Hi all,

It's been a long since we've seen some excessive work in the CFDWiki. Guess we're all busy this time of the year. I noticed that the number of users is increasing exponentially, which is good.

I have also noticed that some articles are almost exact replicas of those found in Wikipedia, especially those about guassian elimination, Jacobi method, TDMA, etc... I do not like this very much... I mean we're supposed to be original in the presentation of the material, and other sites should copy from us cos this is our area! So i either suggest changing the whole notation to one that is convenient with CFD practices, or rewrite the whole articles from scratch.

Tell me what you think about this maybe we can reach a consensus for some kind of rule.

Best

I was recovering from my illness and solving some of personal problems...

as soon as i solve all completely i'll continue my work...

----------------------------------------

about CFD-Wiki.

i am comletely agree with You. I suppose we should have our own style, ecxeptional and simple.

I dare to suggest - we can be the "MEASURE of CFD"

Dear Dr. Jonas - what do You Think about?

No need to keep that distinct from Wikipedia. Copying things from over there and from PlanetMath (http://planetmath.org) may help get started quicker, and then you may focus on the unique needs of this web site.

I for one, plan to copy articles from here to Wikipedia. Synergy is good. ~~~~

I've been in Thailand on vacation for four weeks, so my work on CFD-Wiki has kind of stalled a bit in 2006. I hope to make some more significant contributions once I'm back home by the end of February though. I guess all of us worked hard on CFD-Wiki when we launched it and we were all ready for a break.

I'm glad to see that the number of users continue to grow quickly. With almost 1000 registered authors we should have enough users to sustain a constant growth. I hope that we'll soon get the development of CFD-Wiki up to speed again. This is a long term project I think and we shouldn't be discouraged if it stalls for a month or two. The traffic to CFD-Wiki has not stalled and it gets more and more direct hits from search engines like Google who have now indexed most of CFD-Wiki.

About the article on Jacobi method (and a few other articles) being almost the same as the one on Wikipedia. If you check the history you will actually see that, for example, the article on Jacobi method was copied from CFD-Wiki to Wikipedia. So we are doing original work here, and Wikipedia are copying our work. The article on Wikipedia also approriately credits CFD-Wiki as the source - see the note at the bottom of the Wikipedia article. So we should be proud of our work - others find it so good that they copy it and use it elsewhere. We are also benefiting a large community outside the CFD area by helping Wikipedia.

I too have been too busy to doing any editing of late. Have taken on some new projects, so finding free time is difficult. Two things:

1) Duplication: Some of the duplication is due to the fact that the writeups here are very standard. My additions/edits are my original work and not copied from elsewhere.

2) Notation: I wrote up what I thought was a pretty good vector notation blurb:

http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/CFD-W...nd_style_guide

I haven't had time to follow-up, and I don't really like the direct links out of the articles you mention to the Wikipedia articles. But, this is supposed to be a collaborative effort...

Jason

most of the artical in the start on numerics were written by me. (guassian elimination, Jacobi method, TDMA, ), and i think the material on these topics have changed a bit in last few months (i haven't visited cfd-online due to some reasons).

But i wish to tell you one thing, if something is written on cfd-wiki and if it is basic like jacobi method, it has to come from somewhere, we can not derive and discover each and every thing ourselves. As far as its being similar to wikipedia, i only want to say one thing, i hardly ever go to wikipedia. So at least the material i have added is not copy from there.

zxaar, you did a great job with those articles, and of course we have to learn from other sources when we write our CFD-Wiki articles. We should reach further by standing on the shoulders of giants , to loosely quote Newton. As long as we don't cut-and-paste things but write it with our own words it is okay. The articles on Wikipedia which were mentioned here earlier were copied to Wikipedia from your articles on CFD-Wiki.

By the way, are you now able to access CFD-Wiki? I hope that I have solved the spam-filter problem which blocked you out before, if not, please let me know and I'll look into it again.