Help talk:Using Wikipedia for mathematics self-study

	Mathematics portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Work in progress[edit]

I added a point: Wikipedia is a work in progress. I think some of the comments from new readers show they don't realize that most our articles are still under development. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention they are written by laymen putting in their two cents. Not a reliable reference by any measure to begin with. Might want to make mention of the explicit bias and manipulation, too; the political leftist propaganda and politicization of some articles (outside of math, of course) 50.35.103.217 (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other sites[edit]

What to include? I thought the Springer Encyclopedia, MathWorld, PlanetMath at least. I participate in MathOverflow, but it is right at the top end of the scale of our readers. Is there a good resource for those with no more than school mathematics? I suspect we have a real problem with access when it comes to readers with no college mathematics at all. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all reference works. Maybe we should mention them... but the thrust of what we are saying is that sometimes textbooks are more useful. Are there any good, online, general mathematics textbooks? Yaris678 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There are some good lecture notes for the standard introductory graduate-level courses, but which ones are good is very much a matter of taste. The same goes for print textbooks; people go around in circles for ages about which ones are better than others. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what would be really useful? A site with reviews of a wide range of maths text books. Yaris678 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essay looks otherwise fairly complete to me now, so perhaps we could just add a short list of definitely useful sites for now. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stackexhange and its variants are a joke of a site. People dont get help there. These sites are mostly for the weak-ego'ed to find validation in their pseudo-contributions. Personally Ive never had a decent answer given to me satisfying a question. Not once. I do get platitudes and naive answers from people who dont understand the question. Or trivial and degenerate solutions, or non-answer commentary. But mostly I get people being patronizing and mocking the question. If the question is hard to answer, they will usually accuse you of cheating. And if the question is easy, they jump on it all too easily to win easy points with the community. Lots of mocking. Lots of pretentiousness. They are uncooperative. The tendency is not to teach or help the questioner, but to make oneself look skilled and educated, even when its a facade. And this isnt just my opinion. Its the opinion of many people I know, both student and faculty, at the University. Math majors and their math doctorate-holding professors all think the stackexchange network is an utter waste of time. This is rather the consensus throughout most of the math department, student and employee. This view also spans two university campuses and was also the perspective at community college. I dont waste my time with it anymore. They are decidedly closed to any scrutiny, as offering suggestions for improvement and pointing out the failings and the gaming of the system is considered "harassing" and will get you booted from their system. Its an echo chamber or mathematical egoists, and nothing more. Reality check: you actually get more answers and better help, more quickly, at yahoo!answers. 50.35.103.217 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising what we are doing here[edit]

Are we writing an essay? Can we stick it in a category such as Category:How-to essays or Category:Wikipedia essays giving advice. Yaris678 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Essay" is loosely defined, I believe. Category:Wikipedia essays giving advice would probably be fine. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I have added that category and the {{essay}} tag. Yaris678 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a banner to the talk page too. Yaris678 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

Is it worth giving examples of the sort of questions people might have and where to take them? e.g.

What is algebra? - Read Algebra.
What does the mathematical analysis article mean when it says "nearness"? - Ask at Talk:Mathematical analysis
What does it mean when a variable has a squiggly line on top? - Ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics

Yaris678 (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a FAC (frequently asked questions)? Perhaps at the Mathematics Portal? JRSpriggs (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe... but I wouldn't describe any of the questions above as frequently asked. They are merely examples of the sort of questions people might ask. Yaris678 (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs[edit]

If we mention them (it's not obvious to me we should - most "customers" are likely to be more interested in formulae and algorithms) we have to explain why proofs are not generally included. So it's somewhat of a can of worms. We do have that other page where proofs and their inclusion are discussed; it would probably be better to confine the worms there. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you about what our customers will be interested in. However, we do need to empty the can of worms all over the table. We can just provide a link to the other page, where this is discussed. Yaris678 (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

This is a very straightforward and good article IMHO...--Billymac00 (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have just asked for more feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Essays. Yaris678 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caveats[edit]

Remember that almost every source potentially contains errors, so do not put too much trust into a single account. Verify proofs and calculations yourself.

The word 'almost' was recently added. What source does not potentially contain errors? —Tamfang (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename / recategorize[edit]

This advice may have been created by WikiProject members, but I believe that its intended audience is Wikipedia readers rather than editors. IMO it would be better in Category:Reader help and titled something like "Help:Using Wikipedia for mathematics self-study". Alternatively it could be moved to Wikipedia namespace (e.g. like Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer). I.e. I propose removing the "essay" tag. See related thead above (#Categorising_what_we_are_doing_here). The talk page would still be in WikiProject Mathematics. Thoughts? DexDor (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all counts. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 15:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now changed as proposed. DexDor (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneously equation[edit]

I need to know more about maths and English and math test and subjects 105.112.70.71 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessible from WikiProject Mathematics?[edit]

Is this article accessible, i.e., referenced, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics somewhere? Nothings obvious to me at least. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]