Am 20. April 2012 21:58 schrieb Yaroslav M. Blanter :
> For instance, we have Scholarpedia, which is a reliable source (no doubts
> about it), they have editors responsible for different fields, these editors
> are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief, and each article is written by a
> single author
I am very much in favour of including other wikis in external links
and references because I think it is a big mistake that Wikimedia
projects isolate each other from the rest of the wikisphere. We do
not
treasure other wikis enough, behaving as though we were different
from
them, even better,
Am 20. April 2012 21:10 schrieb Yaroslav M. Blanter :
>> This does raise an interesting sourcing issue though -- the published
>> Encyc. of Math is certainly a reputable source, and should be cited in
>> the appropriate Wikipedia articles, though I know there's a lot of
>> debate around whether to
As the librarian who sent this around said why wouldn't
mathematicians who were so inclined just contribute to Wikipedia
articles instead? There is some debate about that point on the EoM
talk page.
http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Talk:EoM:This_project#EoM_and_WP
This does raise
On 20 April 2012 18:10, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Notice that it is seeded with 8,000 entries from the Kluwer-published
> "Encyclopaedia of Mathematics"; these articles remain under copyright
> to Springer/Kluwer. However, new contributions and edits will be
> licensed cc-by-sa. Seems like a fun copy
Springer in cooperation with the European Mathematical Society creates
"Encyclopedia of Mathematics" wiki:
http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Main_Page
Invitation to contribute: http://www.euro-math-soc.eu/node/2671
Notice that it is seeded with 8,000 entries from the Kluwer-published
"E