Editing Wikipedia's tetration page

[Daniel]

As an early editor of the Wikipedia's tetration page, I disconnected out of frustration for all the poor and unpublished mathematics in the real tetration and complex tetration sections. Well now there is a nice assortment of published articles and it would be appropriate to rewrite those two sections. Anyone interested in working on this? We could hammer out a replacement on this forum and then publish the results as a collective of researchers.

[JmsNxn]

I would like a better wikipedia article for tetration, the one that exists is pretty lacklustre, but I firmly believe that for advanced topics in mathematics, that wikipedia should lag behind the research by a fair amount. Might seem weird, but I think tetration is still too chaotic (lil pun for your day) a subject (at the moment) to be hammered down in as concise a manner as Wikipedia kind of asks of the editor/writer. I honestly believe work should be done on our wiki first; there are many things we should add to it. I've been meaning to get around to some of it, but alas, haven't had the energy needed.

Just my two cents, anyway.

[tommy1729]

As an early editor of the Wikipedia's tetration page, I disconnected out of frustration for all the poor and unpublished mathematics in the real tetration and complex tetration sections. Well now there is a nice assortment of published articles and it would be appropriate to rewrite those two sections. Anyone interested in working on this? We could hammer out a replacement on this forum and then publish the results as a collective of researchers.

I dont have much love or faith in wikipedia.

I complained about them in the past.

Myself and friends tried to add things but got into rejection debates and nonsense.

Some subjects get lenghty explainations and some zero to none.

People are not who they claim to be.

Also they tend to hate " self-promotion " and " not peer review " although they are not consistant in it.

I must admit peer review and published papers might indeed be better, but i do not want to be behind a paywall either.

Some people called themselves " tetration experts that wrote many peer reviewed papers and know more than me ", but their names did not ring a bell and when I asked about those papers they got " silent ".

Also a retired ex-teacher who thaught 7 year olds to multiply does not fall into the category " math expert of tetration " by any reasonable standards !

I dont want to talk to much about it so I will leave it at that.

I will add however that * not trying to be paranoid or anything * I see sites mentioning math and later removing their content or even deleting the site.
Or the sites according to browsers scanners etc as unsafe.
Im very skeptical about online stuff.


regards

tommy1729

[JmsNxn]

As an early editor of the Wikipedia's tetration page, I disconnected out of frustration for all the poor and unpublished mathematics in the real tetration and complex tetration sections. Well now there is a nice assortment of published articles and it would be appropriate to rewrite those two sections. Anyone interested in working on this? We could hammer out a replacement on this forum and then publish the results as a collective of researchers.

I dont have much love or faith in wikipedia.

I complained about them in the past.

Myself and friends tried to add things but got into rejection debates and nonsense.

Some subjects get lenghty explainations and some zero to none.

People are not who they claim to be.

Also they tend to hate " self-promotion " and " not peer review " although they are not consistant in it.

I must admit peer review and published papers might indeed be better, but i do not want to be behind a paywall either.

Some people called themselves " tetration experts that wrote many peer reviewed papers and know more than me ", but their names did not ring a bell and when I asked about those papers they got " silent ".

Also a retired ex-teacher who thaught 7 year olds to multiply does not fall into the category " math expert of tetration " by any reasonable standards !

I dont want to talk to much about it so I will leave it at that.

I will add however that * not trying to be paranoid or anything * I see sites mentioning math and later removing their content or even deleting the site.
Or the sites according to browsers scanners etc as unsafe.
Im very skeptical about online stuff.


regards

tommy1729

I absolutely agree, tommy. And further to your point, this is even more nefarious in highly complicated subjects which are on the forefront of science. Considering something like quantum physics. It's perfectly common for wikipedia just to blatantly say there are 11 dimensions and particles are strings living in eleven dimensions. But, this is just conjecture, never proven, and half the science is shoddy science if you pay attention. A similar problem happens with tetration, it brings out all the whacky stuff that there's not much evidence for. Plus Wikipedia has become a cultural icon so much, that much of the things they post in historical articles are for some political gain (whether you agree with the politics or not, it's important to remember this bias). I miss old wikipedia when the net was the wild wild west. Lmao.

The only thing wikipedia is good for in my book, is for math that is at least 40 years old. That's absolutely set in stone, and wikipedia is acting as a historical document. Sadly, there's not much history to tetration (besides Kneser), and so I don't think it should be a prevailing idea to work on a wikipedia page.

[Daniel]

It looks like the nays have it.

[JmsNxn]

I mean, I'm happy to have you work on it. Maybe some other people will see it differently and will help you work on it. Honestly, I'd prefer Daniel wrote the wiki article than some rando who knows jack shit, lmao.