MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My area of research is math information retrieval. In particular, I come up with several basic ideas how to make use of a promising discussion platform offered by (MO). That's why I'd like to ask for opinion of professional mathematicians and users. Do they look helpful? What ideas do you have on your own?

  1. Integration of MO with an academic paper search engine, e.g. automatic retrieving citation links to relevant papers on arXiv. This might be a recommendation service for a given question, as well.
  2. Integration of MO with Wikipedia/Wolfram Functions Site (or similar resources). This can be done for enriching an user interface with widgets displaying useful definitions or basic facts about mentioned mathematical knowledge objects (terms, theorems etc.)

Thanks in advance!

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off topic by Loop Space, Akhil Mathew, François G. Dorais Jan 19 '11 at 13:54

Questions on MathOverflow are expected to relate to research level mathematics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

This belongs on meta.MO. – Loop Space Jan 19 '11 at 13:07
Integration of what with the stuff suggested in 1. and 2.? of mathoverflow? – Suvrit Jan 19 '11 at 13:32
Just corrected it. – Nikita Zhiltsov Jan 19 '11 at 13:47
As Andrew pointed out, the correct place for this question is meta.MO. See the FAQ - – François G. Dorais Jan 19 '11 at 13:55
Meta thread -… – François G. Dorais Jan 19 '11 at 19:59

I'm a long-term Wikipedian, and I find MO interesting for several reasons. And there is already a good measure of mutual linking going on (MO questions in some cases are suitable external links for WP articles, though rarely do they meet the standards for references). The two sites are complementary, and they both enjoy support from active communities of mathematicians.

Coming at the issue raised from the WP direction, I'd first latch onto issues of searching here (and therefore also of choice of titles, tagging, and necessarily of proofreading, considering that typos can defeat search). Something also ought to be done here about prominence: closed questions are just left as such, not filtered away. The first wiki I worked on was actually founded as the "best of" a newsgroup, and that conception also seems to be appropriate here. So there would be quite a number of points of presentation that I would see as deserving attention, as well as the "wikignome" mentality of editing away minor blemishes.

share|cite|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.