References to Wikipedia articles are fairly common and
elsewhere, but I'm one of those people who wonder whether the Wikipedia
framework will evolve toward more rather than less useful information at
relatively advanced levels of mathematics. There are at the moment
approximately 23581 mathematics entries, which of course I haven't read
systematically. But my smaller sample has usually left me with some
doubts about balance, reliability, thoroughness of entries. Often the
coverage is spotty, while the references and links are erratic. Outright
falsehoods seem rare compared with skewed or outdated versions of what is
known. Obviously it takes considerable effort by individuals to make
Wikipedia entries complete, accurate, up-to-date. And will the site
itself be sustainable over decades to come?
Over the centuries print encyclopedias of all sizes and shapes have
existed, some more useful and reliable than others but all impossible
to update continuously. Advanced mathematics has benefited relatively
little from these volumes. Commercially published mathematical book series
called "encyclopedias" tend to be uneven at best. One series collects
monographs on special topics, of varying quality and coverage. So the
Internet might promise better things. But many general-reader Wikipedia entries such as biographical sketches are disappointing. Editing is
possible, but sometimes the site is the target of those wanting to rewrite history. (I've made only one foray into editing, to correct the
common misspelling of our family name in a biographical sketch of my
oldest brother's thesis advisor. But I could see other fuzzy parts of
that sketch that would be complicated to rewrite in detail.)
No comments:
Post a Comment