Re: Timelines for category theory: a response to comments

[Jeremy Gibbons <jeremy.gibbons@cs.ox.ac.uk>]

If I may stick my head over the parapet, I'd like to suggest that you're surely fighting a losing battle here. Wikipedia does not work by having articles written by "chosen groups of experts". Indeed, quite the opposite; some amateur with community spirit and a personal itch to scratch makes a start, others - perhaps more expert - chip in, and gradually the wonder that is Wikipedia blossoms. Or not, as the case may be: perhaps two amateurs with conflicting axes to grind hack away at each other's changes, and nothing productive comes of it; that's the price you pay for crowd-sourcing.

I believe that your only option is to do some of that chipping in yourself. You can obviously see many flaws in the original article that "Fotino" has kindly started; why not set about improving it? Who knows - others may follow your noble example! 

But I recommend not to start by replacing the existing article with a blank slate; that's simply rude. If in doubt, start with the associated discussion page, which doesn't seem to have changed since Oct 2009. See the discussion under "Stub requests"; maybe talk personally with Charles Matthews.

Jeremy

On 10 Jul 2011, at 18:03, Ronnie Brown wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Many thanks for your comments, which show how our community sees the
> problem. The discussion is obviously not finished yet.
> 
> Let us actually try to say what is the MAIN problem with this article.
> The main problem is the picture of category theory it draws! Many of you
> give courses in category theory at various levels - beautiful courses
> showing that category theory provides a new most advanced level of
> thinking in mathematics ("thinking categorically!"), and has made major
> contributions to the unity of mathematics. So, why don't you compare the
> plan of your own course with this article? Surely you do not begin your
> course with resolutions of modules and you do not end it with "extended
> TQFT", do you?
> 
> On the other hand there is clearly a desire to have a good content  and
> context for category theory on wikipedia, which is often the first port
> of call for students, and those potentially interested, and so there are
> calls for an improved Timeline for category theory. To take in the whole
> subject in one timeline, with references, would seem an enormous and
> controversial task.
> 
> We therefore propose that the present article be replaced by  a list of
> topics with links to articles on timelines of those topics. And then
> each "timeline" should be written by a chosen group of experts. Our
> first draft of topics would be:
> 
> 1. General category theory, including motivation
> 2. Abelian categories and homological algebra
> 3. Categories and groupoids in homotopical algebra and algebraic topology
> 4. Topos theory
> 5. Monoidal, enriched, and higher-dimensional categories
> 6. Categorical algebra
> 7. Categorical topology
> 8. Categorical logic and foundation of mathematics
> 10. Categories in algebraic geometry
> 11. Categories in computer science
> 12. Categories in Physics
> 
> There will be intersections of course, but we presume that is fine.
> 
> As examples of timelines in other subjects, and their styles, see for
> example
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_timelines#Science
> 
> particularly those on Physics.
> 
> We look forward to reactions to this proposal.
> 
> Ronnie Brown
> 
> George Janelidze
> 

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