User:Boris Tsirelson/Sandbox1

To a reader
Trust the information in the articles approved by me as much as you trust the information in mathematical textbooks. (In both cases errors are possible but quite rare.)

To an author (editor, constable etc)
Here is my opinion, probably controversial. All that is only about mathematical articles; about others I have no opinion.

Articles may be compared according to: importance of the topic; accessibility; scope; coherence, and many other criteria. Best articles may be rewarded somehow. However, the approval is not a kind of reward! If a trustworthy article remains unapproved, it is a loss for readers and CZ.

An approved article can and should be developed further. But (unlike software firms) we should not create versions like 5.3.7, nor even 1.1; after version 1 we should usually proceed toward version 2 (maybe after a year). Only in some regrettable cases version 1.1 becomes necessary.

Improvements to any article are welcome from everyone at any time, before and after the first approval. They should accumulate toward the next version. A burst of collective activity just before approval, is it a good idea? It can create fuss and *, and make an article somewhat mosaic.

Let me express my opinion, probably quite controversial.

0. It is not the question, "is it bad?"; it is THE question, "should the article be approved?".

1. The approval mechanism is THE feature of CZ. We should not dream of Google juice when our articles are "unapproved, subject to disclaimer, not to be cited".

2. Unfortunately, in order to approve advanced math articles we need many (20..100) active math editors (then it will be reasonably probable to find at least two editors competent in the favorite matter of an author).

3. Fortunately, in order to approve undergraduate math articles it is enough to have just two active math editors, provided that... see (6) below.

4. Two necessary conditions for approval: (a) not misleading; in math context it just means, no errors; and (b) useful.

5. Desirable but NOT NECESSARY, and in fact not reachable: unimprovable. It is always possible to add something, or make a small improvement. "Useful" does not mean "as useful as at all possible". I understand that in a political context, to miss some aspect may be an intolerable bias. But in math context this is not an issue. Some aspect is missing? Well, work on it AFTER approval, if you can and want.

6. Thus, I call math editors to strive to approve articles (satisfying the two necessary conditions), not to find a reason to delay the approval.

A1. Regretfully, today we have at most two active math editors: Peter Schmitt‎ and Dmitrii Kouznetsov. (I would be happy to be wrong in this point.) I've asked both about possible approval of "Ellipse". One did not reply (yet), the other made some remarks.

A2. I can apply for the editor status, if I'll feel that this will help. That is, if at least one existing editor will support my attitude expressed above.