I installed the MathJax for the wiki
EDIT:Actually seems not to work, trying different approach

Thank you guys, you’re awesome!  I feel we’re close to a solution on the math. 

Also, I put a link to the new wiki on the masthead of the website, so it’s there on every page.  Now to add a link to the forum template.

Yay - it works!! :)

Fantastic!  You guys Rock!

James, can you put a short article in the wiki about how to use it?  And a link here?  Or Ignas, can you add that information to the Toolbox sidebar so it’s there on every page? 

This is so cool! 

Basically use \(...\) for inline expressions or
$$
A + B = C
$$
for centered separate equations

I’ve updated the help page accordingly: http://focusfusion.org/wiki_en/index.php/Help:Contents

OK, about getting it up on our forums and such, now we have to get an extension/plugin for expression engine. 

See discussion of this I initiated on the expression engine forums:  http://expressionengine.com/forums/viewthread/210326

Just finished with MathJax, previous functioning was glitching. Now seems to be much better, especially if you include the <math> tags

It seems the wiki already has some spam users: http://focusfusion.org/wiki_en/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges

Maybe the registration needs to be tightened up.  Is there any way to actually link the wiki userid to the main site user database??

There probably is.  Probably requires a plugin so that we can pull the info from our site and populate the wiki.  I’ll look into it.

I have deleted spam users contents and accounts.
Of course if we can link forum accounts that’s in any case a bonus.
If we enforce logging in, that might help with spam control,
but if people feel that reverting and allowing of anonymous edits is a better approach then we can maintain it this way.

Kevin Kelly, editor of Wired has said:

Fancy algorithms and cool technology make true anonymity in mediated environments more possible today than ever before…however, in every system I have seen where anonymity becomes common, the system fails.  Anonymity is like a rare-earth metal…a necessary ingredient in keeping a cell alive, but the amount needed is a mere hard-to-measure trace.  In larger doses these heavy metals are some of the most toxic substances.  In vanishingly small doses, it’s good for the system by enabling the occasional whistleblower or persecuted fringe.  But if anonymity is present in any significant quantity, it will poison the system…Trust requires persistent identity.  In the end, the more trust the better.  Like all toxins, anonymity should be kept as close to zero as possible.

In short, require login.

It is not a good idea to argue a point from an opinion’s perspective. 
Kevin Kelly is an editor of a major magazine (an outdated technology) that is competing with internet which is based on anonymity. There is absolutely no reason for him to hold another opinion. 
On the other hand if he provided actual data then we could talk about this on case study basis.
In any case I don’t mind any system that works. If by chance we welcome a wondering physicist that might want to fix or contribute something to our wiki, I think he could appriciate to do it without creating account/logging in. On the other hand if all we get is an inflow of bots, then it is definitely not worth it. 
I would also like to point out that the spam edits have been created with spambot created users on their personal pages, so probably adding a captcha would address this type of bot.

Rezwan - 07 February 2012 03:31 PM

Kevin Kelly, editor of Wired has said:

Leaving aside Wired’s trail of oft-printed fluffers and apologia for the PTB, I give you four words: NDAA

Anyone who speaks of “the occasional whistleblower” when O’s administration has and is prosecuting vastly more whistleblowers than banksters is truly in the pocket of the <1%.

Breakable - 07 February 2012 03:18 PM

I have deleted spam users contents and accounts.
Of course if we can link forum accounts that’s in any case a bonus.
If we enforce logging in, that might help with spam control,
but if people feel that reverting and allowing of anonymous edits is a better approach then we can maintain it this way.

nope.
forcing logins doesn’t work at all.
spammers will happily obey and create accounts, before they spam.

instead,
you should force image captcha solving to post any content containing links.
that’s what works for mediawiki.
( note that math captcha also does not work.)

reCaptcha may well be just the right service for this..
http://code.google.com/apis/recaptcha/docs/mediawiki.html

vansig - 12 February 2012 10:02 PM

nope.
forcing logins doesn’t work at all.
spammers will happily obey and create accounts, before they spam.

If they can. In a related thread I mentioned a solution that works well for forum registrations given the right questions.

vansig - 12 February 2012 10:02 PM

instead,
you should force image captcha solving to post any content containing links.
that’s what works for mediawiki.
( note that math captcha also does not work.)

reCaptcha may well be just the right service for this..
http://code.google.com/apis/recaptcha/docs/mediawiki.html

If captchas can be avoided they should, as they can be a real impediment to those of us with impaired vision:

http://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewreply/8777/