it is to give people ranks, but to the theories. These ranks are not intended to be absolute, but to help you search. For example, if you are interested in theories about the subject X, but you don?t care about the validity of the proofs, you can specify this to the search engine of the website. &gt; Where as the simple ground breaking insights may well have incomplete and invalidated affixed to them. If a theory is incomplete or invalidated, clearly we need to complete it and to validate/invalidate it. But the database will contain it as well, and it will be available for research and improvements. &gt; The seeker will still have to search through an endless volume of alternatives to find the gems, and may well short cut to the models that seem most authoritative and complete ,missing the best models entirely. It is us who drive the car, not the car which driving us. I think that letting ideas floating on the www randomly makes the search more difficult. We can organize them at wish. And I proposed some criteria for doing this, which seemed to me appropriate to more or less scientific theories. I confess that, initially, I did not have many hopes about Wikipedia, because 1. Waits for voluntary contributors, and 2. Apparently, everyone can write whatever they want. At that time it was easy to find elementary math mistakes on Wikipedia. Now, the mathematical articles are well settled and stable, and the less exact