There is a fundamental difference Math SE has compared to other Stack Exchange sites:
- Questions on other sites ask for information.
Look that over very carefully.
Fundamentally, there are three things involved in the topics of Math SE:
- Mathematical notation.
- Understandings of mathematical concepts.
The predominant item is the second one I've listed.
Mathematics is something that you understand, not data or information which fundamentally must come from an external source.
You can derive the entirety of mathematics yourself. Or, you could learn it on an alien planet—who knows? The ideas of mathematics are fundamental. They have to do with basic postulates (axioms) and conclusions derived from those axioms. These ideas and understandings are independent of language, race, Earth, or even physics.
(Although much mathematics is applicable to the physics of this universe, there is just as much or more mathematics that is not directly applicable within the realm of this universe.)
If you were an expert alien mathematician, the only aspects you would be missing from your mathematical repertoire that you might need to fill in from the external source of Math SE would be:
- The particular notations used by Earth mathematicians, and
- The history of discovery and development of these fundamental mathematical ideas on Earth (and the history of the notations used.)
Now contrast our SE with another SE that deals with specific invented items, such as computer operating systems. (Unix & Linux Stack Exchange, for example, just because I'm very familiar with it.)
These OSes were created a certain way (by their creators) and thus the information about how they work is not something you can make up yourself. You can make up your own OS, of course, but unless you make it "in agreement" with certain common principles of "*nix" systems, you won't have made a Unix or a Linux-based operating system at all. Thus, answers there must provide information.
Math has no such restrictions.
You can create any mathematics you like and use it in any fashion you want, to accomplish whatever you want to accomplish with it. It's an adjunct or servomechanism to your own mind.
There is a fundamental difference between information and understanding.
Given that, what is there to ask about Maths?
By observation, most of the questions on Math SE have to do with solving specific math problems.
The better ones have to do with understanding specific mathematical notations (usually in the context of solving specific math problems), and the best ones have to do purely with understanding mathematical concepts for their own sake.
Of course, since concepts shall be communicated in every case by means of symbols (by which term I include written word symbols and spoken symbols) until and unless we reach pure telepathic ability—even those askers of questions seeking purely to understand mathematical concepts are invariably hung up on symbols; either the notation symbols or the "word symbols" used to explain the ideas. (Good educators recognize the importance of the undefined term or the undefined symbol.)
So perhaps I should really say, the best questions have to do with proposing new ideas (independently originated) and asking what the consequences (ramifications, implications) would be of those ideas. But those are hardly questions with a "single, definable answer," are they?
How is this relevant to the question of user etiquette on Math SE?
The only possible purpose to writing an answer here is to improve the understanding of those who read the answer.
When an answer is written so that only those who already have a vast amount of requisite knowledge can understand the answer, it is of more limited value.
An answer written to convey the necessary understandings, without assumptions of reader expertise (particularly without assuming notational expertise), is thus highly desirable.
Now, having written this far, I'll confess: I don't have an explicit answer to the title question, "How to make users follow a better etiquette?" Instead, I believe that what I've written above constitutes an entirely different framework from which to address the problem.
Perhaps canonical answers could be written—excellent exposés on individual mathematical concepts—which could be used as "dupe close" targets. Other sites have many of these; this site, so far as I know, has none.
(Why don't we have these already? Because such answers for this site would have to simply convey understanding, rather than just contain information.)
Perhaps apparent "etiquette problems" are merely due to this failure on our part to write canonical answers.
I don't have a firm conclusion. I don't have a firm answer. But, hey, this is Meta—and the post is tagged "discussion." ;)