Please take a look at an example about "collaborative"

Please take a look at an example about "collaborative"

I log in and see invitation to join the discussion. Right on time, I say.

Please take a look how I was bullied and stonewalled for my attempt to create a reasonable article from a mess. First I was called a vandal (first by a bot, then by a borg) Then I was threatened with block. Nice cooperative and productive environment you've got here.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Max_Longint

and history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_number

Max Longint00:12, 7 May 2011

That is interesting, and reveals an actual flaw in the processes. The thing, as I see it, is about this: The page is a disambiguation page, which by my experience is more sensitive than other pages for no real valid reason, I triggered some such reaction myself once upon a time, but usually if one follows the disambiguation rules nothing happen. An automated bot was triggered to revert your first edit, which probably got the attention of some more experienced non-polite editors, who perceived you as a vandal by really really sloppily ignoring the policy Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. If they were experienced enough, they should have looked on your number of edits (currently less than 100), and then observed that your changes were intended to be constructive, not in the earliest stages spoken about "unconstructive edits" and "vandalism". When I first see "unconstructive edits", I use to write a personalized greeting, criticise the result and explain how to instead make constructive edits. What was lacking in your case was a pedagogical consensus building from their part, because they had all means and knowledge to see that you are still a newbie.

I find the following statement from one of the "opponents" of yours to be exceedingly annoying,

(whether it's a commonly-used *term* is not the point. WP is not a dictionary; it's about the content, not the term. You've been reverted; take it to the talk page.)

The guy in question have a lot of university courses in maths but should also take quite a few courses in philosophy, expecially ontology: if it is a term, then it is just not a phrase, and represents something real that might actually need a Wikipedia article. The motivation for the reversion is one of the worst I've seen. Rursus 07:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rursus07:13, 7 May 2011

Max Longint, my sympathies. To me your contribution seemed mostly good, and looks like it was handled badly, or at least rather roughly.

Early on in my modest Wikipedia career, I had a new article removed, and I didn't like it. I had spent some time creating it, referencing it, etc. And it was almost immediately deleted and I couldn't get it back and I didn't understand or agree with the reasons it happened. Since then I have learned how to make changes in a way that is less likely to be deleted.

There are a few things you could have done better. You didn't fill in the Edit summary when you made your first change. Also, later on, you just put back your changes, sometimes using the Edit summary as way to have a discussion. The Talk page is a better place to do that. Even if you were in the right, this wasn't the best way to go about improving the page.

This discussion in the Talk Page seems a pretty good explanation of why the reversions happened.

So it seems to me that you, as a brand-new, inexperienced Wikipedia editor, should be more ready to accept the position of more experienced editors (even if you disagree with it), and try to learn how to get your way following usual Wikipedia practices. I know it's easy to be impatient with bureaucracy and tradition, but they do have their uses, even if they are not immediately apparent.

Also, in the end, perhaps you will agree that this seems to be no big deal, a fairly minor point of detail, so not worth getting really upset about. (Personally I'd favor a redirect from Whole number to Integer, with some clear mention of the term "whole number" in the Integer article. But I haven't thought about it much, and am not (yet?) prepared to invest the time in following all the discussions that have already occurred on this subject).

I hope you can get past this and continue making contributions to Wikipedia!

Kaicarver09:13, 7 May 2011

If I follow your logic Kaicarver WP is *NOT* "The encyclopedia that everyone can edit", at all, but one where the "everyone" has try to understand myriads of tribal rules before the unseen Masters let "everyone" pick even the smallest bread crumb off the table.

96.251.49.14800:30, 9 May 2011

That everyone can edit it doesn't mean that everyone can do anything they want. This is true for any publicly shared resource.

A library is open to all, but if you decide to reorganize a bookshelf in a manner that seems more sensible to you, you will face resistance.

Kaicarver04:15, 9 May 2011

Your witticism has no relation to what really happened in my case. But it perfectly illustrates the attitude of growing blindness of self-recognized "know-it-alls", as I described in my second long rant below.

Max Longint18:07, 9 May 2011
 
 

Thank you for your "I hope you can get past this" and go to hell. Why would I want to get past "this"? An what exactly is "this"? I've spent two days trying to figure "this" out.

Needless to say, part of "this" was my ego. But did I really have to go through humiliation of rejection, humble myself, kiss someone's ass, etc., for a dubious privilege of putting into wikipedia a piece of knowledge which is not even mine, not a matter of my possible pride of invention? I had serious doubts whether I should continue talking to you at all, since, as I explain below, you still don't hear me, even the few ones who expressed sympathy, which was mostly misdirected as well.

However my ego is irrelevant in the context of my case: I was not promoting some political agenda, or trying to publish my research, or otherwise add some glory to someone (me, my boss, my boyfriend, etc.).

No. The main problem as I see it that EVERYONE, every single person who discussed this case, both here and in w:Talk:Whole number don't give a piece of shit for two bits of new information I added to the article which were (and thanks to you all, still are) absent in wikipedia. My several requests to explain what exactly was wrong with my additions (based on book references) were shouting to deaf. In other words, all of you successfully abandoned (at least in the context of my case) the principial goal of wikipedia: to ***COLLECT KNOWLEDGE*** Yes, I know, verifiable, notable, neutral, blablabla. This is not the point: the point is NOBODY tried to discuss the knowledge I tried to add, not to a slightest extent! All efforts were to bat me as a nuisance mosquito. And when I am gone, they are happily reshuffling a meaningless formal page which is, it seems even does not conform the requirements for this type of page. They are happily oblivious to the history (I was going to add to the article, but no thank you) of the concept; that better mathematical minds of Kronecker, Lebesque, Dedekind, wasted their time on trivia which a couple smartass know-it-alls simply don't see. I cannot even write "they think it is too trivial for wikipedia"; no, they don't freaking see what I wrote at all, they are blind, busy to protect their right to ignore new content and new editors when not fit into their blindsight.

SUMMARY, the problem with wikipedia is not lack of respect of new editors. The real problem is lost respect to new knowledge; failure to see what you don't know, failure to want to see what you don't know; favoring formal structure against actual content.

The attitude to new editors is but a corollary: "What they could possibly know? Everything has been written already about! They are just screwing the perfect text!" Or, even better: "It is THEIR job to prove that they are NOT screwing the perfect text!" I see many people here talking about "low hanging fruits have already been picked", so that there is nothing else new to write in wikipedia but about new pop-stars, hurricanes, and free software for iPhones. Yeah, sure. Good luck.

P.S. The most amazing quotation from the talk page of my case: No one is arguing against your content, and therefore the references are irrelevant. (New content deleted without arguing against, references irrelevant. Logic is unbeatable. Laugh and weep.)
Max Longint17:48, 9 May 2011

The page is a disambiguation page. So it's not meant for contents, but it is simply a list of articles and a short description of such articles. You are free to add your content to the articles linked therein. Or start an article/stub on en:Whole number (perspectives of number theorists) and add a link to it in the en:Whole number article.

Tgeorgescu22:35, 9 May 2011
Edited by author.
Last edit: 00:16, 11 May 2011

<Sigh> . It seems the shades of cluselessness in such a simple case are endless and boundless. So you are saying that the "disambiguationness" of the page is something sacred, ethernal, inviolate, immutable? And I cannot make it into a regular article? And you are free to delete anything from it while plainly refusing to discuss the new content? That new content is so unimportant that it may be routinely deleted in favor of some formality? Even overlooking the fact that this is a disambiguation page from hell.

That's exactly what I am talking here about: the likes of you have made wikipedia into a shooter game, not a repository of knowledge.

As for your belated advice, yes, I did think about this, but the more I read what's going on, the less I want to something in wikipedia. And I am hanging onto this thread out of mere curiosity: who will be the first reasonable person to find an acceptable solution to the issue? Hereby I solemnly declare that I will give this person $50. Furthermore, if I see three different reasonable solutions, I will donate Wikipedia $200. And I challenge you to match my pledge. May be wikipedia is not to rotting, after all.

Max Longint00:11, 10 May 2011

You are missing the point of Wikipedia:

  • The First law of Wikipedia: on average, of those who edit a page, more than half will not have read the page he is editing.
  • The Second Law of Wikipedia: on average, of those who edit a page, more than 80% (90%?) will not know anything about the topic of the page whatsoever.

Your "The real problem is lost respect to new knowledge;" is off: "new" has nothing to do with it. The Wikipedia mythos is of the earnest person who wants to edit, and starts to read up on a topic, in books, websites, or databases, and then to enthousiastically produce text. Each user is encouraged to grow to his level of incompetence (see here). Quality is not a concern, it will magically arise in good time, as a result of long collaboration.

What you are trying to do is contribute actual information to an encyclopedia. All wrong; that is not how it works: it is all about playing the Wikipedia game. It is not actually forbidden to have knowledge of the topic you write about, but you are not supposed to; at least be apologetic about it. Assume protective coloration.

Brya03:49, 10 May 2011

My suggestion was that there are ways to publish his content on Wikipedia, just not on that specific page. If he would seek a compromise solution, he could reach what he wants.

Tgeorgescu21:54, 10 May 2011
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 01:11, 20 May 2011

I have to disagree with your suggestion. My point was that a compromise requires work from both sides. As I wrote, I asked several times in the article talk page what is wrong with my addition referenced from solid books. And as I explained, nobody bothered to discuss the content. How you can talk about "compromise"? How can I amend my suggestion if nobody explained what was wrong in my text?

The issue at hand was not some fringe science or political wrangle. There are several people in this talk page which seem to complain about tough penetration in these subjects. Mine is totally different. I was not trying to push some agenda. I merely added two simple statements, from books, to a mathematical subject.

And the fact that they were deleted in favor of some formality baffles me. Just as it baffles me that nobody put forth any ways to "seek compromise solution", as you suggest, neither in this forum, nor in the article in question.

Now I may conclude that the reason of the complained low retention rate of new editors is that because they are in their own, a nuisance to the oldtimers. If they are lucky not to be punched in their nose in the first month, then they grow. Otherwise; goodbye.

Max Longint00:14, 11 May 2011

OK, Max, that's enough. Calm down. No personal attacks.

~Philippe (WMF)17:34, 15 May 2011
 

That is probably so, but it remains conjecture: not all content is possible, given the many constraints that exist (especially the supremacy of form over content is killing). Brya 05:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Brya05:19, 11 May 2011
 
 
 
 

Max Longit, you are very rude.

Kaicarver06:48, 12 May 2011
 
 
 

My experience is also very negative. I have been called a kook, nonsense , fringe and more since I was not agreeing with two or three editors who dominate the discussion and block, laugh, disparage, make their own rules and are more interested in their own power trip that on the correctness of the page. I have been blocked when I worked hard on calmly and politely making my point....the two bosses of the site did not bother to reply or comment, just blocked me invoking their own ideas of troll, sock puppet, ethical rules and the like. I also take issue with damaging live persons with insults and omissions of the positive and big emphasis on the negative. I also think that there are three or four people monitoring some related pages and working together to coordinate their actions and make go away any change on what they do not like. Please look at the Oxyhydrogen page and see what I mean.... one of them RKLawton writes to the other (SteveBaker) "Ignore the OP, keep the article on track. If he continues to be disruptive, we can block him from further editing" and they blocked me because I continued to prove my point. One of them also pointed out that he was free to write whatever he wanted since it could not be enforced legally and it was impossible to prove libel and damage. This is one of the major reasons why you see problems in Wikipedia. I think i could be giving a real contribution to Wikipedia, I speak three languages, i hold two master degrees, I have long experience in editing, I know well art, music, history but from now on I will keep out. By the way, what is OP??? PRGiusi your favorite sock puppet

PRGiusi12:59, 10 May 2011

1. Having your edits reverted does not entitle you to sockpuppetry. It is a basic Wikipedia principle that sockpuppets are not allowed, period. Violating this principle is not done.

2. I saw that you were arguing for HHO as a fuel additive, by electrolyzing water with electric power generated by a generator using some of the force of the gasoline engine. Simple commonsense says that the energy used to split the water molecules is equal to the energy obtained by burning the hydrogen thus obtained. Since the generator has no 100% efficiency, you would lose more energy than you would gain, so it would lower the efficiency of the engine.

3. Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Fringe theories are not accepted. Therefore you should have found reliable sources in order to back up your claims. If you could not find such sources, you were not entitled to make those claims. As simple as that. Self-published pamphlets are not considered reliable sources. In science, reliable sources are print-published, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

4. I therefore guess that none of your Masters were in physics or engineering.

Tgeorgescu22:16, 10 May 2011

No, I did not argue in favor of HHO.I have no opinion on it and I am not a chemist so I do not pretend to evaluate the scientific aspect. I was taking issue with the fact that there is a distinction between people who sell devices claiming that improve the efficiency of the engine and they commit fraud, and people who are doing research on HHO and publish in peer-reviewed journals. I added the link to the peer reviewed International Journal of Hydrogen and 4 articles reporting pros and cons. I also took issue with the fact that Santilli is called a fringe physicists. The main page on Santilli says "proponent of theories some of which are called fringe theories" and I proposed to keep the same definition in order to be fair to a living person who is damaged in his name and business. They immediately cancelled everything without any argument calling Santilli a nut case and me a kook and worse. No discussion, no explanation except the The Iternational Journal has a poor reputation and therefore it was not to be cited . It has a poor reputation, they said, because publishes article by such a kook person like Santilli. Also they said that nobody came to defend my position and therefore had no value....but nobody came to defend their position either. They first ask for sources and then because they did not like the sources, they eliminate them. Note that you do not need a master in science to see that is wrong to damage a person and that is against the policies of Wikipedia. Note that the "dominant editors" of the page are one a photographer and the other a computer game specialist.... Please, read the erased discussion, if they are stlll to be found somewhere.

PRGiusi14:32, 13 May 2011

Ever heard of Okrent's Law? Mainstream scientists think that Santilli is a fringe scientist, and Wikipedia renders this consensus, since this is what the reliable sources say.

Tgeorgescu21:49, 13 May 2011

There were no reliable source found anywhere calling Santilli fringe. That is why the article about Santilli define him "proponent of theories some of which are called fringe" is fair in my opinion and the opinion of the editors of that article. I am instead taking issue with the definition of "fringe physicist Santilli" that is in the Oxhyhydrogen article since he has published widely in mainstream peer-refereed journals so he can be fringe in some cases but not all his work is fringe, unless you can prove that the AIP is fringe, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy is fringe, Il Nuovo Cimentio is fringe, Springer Verlag is fringe, the Open Astronomy Journal is Fringe, Plenum publication is fringe.Please present reliable sources that are not blogs or tabloids. I think in the Oxyhydrogen article there is a violation of writing about live persons and hurting them when Santilli is called 'fringe physicist" I also take issue with the fact that nobody bothered to consider the argument I am presenting here is worth some discussion instead of calling names Verderosso and any other person who tried to have a fair editing of the article and engage the editors in a fair way.

PRGiusi18:54, 14 May 2011

But no serious scientist believes there is such a thing as magnecules. At least, this is what an ordinary Google search shows.

Tgeorgescu00:15, 26 May 2011