Help talk:Editing/House Style/Sources

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stacks Project

I think that the Stacks Project [1] is a very good online resource and should be allowed to cite. It currently has 7300 pages and contains most of the foundations of modern algebraic geometry. The tag system is reliable and I've seen the stacks project cited in many research papers lately. --Wandynsky (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

MathOverflow

I think that MathOverflow [2] is a very good online resource and should be allowed to cite. --Hbghlyj (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Having enough trouble with StackExchange. I veto. --prime mover (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Longer answer: we added StackExchange as a resource as a result of clamouring from someone who was insistent. Now $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ is designed as a dictionary of mathematics, whose sources are expected to be reliable, published and permanent. There is no guarantee that anything on the internet, in particular StackExchange, which is actually guaranteed to be permanent. The number of deadlinks on Wikipedia shows the unwisdom of just linking to whatever online resource is first found.
A link to a resource in StackExchange is for when you have transcribed a proof which has been provided in detail there, and you need to credit the person who wrote it. If you use that template, it should be a link to an answer, not to the general question itself. Some of the more recent StackExchange references do not do this. That has resulted in a drop in quality of $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$, which needs to be rectified, and I have enough to do already.
As for MathOverflow, that's for professional research mathematicians. You are not a professional research mathematician, and material you may wish to source from that site is not going to be appropriate to $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ in its current configuration. I have seen the results of people posting up material far in advance of any of the supporting mathematical principles, definitions, theorems and lemmata, which makes such pages less than helpful.
In short, please concentrate on improving the quality of your own contributions, which, while containing useful and important material, are careless, incomplete, non-compliant and lazy. --prime mover (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Mathematics

I think that the Encyclopedia of Mathematics [3] is a very good online resource and should be allowed to cite. --Hbghlyj (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)