Please take a look at an example about "collaborative"
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.)
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.
<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.
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.
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.
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 Longit, you are very rude.