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/ ]