User:Boris Tsirelson

Professor of mathematics. Also editor of Wikipedia and of Knowino.

Articles that I created

Non-Borel set
Conditioning (probability)
Space (mathematics) 2000+ views
Probability space 1000+ views
Theory (mathematics) 1500+ views
Proof assistant
Schröder–Bernstein property approved; 500+ views
Entanglement (physics) 500+ views

Articles I've contributed to

Plane (geometry)‎ approved; 1000+ views
Line (geometry) approved; 1500+ views
Function (mathematics) 2000+ views

Articles approved by me

By the way...

...we have 1500+ articles with 1500+ views each. [1]

On approval

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! The approval mechanism is the feature of CZ. If a trustworthy article remains "unapproved, subject to disclaimer, not to be cited", it is a loss for readers and CZ.

"Some products — such as new drugs and complex medical devices — must be proven safe and effective before companies can put them on the market. ... At the heart of all FDA's medical product evaluation decisions is a judgment about whether a new product's benefits to users will outweigh its risks." (About FDA Product Approval)

Approval of a drug is not a sign of excellence, nor a guaranteed absence of risk. It is rather a compromise. The same holds for our approvals of articles.

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 of any kind 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 bustle, and make an article somewhat mosaic.

Compare it to our Approval Standards Draft for discussion: "Approval should not be denied on the grounds that the article has omissions, unless these undermine the overall balance and accuracy of the article.

Approval is an ongoing process; even if an editor believes that the article has some significant shortcomings, then the article may still be approved, but the editor should declare any criticisms or reservations at the top of the article Talk page to direct further improvements to the article."

Approval is not a festival of outstanding excellence but a routine stage of development.