> If it ain’t broke...

Many of the comments below agree with this point. However I think the OP’s question is worth exploring. Good design that leverages fonts, colors, spacing, layout, etc. is supposed to make sites more usable and enjoyable. Why can’t we have a wiki that is easy to use/edit and looks nice and is accessible? These are not mutually exclusive are they? That being said, my recent wiki experience has all been using GitHub.

The current way wiki design is exactly that.

To be fair, Wikipedia has some themes that look very nice and modern, it's still accessible, and the visual editor makes it easy to edit as well.

Functionality wise, yes, there is not much improvement required but looks like, fonts can be improved, spacing/whitespaces can be improved. We could have pagination. We could have some themes which remove sidebars, we could have wiki's that may be embedded in larger site and hence can reuse their stylesheets etc

> We could have pagination.

Pagination is a bug, not a feature. Screens are not books.

The only, I repeat ONLY, reason to use pagination on a web page (That isn't incredibly long, such as a table with hundreds of rows) is so you can serve more ads.

> Pagination is a bug, not a feature. Screens are not books.

I like this.

Very much agree with your thoughts.

Why pagination? I think commercial sites are just paginated to make you click more times so they can tell the ad network that they gave more impressions.