Hi,
Upon cleaning up, my parents discovered some of my (hand-written) lecture notes that I took down when I studied undergraduate mathematics at Cambridge University from 1998-2001.
I don't need them anymore. But I didn't want to throw them away in case they might be useful to someone. Thus, I'm asking here. I'd be willing to ship them to anyone who in turn would be willing to use them to improve Wikipedia and/or Wikibooks. Consider it a donation of sorts.
Is anyone interested? Please only reply if you're serious about using them to improve Wikipedia or Wikibooks.
Timwi
Upon cleaning up, my parents discovered some of my (hand-written) lecture notes that I took down when I studied undergraduate mathematics at Cambridge University from 1998-2001.
I don't need them anymore. But I didn't want to throw them away in case they might be useful to someone. Thus, I'm asking here. I'd be willing to ship them to anyone who in turn would be willing to use them to improve Wikipedia and/or Wikibooks. Consider it a donation of sorts.
Is anyone interested? Please only reply if you're serious about using them to improve Wikipedia or Wikibooks.
I don't think your lecture notes are a reliable source, so anyone using them would have to verify them with a textbook, so they might as well just use the textbook to start with...
If I were you, I'd put them them in a box in the attic - they'll probably have more sentimental value to you/your children in years to come than they have value to Wikipedia now.
On 20/01/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think your lecture notes are a reliable source, so anyone using them would have to verify them with a textbook, so they might as well just use the textbook to start with...
It is far easier to source a text than to gather sources and write a new article from scratch. Sourcing is grunt work where writing a new article requires creativity and whatnot.
I think lecture notes could be valuable to Wikipedia if someone is willing to work with them.
It is far easier to source a text than to gather sources and write a new article from scratch. Sourcing is grunt work where writing a new article requires creativity and whatnot.
That kind of thinking is one of the biggest problem with Wikipedia at the moment. Sourcing should always come *before* writing. The source is where the information came from, that's what "source" means, so you have to have the source before you can write the article. Adding sources afterwards is a way of fixing a problem - unsourced articles - it should not be a part of the standard process of writing articles. The problem should never be created in the first place.
On 20/01/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It is far easier to source a text than to gather sources and write a new article from scratch. Sourcing is grunt work where writing a new article requires creativity and whatnot.
That kind of thinking is one of the biggest problem with Wikipedia at the moment. Sourcing should always come *before* writing. The source is where the information came from, that's what "source" means, so you have to have the source before you can write the article. Adding sources afterwards is a way of fixing a problem - unsourced articles - it should not be a part of the standard process of writing articles. The problem should never be created in the first place.
We want the same end: good, readable, sourced mathematical articles. I'm suggesting that sourcing these notes would be the quickest way to achieve this. I agree that sourcing written texts is not the preferable way to achieve our end, but I don't think the end-article is worse than an alternative article written from sources first.
We want the same end: good, readable, sourced mathematical articles. I'm suggesting that sourcing these notes would be the quickest way to achieve this. I agree that sourcing written texts is not the preferable way to achieve our end, but I don't think the end-article is worse than an alternative article written from sources first.
I'm not sure what you mean by "sourcing these notes" - can you rephrase that?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It is far easier to source a text than to gather sources and write a new article from scratch. Sourcing is grunt work where writing a new article requires creativity and whatnot.
That kind of thinking is one of the biggest problem with Wikipedia at the moment. Sourcing should always come *before* writing. The source is where the information came from, that's what "source" means, so you have to have the source before you can write the article. Adding sources afterwards is a way of fixing a problem - unsourced articles - it should not be a part of the standard process of writing articles. The problem should never be created in the first place.
There are benefits and drawbacks to either approach. Some simply can maintain a better narrative flow if they wait until they are finished to add the sourcing. They may have a stack of sources sitting beside their computer, but not be sure which will be relevant until they are well advanced intheir writing. Presumably they are making private notes as they go along so that they will be able to add the references when they get to the bottom of the article. If an article appears to be a work that is actively in progress it is good etiquette to let the editor finish what he is doing before complaining about missing sources.
Ec
There are benefits and drawbacks to either approach. Some simply can maintain a better narrative flow if they wait until they are finished to add the sourcing. They may have a stack of sources sitting beside their computer, but not be sure which will be relevant until they are well advanced intheir writing. Presumably they are making private notes as they go along so that they will be able to add the references when they get to the bottom of the article. If an article appears to be a work that is actively in progress it is good etiquette to let the editor finish what he is doing before complaining about missing sources.
Oh certainly, you don't need to add the sources to the code as you go along, but you need to know what the sources are. The sources should be added in the same editing session as the article is written, the exact order within that session is up to the writer. Someone else coming along after you've written the article and trying to find sources for your statements is completely wrong - it's not what "source" means. They are effectively rewriting the article.
If you want different people to do the sourcing and the writing, then the sourcer should find the information and add it as bullet points to the article, with correct references, and then the writer comes along and makes it read eloquently. The other way round is completely wrong.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
There are benefits and drawbacks to either approach. Some simply can maintain a better narrative flow if they wait until they are finished to add the sourcing. They may have a stack of sources sitting beside their computer, but not be sure which will be relevant until they are well advanced intheir writing. Presumably they are making private notes as they go along so that they will be able to add the references when they get to the bottom of the article. If an article appears to be a work that is actively in progress it is good etiquette to let the editor finish what he is doing before complaining about missing sources.
Oh certainly, you don't need to add the sources to the code as you go along, but you need to know what the sources are. The sources should be added in the same editing session as the article is written, the exact order within that session is up to the writer. Someone else coming along after you've written the article and trying to find sources for your statements is completely wrong - it's not what "source" means. They are effectively rewriting the article.
If you want different people to do the sourcing and the writing, then the sourcer should find the information and add it as bullet points to the article, with correct references, and then the writer comes along and makes it read eloquently. The other way round is completely wrong.
I'm not at all saying that an editor should depend on others to find sources. I am saying that there is no urgency to add them in each editing session. When you look at the article's history, and see a regular and continuing series of diffs that keep adding material to the article you need to be ready to cut that person some slack.
Ec
I'm not at all saying that an editor should depend on others to find sources. I am saying that there is no urgency to add them in each editing session. When you look at the article's history, and see a regular and continuing series of diffs that keep adding material to the article you need to be ready to cut that person some slack.
When I say editing session I don't mean the time between clicking "Edit this page" and clicking "Save", I mean the time between sitting down at the computer and standing up again. If someone wants to save the page multiple times to avoid losing all their work if something goes wrong, that's fine, and they can put the references in at the end. I think it's easier to do it as you go along, but it's a personal thing. If they stand up and walk away from the computer for the night without adding the references, then they've just put an unsourced article on Wikipedia, and that's a bad thing. It's not necessarily worse than no article at all (some would say it is), but it's still a bad thing and shouldn't happen.
When you write an article, you should automatically know what the sources are, because they are where you got the info. If you've written the article without finding sources, then it's written from your memory, which is not reliable and the entire article should probably be deleted. Adding sources is really easy, because you've already done the work before you started writing the article, so there is really no excuse not to add them.
On 1/21/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
It is far easier to source a text than to gather sources and write a new article from scratch. Sourcing is grunt work where writing a new article requires creativity and whatnot.
Question is who holds the copyright over the lecture notes? The notetaker, or the lecturer? Or both?
Steve
Question is who holds the copyright over the lecture notes? The notetaker, or the lecturer? Or both?
In most cases, probably the university. They generally claim copyright on everything anyone does within 100 miles of the uni.
I don't think it matters though - the mathematics isn't copyrightable, just the way it's written in the notes, and I don't think anyone is planning on just typing up the notes, they're talking about using them as sources for an article.
On 1/20/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Hi,
Upon cleaning up, my parents discovered some of my (hand-written) lecture notes that I took down when I studied undergraduate mathematics at Cambridge University from 1998-2001.
I don't need them anymore. But I didn't want to throw them away in case they might be useful to someone. Thus, I'm asking here. I'd be willing to ship them to anyone who in turn would be willing to use them to improve Wikipedia and/or Wikibooks. Consider it a donation of sorts.
Is anyone interested? Please only reply if you're serious about using them to improve Wikipedia or Wikibooks.
Timwi
Hi Timwi, we could *definitely* use these notes in Wikiversity http://en.wikiversity.org (provided copyright can be negotiated) - and from there, they could be used in any project to improve mathematical resources in Wikipedia, Wikibooks, or indeed any other space..
I can volunteer to undertake this myself, though it might be best if this was done by someone with an interest in/knowledge of mathematics. I could add a note for people in the mathematics school http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/School:Mathematics if you think this is a desirable option.
Cheers, Cormac (Cormaggio)
Timwi wrote:
Hi,
Upon cleaning up, my parents discovered some of my (hand-written) lecture notes that I took down when I studied undergraduate mathematics at Cambridge University from 1998-2001.
I don't need them anymore. But I didn't want to throw them away in case they might be useful to someone. Thus, I'm asking here. I'd be willing to ship them to anyone who in turn would be willing to use them to improve Wikipedia and/or Wikibooks. Consider it a donation of sorts.
You could also consider Wikiversity. The hard job is not in finding or having the information, but in organizing it and writing it up.
Ec