[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: European Mathematical Society and Springer create Encyclopedia of Mathematics wiki...
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 "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 copyright time to me... They are also using MathJax, which I know we are exploring enabling on Wikipedia (and maybe already have?) They also have an editorial board. I didn't delve into it deeply but it's not clear to me what having "full scientific authority over alterations and deletions" means; though it looks like they are discussing various models of review. 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 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 cite other wikis as sources. And on the Encyclopedia of Math wiki talk page there's a debate about whether they should copy material from Wikipedia! -- phoebe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: European Mathematical Society and Springer create Encyclopedia of Mathematics wiki...
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 copyright time to me... Sounds like an interesting attempt at an open-core model (a.k.a. having your cake and eating it). If an original article is changed to the degree that no original text remains, will they claim the changes are nevertheless derivative works? Contributing to such an encyclopedia would be far too hazardous; if we are asked, we should disrecommend putting oneself into legal danger in such a manner. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: European Mathematical Society and Springer create Encyclopedia of Mathematics wiki...
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 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 cite other wikis as sources. And on the Encyclopedia of Math wiki talk page there's a debate about whether they should copy material from Wikipedia! -- phoebe I guess your last paragraph answers the question which you ask in the last-but-one paragraph: because Encyc. of Math is a reputable source, and we are not (and not supposed to be). Evenb though quality of some of our articles may be better. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: European Mathematical Society and Springer create Encyclopedia of Mathematics wiki...
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 cite other wikis as sources. And on the >> Encyclopedia of Math wiki talk page there's a debate about whether >> they should copy material from Wikipedia! > I guess your last paragraph answers the question which you ask in the > last-but-one paragraph: because Encyc. of Math is a reputable source, and we > are not (and not supposed to be). Evenb though quality of some of our > articles may be better. The Encyclopaedia of Math is not an ordinary wiki. It is a mixture of copyrighted content and new contributions by other editors under cc-by-sa. Can you tell one from another? 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, which is not always true. Of course we cannot use another wiki that cites Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia, again. But we can use another wiki as a reference if it provides really good content on a subject matter which is often the case. Regards, Jürgen. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: European Mathematical Society and Springer create Encyclopedia of Mathematics wiki...
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, which is not always true. Of course we cannot use another wiki that cites Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia, again. But we can use another wiki as a reference if it provides really good content on a subject matter which is often the case. Regards, Jürgen. 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 and by invitation only. Do we want it to be a part of WMF? I do not immediately see any net benefit. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: European Mathematical Society and Springer create Encyclopedia of Mathematics wiki...
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 and by invitation only. Do we want it to be a part of WMF? I > do not immediately see any net benefit. Scholarpedia is not a case in point because it is not a Wiki. As you described it, Scholarpedia lacks collaborative writing. We have discussed recently whether to add Wikitravel/Wikivoyage to the Wikimedia family of wikis. This is the kind of wikis I think of when it comes to external links. At least Wikivoyage is often rather good. Regards, Jürgen. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
