Re: Comments on a wikipedia article on a Timeline of Category theory

["Fred E.J. Linton" <fejlinton@usa.net>]

George, Ronnie, et al.,

I think you are engaged in a valiant, but losing, battle. 

Tellingly, just today, in my postal mail, I found a copy of 
the latest issue of The New Yorker, with its mini-biography 
of Jaron Lanier, and his reported lamentation of Wikipedia 
as "a triumph of 'intellectual mob rule'".

(See "Issue of July 11 & 18, 2011", pp. 46-53, esp. p. 46.)

I hold out no hope of seeing much improvement in the parts
of Wikipedia that need improving, and I (for one) have now
given up trying. 

Far be it from me to try to dissuade you, though. So:

Cheers, and best of luck in any event, -- Fred

------ Original Message ------
Received: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:51:00 PM EDT
From: Ronnie Brown <ronnie.profbrown@btinternet.com>
To: "categories@mta.ca" <categories@mta.ca>,        George Janelidze
<janelg@telkomsa.net>
Subject: categories: Comments on a wikipedia article on a Timeline of Category
theory

> We would like to draw the attention of readers of this list to the article
> 
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_category_theory_and_related_mathematics
> 
> 
> We feel that this entry is slanted, unbalanced, and in many cases wrong.
> It gives credit to work at a given time often presented in the form of
> vague ambitious titles or conclusions that give no information on the
> actual theorems the authors either claimed or published at the time.  It
> fails to give credit to many authors for their contribution to the
> development of category theory and its wider applications, and fails to
> describe many developments in the area.
> 
> It also fails to give references, which is usually a requirement for
> wikipedia articles, and the `discussion' makes it clear that the
> author(s) of this entry have no intention of so doing, and have not done
> so since the entry was made in 2009.
> 
> The anonymity of the entry is also a handicap.
> 
> One of us has tried to make a correction, but this is using a sticking
> plaster on too great a problem. The entry fails to come up to the
> standards of wikipedia in scholarship, accuracy and presentation, is not
> really possible to correct,  and should therefore be removed.
> 
> We would be grateful for comments on this matter, and for agreement to
> support this proposal to wikipedia.
> 
> Ronnie Brown
> 
> George Janelidze
> 

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]