Talk:MathOverflow

Untitled
t

Spacing and capitalization
The proper spacing and capitalization is "MathOverflow", not "Math Overflow". See, for example, the MO FAQ. anton (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I started this article some time ago, following Stack Overflow example. With all due respect, FAQ just keeps repeating "MathOverflow" but never actually says something to the effect "In contrast with SO we do not use the extra space between the words".  As a founder you can perhaps clarify this on that FAQ.  I will be happy to make a change on WP then, and move the whole MO article to "MathOverflow" title.  As it stands, given the ambiguity, I'd rather let it stand as is.  Mhym (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's a clarification at the end of the FAQ. anton (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Mhym (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You've done a cut-and-paste move, so we now require admin intervention to fix the mess. I'll request some help. --Zundark (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fastily has done the histmerge, and I've recreated the redirect from the old article name. We also need to go through What link here and correct the name in articles that link here. --Zundark (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed the spacing and capitalization in the pages that linked here. anton (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Additions
As of April 4, 2012, there have been 16,496 registered users to Math Overflow (reference to MO), most of which have been in the United States (35%), India (12%), and the United Kingdom (6%) (reference - http://www.sharenator.com/w/mathoverflow.net Sharenator MO Statistics). So far, 28,601 questions have been posted. Questions are answered an average of 3.9 hours after they are posted, and "Acceptable" answers take an average of 5.01 hours. (reference - http://www.math.wisc.edu/%7Ebrownda/slides/MO_slides.pdf David Brown MO Presentation Slides)

-Added section: Site Attributes/Usage

MathOverflow encourages the use of a user's real name. The site utilizes Google and Yahoo's OpenID as an account, however questions can still be posted or answered by anonymous users.(mo login page) Badges are used mostly to help a new user figure out how to use the site and are given to mark a certain achievement.(slides) User's also have a reputation score, which gives the user additional accessibility to the site. A user's reputation starts at zero and the only way to increase the score is to have another user increase the reputation. With enough reputation, a user can become a site moderator, retag questions, and edit questions and answers.

-revise to Origin- "The first version of the website did not support LaTeX markup for mathematical formulas, which was added later."

to

The original version of the website did not support LateX markup for mathematical formulas. In order to support most of the functionality of LaTeX, Mathjax was added in order for the site to transform math equations into their appropriate forms. In it's current state, any post including "Math Mode" (text between $'s) will translate into proper mathematical notation.

Interesting operations on the site include: marking tags as interesting/ignored, seeing the original markup of math used, a specific search throughout the site, using boolean operators on tags. (reference - http://mathoverflow.net/tips MO tips page).

-add section: Culture MathOverflow is very specific about what a user can or should post. Questions must be research level mathematics questions. IF not they will be promptly removed. Questions should be well-defined and specific. It is not a discussion forum or an encyclopedia for looking up answers. Questions about MathOverflow are not allowed on MathOverflow. Instead, A meta site is used to talk about the site, report bugs, post comments/suggestions. (Link/reference - http://meta.mathoverflow.net)

-add to Quote section- “One thing that I like to point out in conversation about MO is that putting a question or answer out there without posing it towards some specific person often leads to meaningful interactions with awesome people. Some people start collaborations based on MO questions, but even if you don’t, you get to know a lot of people pretty well, which feels great. Also, there is something about interacting with famous people on MO that humanizes my internal representation of them.” – Anton Geraschenko

--Tbenshachar (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable Users Section
I suggest that we add a section "Notable Users", with the text:


 * Several notable mathematicians have made substantial contributions to MathOverflow, among them Andreas Blass, Richard Borcherds, Kevin Buzzard, Noam Elkies, Timothy Gowers, Gil Kalai, Bjorn Poonen, Richard Stanley, Terence Tao, William Thurston and others. Greg Kuperberg, David Speyer, Pete Clark and Joel David Hamkins have each been, in succession, the top-rated MathOverflow user by reputation score.  (ref: http://mathoverflow.net/users MO user page)

It seems important to explain that MO has the participation of notable mathematicians, since this may be one of the reasons for its success. I had made this edit to add the section, but it was removed by Mhym, who mentioned the need for third part WP:RS. That objection seems excessive to me, since the MO user page is the most definitive source for user activity on MO, and this information is neither controversial nor contested, and can be easily further checked by clicking on the users, to their blogs and so on. It would be absurd to suggest that the account of Noam Elkies, for example, on MO might not be the real Noam Elkies, and similarly for the other users mentioned. Furthermore, most of the rest of this article is supported by citations mainly to MO itself (plus some citations consisting of dead links), or by no citations at all (such as for Anton's quote). So let's add this "Notable Users" section back in. EuroMath (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that this would be a good idea. No doubt the users are who they are (or most of them). However, the rules of WP:RS require third party mentioning of this.  If for example, a newspaper wrote an article discussing importance of MO and interviewed somebody who mentioned all these names, this would satisfy this requirement.  Also, it seems the above list is a bit partial as MO has a large number of notable users, including e.g. Vaughan Jones who are not on your list.  Since it is rather difficult to choose who is notable and who isn't, it is recommended that third party RS do this rather than WP users, to avoid WP:OR.  I hope you understand my point.  Mhym (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Aren't you being too strict with the rule? Those users (in the first part) are already deemed notable by Wikipedia, and the MO user page clearly represents them as having made substantial contributions. Why isn't that enough for sourcing? (Note that Vaughan Jones, while notable, is not represented on MO as having made substantial contributions there; e.g. only one answer.) EuroMath (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think so (meaning not too strict with the rules). You see, I agree again that Jones may have made significantly smaller contribution to MO when compared to Kuperberg.  But again, this is WP:OR, which while possibly correct is out of bounds for WP.  Let me put it this way - WP as a community agreed to pay special care to WP:BLP, so essentially any mentioning of "living people" needs to be supported by "reliable sources".  This is meant to protect people from erroneous info and WP from lawsuits, etc.  Note e.g. that mathematics subject articles have significantly lower standards for inline citation and generally fewer references than biography articles.  That's because manifolds, categories, integrals, etc. don't get upset nor libelous.  Sorry if this is unhelpful.  On a positive side, perhaps there are some published articles about MO which do mention some of these names and their contribution to MO.  Then these are fair game.  Mhym (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, here is some progress: the Simons Foundation article by Erica Klareich (https://simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/mathematics-and-physical-science/the-global-math-commons/) mentions Tao, Kuperberg and Hamkins as making big contributions. EuroMath (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The study of mathoverflow by researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University (see http://www.utpsyc.org/MathOverflowSurvey/MathOverflowStudies.php) may be useful for sourcing data on the breakdown of users by sex, by student/postdoc/professor etc., as well as data on the reasons that users use MO. EuroMath (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MathOverflow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120909064947/http://www.sharenator.com/w/mathoverflow.net to http://www.sharenator.com/w/mathoverflow.net

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Add link
Please provide a link to MathOverflow site. Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It is already in the article, in the "External links" section. --Zundark (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Carnegie Mellon University supported by WikiProject and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)