Timeline for Should top mathoverflow threads get DOIs and be permanently archived?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 18:06 | vote | accept | Josh | ||
| Sep 17, 2015 at 6:09 | answer | added | Kim MorrisonMod | timeline score: 14 | |
| Sep 17, 2015 at 1:17 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | @darijgrinberg "Most threads on MO should be about equally likely to be cited in research papers." I agree, and a much better source than "private communication", "manuscript" or "talk in the 1970s that few people alive can remember". | |
| Sep 16, 2015 at 20:23 | comment | added | darij grinberg | MathOverflow's content is already being archived on archive.org ( archive.org/details/stackexchange , with periodical updates twice a year or so), although not directly in a human-readable format (but not hard to parse either, I believe). While a DOI for MathOverflow altogether sounds like a good idea, I don't see a good reason for DOIs on top threads unless we are doing DOIs on every thread. Most threads on MO should be about equally likely to be cited in research papers. | |
| Sep 15, 2015 at 3:01 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | (IANAL, but) Note that since answers here are CC-BY-SA, one could legitimately republish them at The Winnower and add a DOI, with appropriate attribution to the author and MO. | |
| Sep 15, 2015 at 2:59 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | I think well-thought out essays that arose in answer to questions deserve a bit more linkability/permanence that they currently have. For instance, some of Thurston's answers wouldn't be out of place in generalist society journals such as the EMS Newsletter or the AMS Notices. Giving those DOIs would be a reasonable move, apart from the fact I don't know how the legalities work (aside from the Creative Commons license under which contributions here sit). | |
| Sep 15, 2015 at 2:23 | comment | added | Andy Putman | their "community"; before, we viewed them as just a company whose services we were purchasing, though we never did end up paying them anything). Before we made that transition, we insisted on getting signed agreements that they would give us the data we need to switch to a different platform if we ever decided that we disagreed with their decisions. | |
| Sep 15, 2015 at 2:20 | comment | added | Andy Putman | FYI: I expect that this will get a poor reception. I think that there is great skepticism within the mathematical community of allowing organizations (especially for-profit organizations) that are not run by academic mathematicians to play a role in scholarly publishing. Of course, many do for historical reasons (e.g. Springer and Elsevier), but few people like this state of affairs (though there are diverse opinions about what to do about it). Every for MathOverflow, there was serious skepticism during the transition to the current StackExchange software (which in effect made us part of | |
| Sep 14, 2015 at 21:13 | answer | added | Henry Cohn | timeline score: 16 | |
| Sep 14, 2015 at 19:29 | history | asked | Josh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |