I agree that it very much unbalanced - for example, practically all works on applications of proof theory to categories are absent. I think that in fact the number of contributors worth mentioning is maybe 5 times greater, and the idea to make a table like in this artikle will generate controverse in any case. Best Sergei Soloviev Ronnie Brown wrote:
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_mathema...
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/ ]