How to assure the integrity of the more popular
articles? The English articles on Archimedes
and Gauss are shameful
(and I'd guess that so are those on Newton and Einstein).
Professional historians of mathematics
are not likely to contribute
an article unless it is assured to be stable.
The way to do this is probably to set
up very precise criteria for acceptability.
And enforce it. Again, intelligent
handling of sources should be a major consideration.
Annotated reference lists would be good.
Some summary of what the reference has,
why it's on your list. For recent work
this might step on the toes of NPOV
(it would be very hard for me not to
make nasty comments about Daniel Kehlman's
Vermessung ... ), but for older stuff
a guide would be good;
an estimate of reliability
and a guide to contents.
I'd like to see a collection of portraits of mathematicians
start to be assembled. All of them.
For one person, this would be an impossible
task, but for the community of mathematicians
quite reasonable. There is a beginning of what I have in mind
at the
German Gauss article,
but it's not nearly enough. What I'd like is
a list of all known portraits, together with its history,
present location,
and if possible a reproduction at several resolutions,
including very high ones.
The present scheme used by the St. Andrews
site is extremely unsatisfactory.
Even scandalous. Other photographs
would be nice, too. Of graves, for example.
