12
edits
Changes
mLine 67:
Line 67: + +
→Let's do this.
::::Mark, this is a wiki, not a talk site. Please edit a math entry as you think best, and I'll improve it, and then someone else will improve it, and then it will be a superb educational resource. That's how the benefits of a wiki are harnessed. Please: less talk, more substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:43, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
::::Mark, this is a wiki, not a talk site. Please edit a math entry as you think best, and I'll improve it, and then someone else will improve it, and then it will be a superb educational resource. That's how the benefits of a wiki are harnessed. Please: less talk, more substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:43, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
::::: No one wants their work to be wasted or deleted, and there is no sense in wasting or duplicating effort. Mathematical terminology and structure is pretty much standard, but the nature of a good mathematics article, whether in Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Wolfram or Scholarpedia, would be characterized by a clarity of exposition and correctness. What is needed, in my opinion, is a different slant from those in other sources. Why would you want to duplicate an article about, say, symbolic dynamics if there is a perfectly good one in Scholarpedia? [[User:jdstarrett|John Starrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)