Another possibility is that this question (partly) duplicates other resources such as the polymath wiki.

Well, yes. This is why (among other reasons) I was rather against this "question" in the first place. But now that we have it, it seems odd to me if it were not maintained properly (as this would reflect rather poorly on the site, in my opinion) or if one wishes to see it like this the most relevant (or only relevant if one wishes to be critical) information is a link in a comment to the answer.

That one is easy to fix: replace the duplicate content with a link to the more appropriate source.

The link is there but this seems a bit too little content in my opinion, besides it not being very visible. In addition to being against the general philosophy that the content of the site should be at least also somewhat meaningful without the content of the linked resource. (At the risk of drifting off-topic: On the network they seem to be rather strict, even in mechanical ways. Better we prepare and learn collectively for this now, than being then faced with many complaints, in either direction. To avoid a misconception, I am looking forward to this aspect of the change as I quite dislike 'link only' information in particular for relevant information, though I admit sometimes I do this myself.)

As said if noone beats me to it, I will do this later. Thanks again for the feedback on the matter.

Added: upon reading a bit on the wiki and a blog not sure I will actually do this as there is some discussion I do not fully oversee. So, there is some risk of creating some confusion, which I'd prefer to avoid.

• The community does not understand the idea and/or is not receptive to collaborative editing.
• The question is not sufficiently well organized. Ideally, everyone should know immediately where and how to add tidbits of relevant information.

There is some evidence for both; the second is easier to correct than the first.

Another possibility is that this question (partly) duplicates other resources such as the polymath wiki. That one is easy to fix: replace the duplicate content with a link to the more appropriate source.

Should this paper and some text on it be added now?

If so as, as an independent answer or via an edit. In my opinion, since this question now exists, it would make sense to me to add it, likely as an independent answer; on the grounds that there is a substantive improvement in the form of a complete write-up. However, since I am somewhat dubious regarding this and also did not want to 'steal' this answer, and finally would anyway prefer if somebody else would do so, I ask here.

Seriously, though, it may perhaps make some sense to define the scope of the project a bit; I don’t think the project could try to cover every single possible way to develop Zhang’s breakthrough, and there should still be plenty of room for more traditional research in this area.

This suggests that MO could still be used as a way of keeping track of progress similar to what I suggested above. I would be willing to reopen the question if someone volunteered to rewrite it in a useful form. Alternately, start a new question and I can reclose this one as duplicate to redirect people.

(See this meta.SO question for an example of using a simple community wiki question with a community edited answer summarizing all the relevant info. There are lots of other examples if you look.)

1. Where does one draw the line? That is, if sometimes/for some problems it is alright they are posed on MO, then there would need to be some criteria to decide which problems can be posed on MO. Ever so often somebody already poses a problem, this is typically closed. Now, I agree that this current one is for various reasons a relatively good choice, but still we will face the question sooner or later (rather sooner than later, IMO)

2. Due to the way how MO works it is very sensitive to 'noise.' And, if there is too much on one subject at the same time and/or in rapid succession this causes in my observation (and also personal experience) quite quickly a certain annoyance. To formulate it a bit stronger than I mean it: it feels somewhat impolite to effectively force the entire MO-community to follow the progress some make on some problem in real-time. (The one at hand is rather close to my interests so, in this case I personally would be rather on the good side, but still I am against this on general grounds.)

I'm not proposing reopening, but perhaps this could be a useful place to think about future polymath projects.

@Bill, why do you think it's so clear this sort of thing is definitely for a blog?

Remark: The typical pattern for using CW mode in this way is:

• Have a simple question, e.g. a statement of the original bound, a link to the original paper, and a statement of goal.
• One accepted answer with the main info: the latest known improvement and a timeline of earlier improvements.
• Possibly additional answers with auxiliary information.

In my opinion, cramming everything into the question text is a rather confusing use of this site.