User:Peter Schmitt/Draft

Relying on a single source for information would be dangerous. There must not be a monopoly for an online encyclopedia. It is crucial that there is competition.

• The Citizendium has the potential to be a competitor of WP.

But: CZ may not to directly compete with WP. WP was the first, it is the biggest, it the best known. It has the most contributors (and the most users, too). The chances to beat WP in Google hits is minimal. Even after a very successfull campaign to recruit new Citizens,

• CZ will not be a match for WP measured by resources.

Thus CZ has to try to gain reputation (evolve a brand) and to establish itself as a site where to go directly, bypassing search engines. For this purpose, CZ must not imitate WP, but has to be recognizable different from its competitors. Consequently,

• CZ has to (mainly) strive for quality, not for quantity.

To hope for a fast growth -- as fast as WP -- is likely to be an illusion.

There is much to do. All policies have to be reviewed. Many suggestions and problems have been discussed in the forum and on talk pages. All of them have to be considered, many of them deserve to be realized.
But: There is TOO much to do!
We shall not be able to handle everything at once. Thus,

• when starting now to (re)form CZ it is important to choose priorities carefully and to be patient.

Else there is the danger that nothing is accomplished.

In order to reach its ambitious goals CZ will need the cooperation of all Citizens. While it is the responsibility of the officials (EC,MC,ME, and Ombudsman, who will have to closely cooperate) to guarantee the reliability of all content and that the fundamental principles are observed, they will need the support of all Citizens.

• All officials will have to work in close contact with all interested Citizens.

We are lucky to finally have a Charter on that CZ can be built. However,

• the Charter needs some revisions.

For me the guiding principles are:

• CZ is an encyclopedia for the whole body of knowledge. (I am an inclusionist.)

While there are, of course, more important and less important topics, it is up to the authors what they choose to contribute as long as it is correct and reliable material presented in an adequate form.

(Naturally, CZ is far away from the goal to include "everything" and will be so for a long time.)

Guidelines are necessary in order to provide a coherent structure and to guarantee that CZ remains usable. However, guidelines should also be kept to a minimum and allow differences in style and the approach used.

The term "neutrality" is controversial, it is loaded with meaning such as the WP interpretation.

• I prefer to say that CZ has to be honest and fair,

but must not shy away from a firm standpoint if justified by "expert judgement".

(This, however, may not lead to totally exclude non-mainstream opinions.)

As for the much disputed topic of pseudoscience and "fringe": Whether one likes them or not, they exist and are part of what is discussed in the public. Therefore, there is a place for them on CZ and they may (and finally should) be covered, but -- of course! -- in an adequate form (and to an adequate extent). Nonsense has to be called "nonsense", unproven claims have to be labelled as "unproven", and unlikely or speculative theories have to be presented as such.

Major tasks for the EC will be

• to develop a system of classification for articles (subject classification),
• to find a practical mathod of quality control in general, as well as
• to reorganize, in particular, the approval process and the handling of approved articles
• to organize cooperation of Citizens (workgroups)

[[User:Peter Schmitt/{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}]]

http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/59/3/285.full Cayley

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v20/n507/pdf/020275a0.pdf nature Volume 20 Number 507 pp261-284 In this issue (17 July 1879)

   * Book Reviews
   * Letters to Editor
   * News
   * Correction
   * News

Correction Notes- p275 doi:10.1038/020275a0 PDF

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2756.msg22054.html#msg22054 http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2748.0.html http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2764.msg22183.html#msg22183

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1085.msg8866.html#msg8866

Zero (mathematics)/Bibliography

There are several popular books on (the history of) "zero" which make interesting reading but have to be taken with care as can be seen from the reviews.

• Robert Kaplan, The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero.   Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.

Critically reviewed by:

Philip J. Davis, Embedding Zero in Exposition, Book Review. SIAM News (September 17, 2000) [siam.org]

Ivor Grattan-Guinness, Much ado about some thing, Book Review. Nature 401, 645-646 (14 October 1999) (doi:10.1038/44273) [nature.com]

Andrew Leahy, The Mathematical Association of America. [maa.org]

Brian Blank, Book review. The College Mathematics Journal, Vol.32 No.2, March 2001, 155-160. See pp. 158-160 [pdf]

Keith Devlin, Natural History, Dec, 1999. [bnet]

John Derbyshire, The conquering zero. October 1999. [newcriterion.com]

Richard Pinch, Much ado about Nothing. Magazine issue 2228 (04 March 2000) [newscientist.com]

J. Kingston Pierce, All for Naught. [January Magazine]

• Charles Seife, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Viking Penguin, New York, 2000.

Critically reviewed by:

Brian Blank, Book review. The College Mathematics Journal, Vol.32 No.2, March 2001, 155-160. See pp. 157-158 [pdf]

Steven G. Krantz, What's So Special About Zero? Book Review, SIAM News (September 17, 2000). [siam.org (pdf)]

Keith Devlin, Natural History, Dec, 1999. [bnet]

• John D. Barrow, The Book of Nothing. Pantheon: 2001.

Critically reviewed by:

John O'Connor, Nothing to it! Book review. Nature 410, 748-749 (12 April 2001) (doi:10.1038/35071152) [nature.com]

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Martin Gardner, The Significance of ‘Nothing’, in: The Night is Large. (1996).

What is the origin of zero? How did we indicate nothingness before zero?
  Scientific American (January 16, 2007), answer based on Kaplan's book (see below). [Scientific American]

Bill Casselman, All for Nought. Feature column at [ams.org]

Gwalior in India The temple is dated to 876 A. D What the Gwalior tablet shows is that by 876 A. D. our current place-value system with a base of 10 had become part of popular culture in at least one region of India.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%