnat, StuperUser, Dynamic, Walter Dec 19 '12 at 12:22
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Two types of answer
Corporate ordinary employee is lazy, passive, lowbrow executor, not interested in quality work, only in quantity. If he know Office, he haven't interest to know and use more
Contrary to code, historical aspects of "active" documents have a lot less value - every time only "now state" make sense in workflow - thus "easy versioning", "less size", "light markup" is arguments and values of geeks, not casual personnel. Using non-standard a) markups b) tools will require learning cycle, re-education of users, (possible) changing of workflow... Without strong reasoning all these costs and losses are not being taken into account by the real business in the real world
In the big enterprise the documentation is out-sourced, or is not written by developers. The end-user documentation is written by Technical writers. These people are proficient in the technical details, but not necessarily be interested in learning the new syntax for wiki/tex. What matters for end user is pdf or something like that. There are software (mostly paid) which can convert doc to other formats. The cost for these software is smaller than the cost of training of the technical writers.