This might be interesting, so I forward it to the list.
-----Original Message-----
From: info-gne-admin(a)gnu.org [mailto:info-gne-admin@gnu.org]On Behalf Of
Kyle Cranmer
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:37 PM
To: info-gne(a)gnu.org
Subject: [Info-gne]LaTeX Wiki
Hello,
I have seen so little traffic on this site that I'm not sure that if it's
the one about GNUPedia and WikiPedia and such. If so, I think this is a
pretty relevant message... it's about a nice way to display math symbols -
particularly LaTeX - on the web in a very low-impact way. Below is the
standard email I use to tell people about LaTeX Wiki, or just go to:
http://latexwiki.rootnode.com
Hello,
Some friends of mine at Open Software Services wrote a cool patch to
Zope (the web application server we use). It's called LaTeX Wiki. A Wiki
is a kind of web page that the user can edit from within their web browser
(no need for access to the server or knowledge of HTML). What they did
was to make it so that the Wiki parses LaTeX code natively and inlines the
rendered LaTeX automatically.
LaTeX Wiki is a great tool for collaborative work that requires many
mathematical symbols. It could revolutionize the way that homework is
collected and graded, mathematicians and physicists collaborate, and how
math is presented on the web in general.
There are other tools like latex2html and new standards like MathML which
promise the same; however, LaTeX Wiki is easier to use and more versatile
than latex2html and much more human readable/writable than MathML. Best
of all, this technology is available right now.
Please check it out at http://latexwiki.rootnode.com/ and pass this
message on to anyone you think may be interested.
Kyle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Cranmer Email: Kyle.Cranmer(a)cern.ch Phone: (608) 259-0645
Address: 1124 Emerald #2, Madison, WI 53715 http://cern.ch/~cranmer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Info-gne mailing list
Info-gne(a)gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gne
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Background: I just created a page concerning the Temple of Set.
Obviously, one of the natural links on that page should be to Set, the
ancient Egyptian god. There is no such page at this time that I could
find.
There is already a page, http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Set, which refers
to sets within Set theory. It references the Set theory page, and is
referenced by the Set theory page.
The only page I see dealing with ancient Egyptian religion is
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Egyptian_Mythology which is extremely
fragmentary.
1) If I were to choose to create a page for the Egyptian god Set, what
should that page be called?
2) If I choose not to create a page for Set, but do want to create a link
on the Temple of Set page to inspire someone else to create that page for
Set, how should I build that link?
Reading through the Wikipedia FAQ, it looks like one solution is to move
the current Set page to a page named "Set (Set theory)", create a page
named "Set (Egyptian god)", and use the current "Set" page simply to
point to these two. (At least shortly, when parenthesis will be allowed
in article titles.) Is this what people would suggest?
3) When I create a page, what is the best way to scan through the
Wikipedia to a) verify that links to the page are appropriate, and b)
find articles which should contain links but do not so I can add those
links?
Thanks for any guidance.
Balanone
PP
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBO/CJqHAR60BhEzDuEQIZRwCeO9hFkONu2VXMpdsVUnE/tNIwpmkAnRKH
6TB8+1ycPKW6UMYFWPmBDL7O
=j9nS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
However, someone must have done this before 1929 of whatever the thershold
is. Getting your hands of such a copy is the hard part.
Ian Monroe
http://mlug.missouri.edu/~eean/
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Henry House hajhouse(a)houseag.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 11:50:58PM +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:
> > Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe+wiki(a)orcus.priv.at> writes:
> > > (from <URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html>)
> > >
> > > It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts
> >
> > Anything classical is PD, the translations can be copyright, but then they
> > would not be at Perseus
>
> I'm afraid that's not necesarily true. Most classical "texts" have survived
> as many-times-copied manuscripts mouldering away in libraries. Suppose
> "Euclid's Geometry" is available to us as four manuscripts, one of which is
> partial. Each of these is based on former copies that have not survived. Each
> copy was made by hand, an error-prone process, from an older copy with
> copying errors of its own.
>
> The result is that each surviving manucript has a few dozen words that are
> different, and some are missing entire passages. Which is the closest to the
> original? None is particilarly close. So a good modern edition of "Euclid's
> Geometry" is based on a study of all available manuscripts, which the editor
> has used to correct each other, given certain assumptions about what the
> likely errors are.
>
> This sort of extensive editing would certainly create a new edition and
> therefore a new copyright under US law.
>
> --
> Henry House
i) I added an example villanelle and [[villanelle/Example]] and I'm pretty
sure I'm in the clear on copyright. But IANALNDIPOOTV[0], so can someone
with the appropriate smarts check it out. I put the relevant dates on.
ii)Someone asked about pictures of [[Blind Blake]] on [[Blind Blake/Talk]]
I found the only one in existence[1] (which dates from 1930) but have no
idea how to check its copyright status. Anyone?
Sorry for sending so much to wikipedia-l today.
I'll stop now, and go home for dinner and Seinfeld reruns (it is 8pm).
[0] I Am Not A Lawyer Nor Do I Play One On Tv
[1] http://images.google.com/images?q=blind+blake&hl=&btnG=Google+Search
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
> This sort of extensive editing would certainly create a
> new edition and therefore a new copyright under US law.
Not since Feist v. Rural. Many (in fact most) federal courts
used to use this "sweat of the brow" standard to determine
what was subject to copyright, but that was very explicitly
overturned by Feist. The supreme court clarified that it
doesn't matter how much work went into producing something;
it is the act of creative expression that creates copyright.
If the work isn't "creative" then it can't be copyrighted.
Some edited classic works may still pass the Feist test if the
edits include making editorial decisions, but an earnest attempt
to reproduce an old work as accurately as possible is the
opposite of creativity.
Now of course scholars will continue to claim copyrights on
edited classic works, and they will probably sue infringers and
may even win a case or two. They'll lose eventually on appeal,
but it may take time and court costs to get there.
0
Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe+wiki(a)orcus.priv.at> writes:
> (from <URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html>)
>
> It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts
Anything classical is PD, the translations can be copyright, but then they
would not be at Perseus
> (they didn't create them, and all(?) of the authors are long dead);
> but they can copyright the collection, I think.
If you deal with the texts individually, you can do what you like to any one
of them. But you certainly couldn't mirrot their site w/o permission, or
borrow their HTML, but who would want to?
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
I agree. Basically, we need to be able to get rid of some of this clutter
in recent changes.
I'd also like to suggest the possibility that meta.wikipedia changes would
not show up in the recent changes log by default, but that they could be
turned on in your user preferences, and that they should always show up in a
different color to mark them off from real encyclopedia changes.
In fact, I'd like to also be able set up my recent changes page to exclude
Talk: namespaces, and Wikipdians: namespaces as well as the proposed Meta
namespace. That way, I could see only the changed articles without any of
the other clutter. If we did this for everybody by default, I'd also like
to see another special page that only shows the recent changes for the meta,
talk, and wikipedians namespace.
-----Original Message-----
From: lsanger(a)nupedia.com
To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
Sent: 11/9/01 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it!
Sounds plausible to me, as long as indeed the namespace has its own
recent
changes page.
Larry
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:
> --- Mark Christensen <mchristensen(a)htec.com> wrote:
> > This is good, but I think it should only be short term.
> >
> > Long term, I am convinced that there is a better option...
> > I'd advocate placing the MetaWikipedia
> > information in its own namespace on the PHP wikipedia software.
>
> I think Mark makes good arguments for this.
>
> <>< Tim
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The mathwiki code I mentioned does not take ane precautions when
evaluation TeX code, and that is indeed a security hole.
I asked around on usenet
(http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=d55ab765.0111091929.1e4b9af4%40post…)
and found out that TeX can write to arbitrary files and can also
execute shell scripts, but fortunately, both of those features can be
switched off, at least in the tetex distribution which is the standard
on Linux/Unix.
Axel
these are some good points brought up (which I read immediately after
firing off a full-on support message). (typical). Maybe we could
have the action deactivate with a tag or six apostraphes, the way some
other things are. Do people often link a noun and pipe through an
adverb or adjective? I haven't noticed.
KQ
You Wrote:
>Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes:
>
>> But in general, I think we should be wary of taking control away
from the
>> user.
>
>Certainly.
>
>> Maybe a user wants to have part of a word linked (even if we might
>> think it is ugly), for a good reason. Why remove that option?
>
>So don't remove the option, just change the default.
>If one can force it to be ugly, but its beautiful by default, everyones
>happy.
>
>--
>Gareth Owen
>"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
> are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>0