Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice

This is a subpage for discussing the way in which questions requesting professional advice are dealt with. This is NOT a page for requesting medical or professional advice!

(Click here to start a new section)

For the original history of this discussion, please see the following link:

(Page History), once there, click ← Older edit to reach older edits

Medical advice post mortem

Today I noticed a thread seeking medical advice (again) on the Science Ref Desk. Here's the permanent link, hopefully no additional answers will appear. Here's the post mortem:

• The first – and best – answer was given immediately by Someguy1221 [1] (Well done!) He gently reminded the original poster that we can't offer medical advice, and encouraged him to seek the assistance of a medical professional.
• Another editor offered the suggestion that the condition "sound[ed] serious" and that it might be a "life-threatening" "blood clot".
• Aaadddaaammm [2] gave a polite reminder in response that we shouldn't speculate on medical issues (well done!).
• There followed some discussion about what types of medical advice could be sneaked around the boundaries of policy. I hope people stop trying to do this in the future.
• Another editor related an anecdote describing his experiences with a (possibly) similar symptom. Again, this offered an implied diagnosis and prognosis.
• I have left polite notes on the talk pages of editors who offered their advice, pointing them to Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice.
• To avoid the drama, pointless edit warring couched as 'principled stands', and so forth that often accompany the removal of comments on the Desk, I have made no visible change to the thread this time around, but I have included an HTML comment discouraging the offering of any more medical advice: [3]. I hope that people will take it seriously.

Judgements about whether or not a symptom is 'serious' should be avoided. 'Mild' symptoms or injuries may lead to life-threatening conditions (cuts and scrapes, headache or sore neck), which apparently 'serious' symptoms could indicate nothing terribly severe (chest and left arm pain). Offering any sort of prognosis – good or bad – is beyond the scope and abilities of this page. I won't name any names, but there have been several cases where people have offered some really dreadful advice in this regard. We're not qualified or competent to make these judgements, and we're not qualified to evaluate other editors' opinions about them, either—therefore we should just avoid making these calls in the first place.

I know that people just want to help out, and that it can be particularly tempting to chime in after other editors have started the ball rolling with their armchair diagnoses. Nevertheless, we have the potential to do a great deal of harm. Even if Wikipedia doesn't face a legal liability, bad medical advice has the potential to cause real harm to innocent people, not to mention having serious consequences for Wikipedia's image.

I hope that polite requests will suffice to encourage the involved editors to work within (our clear and straightforward) policy in the future. I don't want to discourage anyone from participating in the Ref Desk, nor come across as an ogre. If editors fail to respond to courteous requests, I will (reluctantly) begin to offer firmer warnings. These will be followed by blocks. I sincerely hope that blocks won't be necessary, and I encourage anyone who has trouble understanding our policy to ask for clarification on this talk page or to speak to me directly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Question for TenOfAllTrades: I'm going to go out on a limb here, Ten, and assume that you and I both agree unequivocally that this question has absolutely *zero* independent merit as a reference desk question (I may be incorrect, if so feel free to clarify).

The guy dropped a chair on his foot and he wants to know if it will be o.k. This is clearly a request for personal advice with absolutely zero ancillary content related to anatomy, general physiology, or any other "general-knowledge" topic. Even if someone wanted to salvage some of this content for incorporation into a WP article, there's nothing there to salvage.

So the question is this: what's wrong with simply deleting the entire thread? If someone has the gusto to contest your rationale for deleting it, they should also have the gusto to fully substantiate its relevance, with full reference to all applicable disclaimers, policies and guidelines: (WP:OR, WP:CONS, Category:Wikipedia_disclaimers so on and so forth).

Sure, someone might *try* to credibly explain why the question is legitimate, and successfully forward a compelling reason for why it belongs here, but let's get real: that ain't gonna happen.

Indeed, we don't need to focus on legal liability, nor do we really need to consider the medical implications. In fact, this whole scenario can be summed up quite simply: purely personal "chit-chat" of any sort simply does not belong on the reference desks. If it's really inappropriate, it will get deleted. End of saga.

Sure, it's nice to be able to prevent potential harm, as a side-benefit, but sometimes you can't protect the whole world from itself, and even when we believe we can, there's always more than one way to go about it.

Delete the thread and no one has to worry about being banned for (unwisely) replying to it in the first place. dr.ef.tymac 17:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin, I fully agree with your assessment of the question. I can see no way in which we can reply to this question – other than advising the original poster to seek qualified medical advice – in a manner consistent with our policies and disclaimers. (If someone believes this assessment is mistaken, please propose an answer here on the talk page.)

I'm a little leery of deleting the entire thread with an anonymous question. An anonymous poster may well have no idea where his question went; if he realizes it was deliberately deleted then it's kind of WP:BITEy of us. If he doesn't figure out that it was deliberately removed, it may trigger a follow up question ("I can't find my original question, but I was asking....") and we're back to square one. For a signed-in questioner, getting rid of the thread is more viable; it's possible to leave a polite explanatory note on the questioner's talk page.

The other thing that is apt to happen is that there are editors who may choose to edit war to restore the thread. ("How dare you delete my valuable comments! It's not advice! And the advice was good! And I told him to see a doctor in addition to giving him my advice!") You'll note that even in this clear, cut and dried case there are editors who are arguing that their answers aren't medical advice. (There have been otherwise sensible editors who will edit war to restore a thread – even one that is obvious trolling – because they believe that any thread removal needs to be reviewed on the talk page first.) Even if the thread finally stayed deleted after administrator intervention, I'd rather not deal with the acrimony that arises from such a direct approach. I don't know if you were around for the mess we had nine or ten months ago when a few editors last tried to enforce our 'no medical advice' policy. On the flip side, there have been instances in the past where well-meaning but overzealous individuals have misinterpreted any question relating to any aspect of medicine as seeking medical advice; those sorts of errors tend to cause the very rapid accumulation of bad blood.

The Reference Desks generally have a fairly small stable of editors who answer most of the questions. If that core group of editors supports – or at least follows and is familiar with – the existing policy, then the bulk of the problem disappears. (We get a sort of herd immunity.) Every medical question will get the appropriate stock answer, and any new editors who start answering questions here will be quickly informed if they're out of the bounds of policy. (In that future, it might also be deemed appropriate to remove such answers immediately, or to close those threads altogether.) Social pressure will enforce the norms, and warnings or blocks won't be necessary.

For now, I'm trying to take an approach that is as gentle as possible, while still keeping the door open for harsher, administrative action should it become necessary. The rules have been so spottily enforced for so long that it is, perhaps, best to ease people back into them. If it takes a couple of weeks to get everyone on the same page, so be it—it's better than igniting a couple of months of bitter dispute and edit warring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I would support a slightly more pro-active option, such as soft archiving a question like this after the stock medical disclaimer has been offered. This is because past experience tells me self policing will likely not work too well. Still, its worth a try. Rockpocket 19:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Following up—can anyone suggest ways in which I might have conveyed my message more effectively here? I don't want to encourage anyone to come down on Someguy1221, but any ideas are welcome. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your post seems very reasonable to me. I think some editors are interpreting the disclaimer in a very literal way. What we have to realise that offering links to disorders or diseases, even if we don't suggest this could be what the person has, will be interpreted as a disagnosis if made in response to an explicit request for one. We should make all eforts to ensure we do not offer disagnoses, even by implication.

In addition, I have read suggestions that offering a suggestion that it could be a more serious disorder is fine, because it will encourage the OP to see a doctor, and that its only downplaying the seriousness that is a problem. This is most certainly not the case. If you tell someone with an itchy patch on their skin "it could be cancer" then you could scare them into not seeing a doctor because they are afraid of hearing bad news, not to mention the mental anguish that instilling such worry in them could cause. The only safe and responsbile reply to a question along the lines of "I have a painful Foo... what could it be?" is the medical disclaimer and, perhaps, links to a source of type of medical professional they should seek (in this case, as ToaT points out, A Foo-ologist). Rockpocket 20:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I was providing a link to an article on the symptom the OP said he had. I did not offer a diagnosis, a prognosis, or a treatment. There was no attempt to "sneak around" the guideline here. I don't think I can emphasize this any more clearly, and I was being no more informative than our own search engine. If you think the proper response to requests for medical advice is to just give the standard disclaimer and close the discussion, fine. But please stop vaguely accusing me of violating or attempting to violate a policy whose word I abided by, unless you intend to show that I didn't. Someguy1221 23:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note I was not "vaguely accusing [you] of violating or attempting to violate a policy", I was commenting on your apparent interpretation of said policy. Rockpocket 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I appoligize if that comment appeared directed at you, it was actually directed at TOAT. Violations of guidelines/policy aside, I have no objection to and would actually support a clarification of the guideline in question, such that truly blatant requests for a diagnosis/prognosis/treatment are to be treated in a standard and curt manner. The discussion here has made me realize that there may actually be various sources of merit for such a clarification. Someguy1221 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to 'hide' all the answers except the first? I'd guess the best option from the point of view of the OP would be to delete all the other answers, but that would probably result in great wailing and gnashing of teeth combined with edit wars. Would hiding the answers serve to sufficiently indicate that they are unsuitable, and discourage the OP from taking them seriously? (or possibly even from reading them) As in

Unsuitable content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hidden unsuitable content

Or would this provide insufficient gain and possible antagonism? Skittle 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, but I'm still trying to err on the 'gentle touch' side. Using the template to 'hide' the material still leaves it right there to anyone who clicks, so it's not really doing much good at stopping the delivery of advice. And it still leaves us at risk of the "OMG UR CENSORING ME!" complaints and (worse) revert wars.

It's a strategy that we might try in the future, but as I said above, I'd like to give the very gentle process a week or two to see if it makes a difference. I don't particularly mind if people erase my (or other editors') reminders with a rude edit summary, as long as they've read the message and (hopefully) modify their behaviour in the future (even if only to stop getting annoying messages). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gentle touch sounds fine, but if even an obvious example such as this is not amenable to direct removal, you might as well pack it in (or perhaps we are all truly sitting on a tinderbox?) How squeamish should people be about removing blatantly-obvious non-reference-questions (and associated threads) from the reference desk? dr.ef.tymac 22:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

HTML comments

By the way, what do people think about leaving HTML comments immediately after a medical question? I've done it twice now (here and here) with an eye to discouraging additional medical advice on the questions without – hopefully – starting a fight (er...I mean meta-discussion) on the Desk. Good? Bad? Indifferent? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't hurt, and one would hope it would help. Could such an invisible comment be templated? Rockpocket 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have templates with tentative titles like "No medical advice top" and "No medical advice bottom" that combine the effect of the pair Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom (which I applied to the Numbness thread here) with a suitably phrased response such as: "Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. For medical advice, see a doctor or other qualified personnel."  --Lambiam 06:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see that happen. (We need a pair for legal advice too - and although I'd like to revisit the "no vetinary advice" guideline, there should clearly be a pair for those too.) I have a real problem with deleting the entire thread - this may confuse the OP and cause him/her to simply re-ask it. So what about deleting just the offending parts of the thread? IMHO, deleting even a part of a thread is dangerous because it's a unilateral action on the part of one editor. In this case, it's obvious (to me) that it would be justified. People are clearly breaking the guidelines - and in a way that (in the limit) could cause actual bodily harm or even death to the OP. What worries me is that this sets a precedent. Can just anyone delete comments from other respondants that they don't think follow guidelines? Can they delete wrong answers? It's something of a slippery slope. Hiding answers is as good as deleting them - after all, deletion doesn't really delete anything - it merely hides it under the history tab. However, marking them (as was done in this case) is pretty benign. It tells those concerned that they did something bad - but it doesn't censor or prevent the OP from seeing the consequences of their question. In this case, the ideal result would have been for the first respondant to wrap the entire question in one of these blue boxes - which would (in all likelyhood) have discouraged the following posters from adding to the problem. This is still a unilateral action on the part of one editor - but it's one that's easily ignored by people who are convinced that the editor did it incorrectly. SteveBaker 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. In the interests of preventing time-wasting squabbles, gentle is good. But we should probably also keep in mind that if push comes to shove, "I'm being censored" is almost never a valid complaint at Wikipedia. Whoever can't handle their contributions being edited, probably just can't handle Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Support for templates (with caveats): My two bits: the template approach applied by Lambiam to "numbness in foot" looks like a reasonable solution, although I'm still not sure why RefDesk regulars can't stomach outright deletion, at least in blatant cases such as this. Nevertheless, folks seem to dislike that option, o.k. no sense belaboring the issue.

Nevertheless, if "templating" becomes the norm, I'd like to suggest some tweaks that I believe would make the approach more acceptable:

• Re-word the templates: re-word the templates so they discourage further edits to the thread (the current wording discourages further edits to the page ... which is confusing to new users); and more importantly ...
• Don't specialize the titles: generalize the template title -- instead of using "medical advice" (top and bottom) or "legal advice" (top and bottom) ... just use "inappropriate thread" (top and bottom) and have the links refer interested parties to the talk page for further details if they demand an explanation;
  • (Rationale 1:) This obviates the need for the inevitable proliferation of template titles for every possible scenario [trolling, bigotry, personal attack, medical-legal-financial-psychological counseling so on and so forth ...]
  • (Rationale 2:) If User:Example answers a legal question on the reference desk, and that thread gets tagged by someone as "inappropriate legal advice", then that will look bad for User:Example if he happens to be lawyer. Even if User:Example did not breach a professional standard of care, and the person who flagged the thread is not a lawyer and was not faulting User:Example specifically, it still puts an unfavorable spin on Example's professional responsibility. Example should not get a professional "pseudo-black mark" just because his user name appears in a thread along with Cliff. dr.ef.tymac 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with rewording to discourage further editing of this thread ("section"?) - perhaps the best wording would be "further editing of this topic" - which will prevent certain Wikilawyers from simply starting another section with the same (or similar) question.
    • I disagree with making the template(s) unspecialised. We need to say WHY this is not an allowed question otherwise there may be two consequences:
      1. The OP doesn't know what they did wrong. Having clear and simple 'canned' wording right under the title of their question will make it explicit.
      2. People may start using these generalized templates for all sorts of things that aren't actually disallowed by the refdesk guidelines at all! I don't want to see a proliferation of templates - just one each for the categories of things we explicitly ban in the headline of the helpdesk submissions page (of which there are actually just four: No homework, medical, legal or vetinary advice). I'd even waver a bit on providing a homework template because it's not always clear that a question is definitely homework - and even when it is, we generally distinguish between DOING someones homework (banned!) versus offering suggestions for further reading that will lead to a solution (exactly why we are here).
    • SteveBaker 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking out

General agreement about appropriateness of approach

Okay, I'm not sure if the guideline explicitly addresses this point, but I'm a bit concerned about this practice: [4], [5]. The editor places a link out to another site, saying "I've responded to your question here". In both cases, the links are to our sister project, Wikiversity. The editor has an account on that site, and puts up his best guess on their Wikiversity:Help desk. (Wikiversity is still very low traffic – the whole site gets about five hundred edits per day – so they haven't needed to split Help and Ref Desks, and there may be limited admin oversight.) This is, incidentally, where I found the #Worst Medical Advice ever linked to above.

Are we generally agreed that this sort of approach is not appropriate? Is linking out – particularly to a Wikimedia project – to one's answer still considered offering medical advice? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not offering medical advice at Wikipedia, which is where your responsibility to enforce Wikipedia policies ends. StuRat 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's offering advice that advice about the question may be had from a certain place. Certainly breaks the spirit if not the letter; probably breaks the letter. Sometimes, though, the answers are a treat. If we're going to link out to external advice, I'd prefer links to, for instance, Health On the Net Foundation listed sites, than the Wikiversity refdesk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I think that's Wikilawyering. You are basically offering advice through your comment on Wikipedeia, by implying that the advice found by following your link has some relevance.  --Lambiam 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If they ask a Q which is banned under Wikipedia rules, it's entirely appropriate to direct them to another source of info where those type of questions aren't banned. StuRat 22:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not so much that the question is banned, but that the answer is banned. We advise people not to ask medical questions. We injunct editors not to answer them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then I'll reword it:

If they ask a Q for which an answer is banned under Wikipedia rules, it's entirely appropriate to direct them to another site where answers to those type of questions aren't banned. StuRat 22:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we could ways alert our administrative friends at Wikiversity. I don't think they would be too happy that their site is being used to dispense terrible (and terribly dangerous) amateur medical diagnoses. Not to mention other editors using it as an attack site for Wikipedians when such comments would not be tolerated here. You say such questions are not banned there, is that because you have essentially made up the rules there yourself? Rockpocket 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the rules before posting there, and they don't appear to have any rules against answering medical and legal questions. An Admin there regularly edits the Help Page, and he doesn't seem to have any objections, either. Any unrelated issues you want to bring up are not appropriate in this thread. StuRat 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pointing them at that site endorses that site's opinion, exactly we if we ourselves had given the opinion. Surely you see that? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're trying to say that pointing the OP to another site endorses any answers they get at that site. That certainly isn't true. Similarly, when I refer people there to the Wikipedia Ref Desk, that in no way means I endorse any answers given here. Neither does it mean, when I suggest that people move their posts from one Wikipedia Ref Desk to another, that I am endorsing any advice they get at the new desk. StuRat 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, currently 4:1 disagree with you. I hope you'll think about whether you should consider that consensus is against your actions. Meanwhile I've dropped a line to the Wikiversity custodians asking them to consider their response, if any. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So just what is your argument that you claim everyone agrees with ? That whenever you refer anyone to a web site you are fully endorsing everything that has ever been said or will ever be said at that site ? StuRat 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That it is inappropriate for you to provide a link to another site, where you answer the question. Come back Andy Mabbett, all is forgiven. --Tagishsimon (talk)

So it's OK to provide a link to another site, as long as somebody else answers the question there ? StuRat 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. The OP was not allowed to ask the question in the first place. Any kind of an answer beyond "Go see a doctor" is merely going to encourage further questions of the same kind in the future. But beyond that - if someone has chest pain and you point them to an external site about indigestion and they subsequently drop dead of heart failure then you still provided a diagnosis by the choice of your link. This all gets so complicated and messy that a complete ban on answering these questions AT ALL is really the only safe solution - for our questioners (who may drop dead following bad pseudo-quasi-linked-advice), our respondants (who might just maybe get jail time for practicing medicine without a license) and Wikipedia itself (whose name would certainly be severely tarnished if someone died as a result of our advice). The actual rule says "The reference desk is not a place to seek professional advice on medical or legal matters, nor analyses, diagnoses or solutions to questioners' health or legal problems, and responses that could be construed as such must not be given.". I believe that a link to a specific piece of advice could most definitely be construed as advice - so it's correctly and reasonably banned. SteveBaker 02:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying anyone giving medical advice on the internet (at a site which permits it) can be arrested for practicing medicine without a license is a rather silly red herring. There would have to be payment made for it to qualify as "practicing medicine", as well as many other requirements like representing myself as a degreed medical doctor. I challenge you to find one case, anywhere on Earth, where someone giving medical advice, for free, on the internet, without representing themself as a medical professional, has been arrested for practicing medicine without a license, much less convicted. If you manage to find such a case, next grandmothers who feel a child's forehead and say "I think you have a fever" will be rounded up by the truckload. :-) StuRat 04:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this is NOT a site that permits giving medical diagnoses! Why do you keep saying that? Our Ref Desk guidelines quite clearly state (this is a literal quote):

"The reference desk is not a place to seek professional advice on medical or legal matters, nor analyses, diagnoses or solutions to questioners' health or legal problems, and responses that could be construed as such must not be given."

Why don't you understand that? Wikipedia as a whole does permit articles that describe general medical situations - but we do NOT permit ref desk answers to medical questions. I don't know why you find this hard so hard to understand. Just about everyone here disagrees with your recent behavior - the only serious debate concerns what to do about it. It should be obvious to you that there is nothing even close to a consensus to revoke that rule.

As to the law on practicing medicine without a license - IANAL - but you're now giving legal advice as well as medical advice? You are familiar with the laws of every state and country which you or Wikipedia could be held liable in? I see from your User: page that you're a computer programmer like me - you appear to be neither a lawyer nor a doctor - I'm pretty sure you don't know all of the laws that apply here. But it's not just the legal situation that bothers me - it's the moral matter of what damage we might cause to one of our questioners - and the reaction of the media if they found out...I can see the headlines now: "Web site which specialises in articles about Pokemon kills innocent child with bad medical diagnosis!"...yeah - great, at least it's not illegal (maybe). SteveBaker 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification, I never said the Ref Desk allows medical advice, I was talking about questions I had answered at Wikiversity, which does allow medical info. StuRat 05:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So I take it all that means that no, you can't find a single case of such an arrest. Will you then stop talking about the threat of people being arrested and limit your comments to reality ? As for morality, I think that just saying "go see a doctor" without taking any effort to convince someone of the seriousness of their condition is morally indefensible. Obviously, if they are asking here instead of at the doctor to begin with, then they are reluctant to go to the doc, and need convincing. If we ignore them, they will likely continue to ignore the problem, and possibly die, as a result. If all you are concerned about is negative press coverage, I imagine Wikipedia would be blamed for ignoring an obviously critical medical problem leading to death, in such a case. StuRat 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Doing this is clearly inappropriate. We don't want to provide amateur medical advice on Wikipedia, and we don't want to link to another site that's being misused for this purpose, either. Such links should be removed as we discover them. Friday (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not being "misused", this is well within the purpose of Wikiversity, as the two Wikipedia Admins below have attested. StuRat 12:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Original rationales

The original rationales for banning legal and medical advice at Wikipedia were Wikipedia's legal liability and Wikipedia's "reputation". I don't believe either of those apply to answers offered at other sites. StuRat 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And, we're doing readers a disservice by providing questionable amateur advice to potentially important questions. Now you're just ruleslawyering over which site hosts your inappropriate answer? Don't be ridiculous. Cut this out immediately. Friday (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As both Wikipedia and Wikiversity are projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, are there any over-riding Foundation concerns, guidelines, requirements that pertains here? Bielle 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

JWSchmidt: exaggeration, sense making of outside links, the purpose and mission of Wikiversity and its broader scope

• Comments: 1) some of the people who "watch over" the Wikipedia reference desk seem to have an exaggerated view of what constitutes "medical advice". 2) if a purpose of the reference desk is to provide links to Wikipedia pages that are relevant to questions, it also makes sense to have links to other Wikimedia projects. 3) To quote Jimbo, Wikiversity was created so that people who are trying to learn, "have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things". The Wikiversity mission is much broader than the Wikipedia mission and it makes sense to send people from Wikipedia to Wikiversity when they are moving outside of the narrow scope of Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 00:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's generally agreed on that it makes sense to tread carefully when skirting medical advice. The Foundation's goal is, broadly speaking, educational. Is unqualified amateur medical advice educational? The only lesson I see that it helps teach is "Don't believe what random people on the internet say." Friday (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Most discussions of health-related topics do not involve or constitute "medical advice". Discussions of health-related topics can be educational. And since people have been asking, the Wikiversity disclaimer includes a pointer to the Wikipedia disclaimers. --JWSchmidt 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

But the examples cited here do constitute (arguably bad) medical advice. Does that not concern you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Only to the extent that so many Wikipedians do not seem to know what constitutes medical advice. --JWSchmidt 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained on many previous occasions - it doesn't matter whether the advice given is good or bad. It's still illegal to practice medicine without a license in most of the places where Wikipedia (and, incidentally Wikiversity) are founded. If Wikipedia condones that activity - the foundation could be just as liable as (say) a hospital that knowingly allowed people without medical licenses to practice on their premises. SteveBaker 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's completely wrong. Not every statement about a person's physical state is "practicing medicine", as you seem to think. Telling someone with cold hands that they may have poor circulation and they should see a doctor certainly is not, for example. If a janitor in a hospital said that, he would not be arrested and charged for practicing medicine without a license, any more than we would. If he performed surgery on somebody, then he might well be arrested. Can't you tell the difference ? StuRat 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• (after edit conflicts) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Wikipedia does, can, or should forbid the discussion of health-related topics. Our concern is narrower, dealing only with people who insist on offering specific medical advice, herein defined as responding to a request with a diagnosis, prognosis, or recommended treatments.

  I also think everyone agrees that linking to outside resources is generally a good thing to do, whether one is writing articles or answering questions at the Ref Desk. However, such linking is not appropriate when it is designed to circumvent our policies. StuRat – or anyone else – can write what they wish on Wikiversity, subject to that site's rules and policies. We are not obliged to link to it.

  I can't speak for anyone else on this, but I am personally concerned that Wikiversity – in attempting its noble, laudable mission, which I fully support – has also become a place where editors who dislike the policy framework on Wikipedia can go to thumb their noses at us. In addition to being a place where people can interact, teach, and learn, it's also a place where disgruntled editors can vent and spew bile. I am troubled when banned editors from Wikipedia decide to use Wikiversity as a soapbox to continue the attacks that got them banned here. I am worried when editors use Wikiversity, as in this case, as a stepping stone to try to circumvent our policies—particularly when they give terrible medical advice. I am saddened when they use Wikiversity as a place to take jabs at Wikipedia editors, instead of using Wikiversity to build a community of learners and teachers.

  I'll leave you with the relevant parts of a comment that I left for another editor earlier[6], to give some idea of why we don't give the types of advice I described. I hope that you find something valuable in it.

The reason why we discourage the giving of any medical advice on the Ref Desks (or anywhere else) is that such advice has such great potential for harm. That harm extends from the obvious physical harm that may result from bad advice, through emotional trauma associated with overly pessimistic advice, to harm to Wikipedia's reputation through being associated with bad advice (or just the general phenomenon of unqualified individuals playing doctor), to potential legal harm for the person who answered the question.

...While I can see the appeal of offering answers that are designed to 'scare' people into seeing a doctor, it's a temptation that we have to avoid. The editors at the Ref Desk, by and large, aren't trained in medicine. (Though I know of one or two MDs who are probably shocked by some of the answers they see on a fairly regular basis.) Deciding whether or not an answer is too scary, sufficiently scary, or not scary enough to encourage someone to see a doctor in just the right amount of time without instilling unnecessary panic is beyond the training and qualifications of the people who write at the Desks.

...it behooves us to refer people to appropriate, qualified, competent medical professionals, and to discourage medical questions from coming to the Desk in the first place.

• Many of the same arguments would apply at Wikiversity. As a Wikimedia Foundation project, there are the same reputational issues to consider as here, though I imagine that the press probably would pay less attention. I can't tell you how to run your site, but I think you should be troubled by some of the directions it may be taking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking out to circumvent our policies clearly violates the spirit of our "no medical advice" rule. So - if people are stupid enough not to abide by the intended spirit of the rule - we should simply make explicit that this is also not allowed and the problem is thereby solved. Linking to non-authoritative sources (or even to authoritative sources) should not be allowed for EXACTLY the same reason that giving the advice inline is not allowed. I'm horrified that Wikiversity doesn't have the same set of guidelines that we do. It certainly should have since the same moral and legal issues are at stake. SteveBaker 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikiversity does not provide medical advice. I do not think it is productive to imply that Wikiversity is in some way out of control. I think one difference between Wikipedia and Wikiversity is that there are a few Wikipedians who apparently interpret saying, "cold hands might be due to poor circulation," as constituting life-threatening medical advice. Also, there is a difference between trying to "circumvent Wikipedia policy" and linking to another Wikimedia project where people are free to have types of discussions that are not allowed at Wikipedia. The world does not revolve around Wikipedia. "a place where disgruntled editors can vent and spew bile" (from above) <-- I think very few people bother to read this kind of "venting". I am probably one of the few people at Wikiversity who bothers to read it. In general, Wikiversity tries to give people a significant amount of freedom in using their user page. I wonder if it can be constructive and even educational to let people "vent". If they are talking and thinking about something that bothers them they might begin to understand it better. --JWSchmidt 01:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I think the only ways to understand better something that bothers you are to talk and think about it. A.Z. 06:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Back off a notch

(ec) Not that I expect it'll do much good, but I'd like to suggest that everybody back off a notch.

1. To the people who are concerned about StuRat's dubious skirting of the rules: your devotion to Wikipedia's safety is admirable, but while this may well be a problem, it is not Wikipedia's problem (much less the Wikipedia Ref Desk's problem). StuRat has indeed been provocative by skirting the rules in this way, but by rising to the bait, you are displaying at least a hint of control-freakism, as if your concern for Wikipedia's safety is, in part, a cover for your desire to show StuRat who's right and who's wrong.
2. StuRat: it is a dubious tactic, and it is unnecessarily provocative. I don't know why you're so compulsively impelled to answer questions and offer advice even when it's inappropriate, and I don't understand why you're unable to grasp how much this aggravates everyone else, and properly so.

—Steve Summit (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to help the posters any way I can, and don't happen to feel that just telling them to "go see a doctor" is the best I can do. I respect the Wikipedia policy on no medical or legal advice (although I disagree with it), so thought that posting the answers on a site that doesn't ban such advice would be the best compromise. I've been doing so for many months, and it was even discussed here without objection before, but my "controversial medical advice", linked to at Wikiversity, that perpetually cold hands may be a sign of poor circulation and they should see a doctor apparently somehow ignited a firestorm of protest, while direct medical advice inside Wikipedia by others does not. StuRat 05:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve Summit hit the nail on the head. Everyone might also take a moment to re-read Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. Notice especially the part that says: "None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility..."

In fact, read *all* of the WP disclaimers. Try to find a single clause that talks about "protecting" readers and "preventing harm". You won't. Sure, those are laudable ideals, but the ultimate responsibility resides with the users themselves. dr.ef.tymac 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Steve Summit's analysis of my (and others) motives for bringing this up. My motive is in not wanting anyone here to harm (or maybe kill) one of our questioners by unintentionally giving the wrong advice. I happen to think that's a fairly worth-while goal. I estimate that we see medical questions asked here about once a day and they are answered in contravention of the spirit (and often the letter) of our guidelines at least half of the time. Take a look at the scarey statistics in Preventable_medical_errors - then ask yourself - out of 365 questions and 182 'diagnoses' per year - do you really think we could do better? If we don't do a whole lot better than the professionals (and we certainly won't), then some terrible thing WILL happen. It's a statistical thing - do the math. So it's only a matter of time. Sure, you can argue now that it will be the questioner's own silly fault for taking advice from a Wikipedian - but that's really not a morally defensible position. You can't rob someone's house just because they were stupid enough to leave the door open. You can also argue that none of these people are ever going to act on our advice - but if you believe that then what's to be gained by answering them? Nobody here wants a death on their conscience - laws or no laws. I don't want even a risk of a problem. I don't want it on MY conscience that I didn't fight hard enough to prevent someone else from screwing up and hurting someone. We've agreed that these are not questions we should be answering - we simply need to abide by the rules we've laid down for ourselves and stop answering them. SteveBaker 03:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking the opposite view, I agree with Steve Summit's summary. And, yes, it is an entirely morally defensible position to believe that, while you are responsible for the consequences of your own actions, you are not responsible for the consequences of other people's actions. If I saw that someone had left their front door open I wouldn't rob their house - but I wouldn't close and lock their door for them either. Maybe they had a good reason to leave it open. My default assumption is that other people are sensible, responsible beings who have good reasons for their actions, no matter how strange or inexplicable they may appear to me. Gandalf61 12:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To stretch that analogy to breaking point...I wouldn't close the door either (and by analogy, I don't want to delete the OP's question either) - but I would keep an eye on the place if I happened to be nearby - and if I saw someone in a stripey shirt and a mask carrying a bag marked 'SWAG' out of that unlocked door, I'd definitely call 911. (and by analogy - if I see someone using the opportunity offered by an incorrect medical question to post an unacceptable answer - I want to stop that.) I might mutter: "Stupid homeowner - deserved to get robbed" - but I'd still call the cops. SteveBaker 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So, fine, do the Wiki equivalent of calling the cops - report posts that you don't like here or on WP:ANI or wherever. Organise a neighbourhood patrol if you want. But please don't disparage other people's morals. Your moral position is not better than mine - it's just different. Gandalf61 13:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You have that backwards - I didn't disparage anyone's morals. It's my motives that have been disparaged. The Wiki equivalent of organising an neightbourhood watch is precisely what I'm trying to do here - let's watch for these bad questions, flag them as bad and remind potential respondants that our rules do not permit providing answers to them. If people break the rules repeatedly - despite our efforts to warn them - then let's get action from an admin. SteveBaker 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh ?? You said in your post starting "I strongly disagree..." that "you can argue now that it will be the questioner's own silly fault for taking advice from a Wikipedian - but that's really not a morally defensible position". Well, that is my position, I say that it is completely morally defensible - and your comment was, in my opinion, disparaging. You really don't help your argument by staking a false claim on the moral high ground. Gandalf61 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me that Other Steve complained had disparaged his motives, not you. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth remembering that a lot of the time it is minors asking these questions. When I did my survey of the Science Ref Desk back in January, of the three or four questions that were clearly asking for medical advice (diagnosis, prognosis, and/or treatment strategy) two were from questioners who self-identified as minors in either their initial question or the followup. While it's a small sample, it is a sobering thought. It is worth bearing in mind that among questioners may be minors who do not identify themselves, and might not do so even in response to a direct question. (And, of course, it would be kind of creepy for us to be asking people how old they are....) An eleven-year-old's medical issues are likely to be handled quite differently from a thirty-year-old's.

Loath as I am to rely overmuch on an analogy, I will nevertheless give in to the temptation. If you saw that an eleven-year-old had left his front door wide open while he was home alone, would you be inclined to handle the situation differently than if it were an adult involved? I am concerned that the "treat everyone like a sensible, responsible adult and if they get hurt, it's their own fault" model breaks down when one is no longer dealing with adults. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. Another simple reason "treat everyone like a sensible, responsible adult and if they get hurt, it's their own fault" breaks down is that a sensible responsible adult is very unlikely to come to the ref desk asking for medical advice. So, when people do ask for medical advice here, we already know we're looking at a self-selected group of children, or adults who aren't very sensible. Friday (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The goal should be to make sure they don't find what they're looking for here (i.e. a self-selected group of people (possibly children) who have no right whatsoever to self-select themselves). There have been more than a few discussions over the past couple years (here, at wikiversity, and even wikibooks) about whether "real experts" should identify themselves as such through the foundation. The problem with that is that no sane professional would be willing to offer the type of advice we're discussing here. I (me, SB_Johny) am not a doctor or a lawyer, but I probably could answer some questions about whether a tree is safe (I'm an arborist), what's wrong with a crop (I'm also a farmer), or what's wrong with a goat (I'm also a goat-herd... they get fed when I'm not too busy fooling around on wikis). But: while I'm willing to write stuff on wikipedia, wikibooks, or wikiversity about how to tell if a tree is safe, how to diagnose a disease of tomatoes, or how to take care of goats, I would not be dumb enough to give people advice on any of these subjects without actually seeing the tree/plant/goat in question, because (a) it's my business to do those things, and answering half-baked questions on a wiki doesn't pay, and (b) my liability insurance probably doesn't cover it.

Ignore the preceding paragraph: the reference desk should never answer questions that involve someone's physical, psychological, or even financial well-being. And no, Wikiversity shouldn't either... but that's not our problem. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• "policy on no medical or legal advice (although I disagree with it), so thought that posting the answers on a site that doesn't ban such advice would be the best compromise." <-- Wikiversity is not the place to go if you want to give medical or legal advice. In most cases, there is a difference between discussing a health-related topic and giving medical advice. Wikiversity is a good place for people to explore and learn about health-related topics. Wikiversity is not a place to come for medical advice. It is not really all that tricky to make this distinction. Yes some people (such as children) need help in learning to make this kind of distinction, but I think Wikiversity can help people learn to think carefully and critically. We do not have to runaway from medical subjects. --JWSchmidt 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

While we are on the subject, this example also violates the terms of WP:GFDL. One shouldn't copy material from Wikipedia to another site without adhering to the terms of our license. In doing so you infringe the copyright of the OP. I have already discussed this with StuRat, who said then he would provide links back. Rockpocket 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly meant to do so, as I did in my latest cross post. I will see if I can find the Ref Desk post in the archives and provide a link to it from that Wikiversity post. While we are talking about our old discussion, you seemed to be OK with cross posts then, and nobody else brought up any objections at the time, but now you seem vehemently opposed. I thought we had reached a fair compromise, where I agreed not to offer legal or medical advice on Wikipedia, and you, in turn, agreed not to persecute me for doing so in Wikiversity, where the rules permit such advice. StuRat 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have a problem with cross-posting when you use it as a method of offering personal opinion rather an sources, in response to questions. Those are just unhelpful to the OP, rather than dangerous or legally problematic. That was what you were doing when I made that first comment. Back then you were not offering medical or legal advice (at least, not to my knowledge). This is a whole different scenario. Rockpocket 05:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. I've now added the back-link, as you requested. StuRat 05:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rockpocket 05:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that one of the lessons we should draw from the whole Seigenthaler mess is that while the disclaimers may well do an admirable job of protecting Wikipedia from legal liability, they do very little in shielding us in the court of public opinion. The press like nothing better than skewering a nice big organization, particularly when they can paint one with a 'good' mission as falling down in some way.

As long as we aspire to nothing better than what we can legally get away with, we're a ticking time bomb for Wikipedia. Eventually someone's going to be hurt because they relied on advice from this Desk – bad advice, or good advice that just turned out badly – and we're going to get dragged through the mud. I agree that the ultimate responsibility for our readers does rest with the readers themselves, but there's no good reason for us to paint a big target on Wikipedia here—and there's no good reason for untrained editors on the Ref Desks to be playing doctor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with that. And would add that those people gullible or desperate enough to seek medical advice from an anonymous, unqualified respondant online may well also be gullible or desperate enough to heed it, irrespective of how or where it is provided. This is one subject we really shouldn't be wikilawyering about or getting WP:POINTy over. By the time we get to a I told you so moment on medical advice, it will be too late. And you can be sure at that point, the wider community at large (most of whom have very little time for our bickering anyway) would not hesitate to shut us down completely. Whether it is for reasons of self interest, the interest of the project, or - God forbid - caring more about the OP than getting your say on every question. The safest thing we can do is avoid any links to medical advice. Rockpocket 02:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the proposed "medical advice countermeasures" are just as troublesome -- if you are truly concerned about the RefDesks getting canned, or the adverse consequences of "media spin" just consider recent proposals such as: If you are unsure about what constitutes medical advice, feel free to ask on WT:RD. Since when did WT:RD become the Board of Medical Examiners? dr.ef.tymac 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then

Looks like I missed the party on this. One thing Wikipedians might want to keep in mind when trying to get attention from Wikiversitans is that it's much better form to ask on the Colloquium, rather than leaving messages on the talk pages of the support staff: we don't have the level of heirarchy there you're accustomed to dealing with here, and the Custodians are not necessarily responsible for making policies.

As far as "linking out" to circumvent rules on giving medical advice, I agree that this is a really bad idea. "Everyone can edit" is a good way to write an encyclopedia, but not necessarily the best way to operate a medical clinic :). OTOH, Wikiversity would be a good place for collecting subjective data and looking for patterns (for example, I always notice that it seems to feel colder at first light than it does 15 minutes before first light, and would find it interesting to see if other early risers experience the same thing).

As to the worries of the RD becoming the target of XfDs, I don't imagine that having much to do with Wikiversity (though intuitively it makes more sense for a reference desk to be at the university rather than built in to the encyclopedia ;p). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 09:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What does "XfD" mean ? StuRat 11:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

'X' for deletion. It's a way of refering to all the different pages for deleting things (AfD, MfD, etc). At least, I've always assumed it is :) Skittle 12:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was more of an algebraic thing (X = "something-or-other" and X is up for deletion), but yes, that's what it means. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 18:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not provide mathematical advice. For mathematical advice, see a mathemetician or other qualified personnel --LarryMac | Talk 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

/me hugs LarryMac, and hopes he isn't terribly embarrassed :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL (although I should point out that we aren't qualified to offer disclaimers, and that they should have been referred to a professional disclaimerer). :-) StuRat 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an interesting link to ponder from this morning: b:Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Technical_Chat#pinched_nerve. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I will suggest that questions which are not appropriate at Wikipedia but are appropriate at Wikiversity be reposted there. I will not repost the Q there myself. However, if the OP then posts the question there, I will feel free to answer it there, in a manner consistent with Wikiversity policies. StuRat 12:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, that doesn't actually sound like a compromise. It reads to me – and correct me if I'm mistaken – that you're going to answer every medical question here with an invitation to repost it on Wikiversity, and a link across to their Help Desk. Is that correct? If I've not misunderstood, then what you'd be doing is exactly the same in effect and intent as you've been doing up to this point, with the caveats that offering your medical advice will take slightly longer, and your advice will only be given to individuals who actually read your followup instructions.

If you want to turn Wikiversity into the Wikimedia Foundation Memorial Medical Clinic, you're welcome to try to achieve that goal. However, unless you're going to get a clear and unambiguous statement from the Foundation that your project is consistent with Wikimedia's mission, goals, and policies, I'm going to delete any such links that I come across on these Desks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the compromise. You seem to be saying "I'll start spamming the RD instead". That doesn't work for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No - it doesn't work for me either. Wikipedia's general guidelines apply to links we supply - recommending that people seek medical advice at an unreliable source of such advice is quite utterly contrary to everything we stand for here. The only safe place to refer people for medical advice is to a licensed medical professional...which is what we tell you to do here. We don't need a compromise - we need to follow the guidelines. Quite simply - the only answer that is acceptable is something along the lines of: "Please don't ask for medical advice here. Go see a doctor."...saying "Go see StuRat at Wikiversity" somehow doesn't seem quite so good to me. SteveBaker 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should not be linking to some random amateur's medical advice, no matter what site it's hosted on. StuRat can run an amateur medical advice blog all he wants, but we won't link to it from here, since it's not a reliable source. Wikiversity can do what they want, but so far it sounds like they don't appreciate medical advice over there, either. Friday (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confused, Friday. That wasn't Wikiversity, that was a Wikibooks desk for technical questions on how to use the wiki. I agree that that's not the place for medical questions, but Wikiversity is. StuRat 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Friday, you said before that "we're doing readers a disservice by providing questionable amateur advice to potentially important questions. Now you're just ruleslawyering over which site hosts your inappropriate answer? Don't be ridiculous. Cut this out immediately." Now you said that "StuRat can run an amateur medical advice blog all he wants." I think that's contradictory, unless you think it's OK to do a disservice to readers of StuRat's blog. I think he was just giving his opinion and whoever reads it should know that's just StuRat's opinion. A.Z. 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not violating any Wikipedia policy to suggest a place where they can post a question to get an answer. StuRat 14:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you put your rule book down for a second and use some common sense, please? Do you see all the people saying you should stop doing what you're doing? Is there some reason you're not listening? Friday (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Picks up rule book; looks up WP:SPAM. Seems to cover it. You'd be using the RD to promote Wikiversity. There are 1,001 better places to direct people wanting to ask this question, than the Wikiversity helpdesk; highlighting wikiversity clearly would be an advert for it, not a service to questioners. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... if promoting Wikiversity is spam, why do we have Wikiversity links on a whole lot of articles from Anthropology to Zoology ? Gandalf61 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While, as an outsider, I consider it wikilawyering to ask people to repeat their question elsewhere so that an answer can be given without infringing upon our local policies, I emphatically must say that interwiki links are not spam, even under the wildest of imaginations. Anyone who suggests that it is has, frankly, got themselves into a bad mindset. Wikipedia is not competing with Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikisource or Wikispecies, and nor are they with us. We're working towards a common goal - that of the WMF - to distribute free knowledge. We're all covered by the same (largely the same, at least) disclaimers, and similar base policies exist on all Wikis (NPOV is the main one; common sense is one that seems to be lacking). Wikipedia may be the biggest project, but it emphatically is not the most important, and those who think it is can't declare as "spam" any links which promote other WMF projects. If you consider this to be spam, "Wikinews is great - I contribute there fairly often, and would encourage others to do the same", or if you would consider my linking to a Wikiversity lesson in response to a question to be spam, then I suggest that you have a rethink.

I'm sorry if this sounds in any way harsh, but this is a serious plague infecting Wikipedia (the "we're the only real project" mentality), and it has to stop. Martinp23 15:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully support promoting Wikiversity by linking to it from the reference desk. I have supported it before on this same page. A.Z. 05:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, Mart. Inappropriately promoting wikiversity amounts to spam. If I tell you that this discussion is crap and that there's a better one at this link at Wikiversity ... and I do so repeatedly throughout this discussion, that's spam. It does not matter that the target is a struggling, and in some eyes discredited, sister project. It is the context of the link and the appropriateness of the link in that context. As Rocketpocket says below, it is spamming when you take every opportunity to draw attention to your vanity responses. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't wave policies around when no violation has occurred - I posted a comment containing strong feeling - that != a personal attack. If I am mistaken, please feel free to point out where I have made a tangible attack on your person. I also point you to my apology for my strong feelings at the end of the rant. Spam, on Wikipedia (as you referred originally), is defined as wide-scale external link spamming - Wikimedia sister projects should not, and have not under any interpretation I've seen, been referred to as external links. Ultimately, all of these projects were sprung from Wikipedia, and remain under the same umbrella of the WMF. If you're seriously suggesting that such links are spam, then I suppose I'd better be off to block all of those bots who frequently solicit visits to other projects - I'm talking of course about interwiki bots which provide links to other language projects. If I decide to go to an article or 10 on Wikipedia and add links to Wikiversity, with only the purpose of encouraging visits to this "struggling" (apparentely) project, should I be blocked as a spammer... ? Martinp23 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are missing the point slightly, Martin. I don't think anyone is suggesting useful links to our sister project is a problem. If one wanted to link from every single WIkipedia article to an appropriate Wikiversity page that enhanced the information we provide, then I doubt anyone would consider it spam. However, i'd like to quote you something from our guideline on the issue: How not to be a spammer: "Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies. If you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something ... you'll probably be disappointed... You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?" As far as I can tell, StuRat's links to Wikiversity fail on all these counts. The intention of the links are to promote an alternative forum, which StuRat essentially monopolises, so he can extol his ideologies free of guidelines. He is on record as stating that his opinion is as valid and useful as any expert's, and therefore he should be free to offer his opinion in responser to questions. And he explicilty invites our patrons to ask their questions on Wikiversity instead of here. This is the basis of describing it as "spam", it is the purpose and content of the link that is the problem, not the direction of it. Rockpocket 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not "monopolize" the Wikiversity Help Desk. I suggest you look up the word "monopoly". I am not the only contributor, and do nothing to discourage other contributors. On the contrary, I encourage other contributors there. You also imply that I only think my opinion equal to any expert. In reality, I feel every opinion is equally valid, not only those from people claiming to have doctorates. As for factual questions, they should be decided based on who can produce the best evidence or argument, not based on who claims to hold to most impressive degree. So yes, I am opposed to both argument from authority and the corollary, an ad hominem attack. StuRat 05:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly- I fully concur with Rockpocket here. Obviously links to wikiversity are not automatically spam- nobody is saying they are. StuRat's usage of wikiversity links is very spammy, tho. Friday (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And, for completeness, Mart, you asked what your personal attack was. It was your suggestion that anyone who equated StuRat's wikiversity links as SPAM have "got themselves into a bad mindset". You are denigrating the person and not the argument the person is making. And if you reread this debate, you'll find a number of us making the same cogent argument that these posts amount to spam. You may not agree, but you are in error when you adjudge us to have a "bad mindset". --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gandalf. I can only make a brief comment here, because I have an appointment this afternoon and then a dinner engagement a little later; lucky me! We should, indeed, promote Wikiversity; it is so much simple fun; a place where people can promote their beliefs in black magic and accuse other people of wanting "to gas all Jews", without fear of consequence or penalty. In truth, it gives me huge amusement; a place where anything goes; a place for rats and loonies!. I should warn intelligent people here, though, that it is also the realm of the stupid, the second-rate, the vicious and the petty-minded. See you all later! Clio the Muse 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How nice Clio... please feel welcome not to bring your xenophobic arse to Wikiversity, where serious people are trying to do serious things :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Back home now, two or three glasses of champagne later! Why, Johnny dear (I hope you don't mind me calling you Johnny?), you have no need to concern youreslf; Clio will not be joining you at Wikiversity any day soon, though she does drop in from time to time, all silent and unknown, when she feels in need of a good laugh! I say, I hope you don't think it an awful cheek, but might I suggest that you actually read the link on xenophobia you have so usefully provided here. It's really just a question of precise meaning. As for the other thing, with its hidden boyish and sexist link, you clearly have no need to bother. Serious people do serious things at Wikiversity, do they? The link provided by Ten above certainly gives an insight into the dialectics favoured there; a lovely example of 'serious people' doing 'serious things'! And let me finish with a big smile to you, Johnny! Clio the Muse 22:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile sweetie, right back at ya! But listen, child: I always read my links, but Wikipedia articles don't always catch the nuance of how terms are used by people who have friendly conversations with friends (or at least with other people, if they don't have friends). Xenophobia is fear of the other, and that creepy way that other people have of doing things that aren't exactly the way you do things (it can be interpreted as a racist thing too, but as I choose to be a purple-skinned and orange-eyed person today, I'm obviously a minority with no right to oppress you). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well; never mind. ♥ Clio the Muse 01:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Xenophobia is fear of the other, and that creepy way that other people have of doing things that aren't exactly the way you do things..." With all due respect, SB Johnny, it isn't that at all. It has a clear meaning, based on two good Greek words and on long usage, and none of the above is part of its meaning. You go on "...it can be interpreted as a racist thing too", but again with due respect, it can't. Racism and xenophobia are entirely different things. Xn4 05:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Something on the issue underpinning this - why not just answer the bloody medical questions here, perhaps with a link to the medical disclaimer? That covers us, and is easy to read for users, and will let us give them an answer rather than unceremoniously telling people to go and visit a doctor -- sometimes people will be afraid of wasting their doctor's time, or want ot know if their symptoms will, likely, just fade away. In some cases, we can answer such questions truthfully. Wikipedia has reams of disclaimers to protect us from our own bad advice - so don't let the fear of the WMF being sued stop you from answering questions! Martinp23 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, the consensus has been that trying to answer medical questions is unhelpful, even ignoring legal concerns. Do you think that the opinions of armchair doctors are useful? Friday (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't consult the RDs on anything remotely important myself, but I'm not in the business of telling other people what to do either - if someone wants to leave their front door open (see thread above) then that is entirely their own concern. Gandalf61 16:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If people want to ask the question, that's their choice. It's not for us to decide what is and isn't useful to them. Martinp23 17:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are things that the radicals here would classify as "dangerous medical advice" which we are capable of giving accurately, like how to remove a small wooden splinter from the finger ("use tweezers to extract the splinter, wash the area, then apply disinfectant"). Advising such people they need to ask a doctor is silly, bites the user, and discourages any further interaction with Wikipedia. Directing people to Wikiversity where they are advised that cold hands can be a sign of poor circulation and they should see a doctor is another bit of "dangerous medical advice" (from the radical POV) that we are entirely capable of dispensing. StuRat 19:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If the extent of the problem was answers about how to remove splinters, then we obviously wouldn't be having this discussion. That is very different to answering a question about intracranial pressure with "doctors, upon finding something "abnormal" (outside the typical range), often decide, incorrectly, that they need to correct it." Do you really think you are in any way qualified or justified in telling OPs that doctor's decisions regarding a serious condition are incorrect? That is the issue here. I'm really struggling to understand your motivation here, StuRat. The only conclusions I can come up with is that you are purposely looking for ways to get around our guidelines or that you genuinely think your opinion is more valuable or informed than even those who are reliable experts in the the medical field, and you are willing to risk the health of someone else to make that point. Once again it appears we have to cover every single eventuality with our guidelines, lest someone will attempt to wikilawyer their way around them. Rockpocket 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The splinter example isn't far off from my linking to Wikiversity and providing the suggestion that cold hands may be a sign of poor circulation, and that a doctor should be consulted. Yet that link was deleted and Friday now seems to be threatening me if I dare to put it back. This is radicalism run amok. StuRat 01:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So can I take it from your multiple attempts to ignore the "intracranial pressure" example, that you acknowledge that is really poor and dangerous advice and you would not offer that sort of advice again? See, it takes a really bad example, like that one, before people begin to get antsy about it. As with every other guideline here, most of us agree on principle that no medical advice whatsoever should be offered, and also agree that the ref desk is for references, not opinion. However, most of us also use common sense and judgement and are happy to give a bit of leeway. However, when someone takes it too far - like your "intracranial pressure" example - then tries to wikilawyer a justification for it, the natural reaction is to close the loophole and thereby stopping all medical advice. This, for me, is the crux of the situation here. Rockpocket 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So, I take it from your multiple attempts to ignore the absurd censorship, for saying that cold hands may be due to poor circulation (so they should see a doctor), that you also find this censorship indefensible, but are unwilling to say anything which might offer support for my position. StuRat 05:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually asked a question, I would have answered it. But since you ask now, I don't consider it censorship, though neither do I consider that example particularly problematic. I thought I had made that clear with my explanation above. Perhaps you would be so kind to answer my questions now. Rockpocket 07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I will answer at your talk page, as it will be a long discussion and this page is quite long enough already. StuRat 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is absurd censorship. What do you think about the intracranical pressure example? A.Z. 06:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'm curious: Where would you (StuRat) draw the line? I mean you surely wouldn't be stupid enough to offer a diagnosis in the case of chest pain - right? But you are prepared to diagnose 'cold hands'. Where within that range should we draw the line and how the heck would we write that rule? IMHO, in the case of trivial stuff like splinters - the OP doesn't need our advice and in the case of non-trivial stuff it's dangerous to give it...but you obviously have some idea of where to draw the line - so do enlighten us. SteveBaker 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, a bad answer would be "it's just indigestion, take an antacid and forget about it". A good answer would be "this could be anything from indigestion to a heart attack, so you should consult a doctor for an accurate diagnosis". StuRat 01:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So even in the worst possible case (a potentially life-threatening situation) you still want to offer a diagnostic range. What about if it's something that's less than that (as stomach ache perhaps) - you (or someone else who is not as smart as you) might say "it could be anything from wind to a mild gastric ulcer"...but by imposing limits like that the person is ignoring that maybe it's stomach cancer or that it is indeed a heart attack but that the pain is being felt a little low and the symptoms have not been accurately reported...OR that it's some other yet more urgent condition that neither you nor I nor the person answering the question knows about. You see, even giving a range implies that it could not be anything worse than the worst thing you, personally (who are not a doctor) could imagine it being. This is the entire problem. You don't know what you don't know. I was hoping you'd be able to tell me "well, anything worse than a sprained ankle is something I wouldn't touch" - but that's not true - even in the worst case imaginable - you still want to offer advice. Your answer for the chest pain situation doesn't seem wrong to me (but "I Am Not A Doctor") - but not everyone is as smart as you and the rules have to apply to everyone who answers questions here. Suppose someone answers "chest pain" with: "it could be anything from wind to indigestion" - neglecting to imagine that it might be a heart condition. That would be a DISASTER for the OP. Your 'rule' only works when people give good answers - but we have to have rules that avoid serious consequences when people give poor answers too. This is why we can allow ZERO medical advice to be given. SteveBaker 15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone maybe fill me in on what OP means? (I take it we're not talking about Open Proxies!) --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OP == Original Poster, i.e. the person that asked a question, started a section, etc. Forumspeak that we're supposed eschew on the desks, if not on the talk page. --LarryMac | Talk 17:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll eschew it :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 09:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that answering medical questions and legal questions can be helpful. Reference questions should be asked here and questions that involve too much dialectical conversation should be sent to Wikiversity, as SB Johnny said below. A.Z. 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good advice for good sleep... no compromise needed

You know, this "compromise" subheading seems to be about nothing of the sort, though I'm really not at all sure what parties are seeking a compromise, nor what the issue is exactly that needs to be compromised on. Whether medical questions are answered on Wikiversity is a problem for the Wikiversitans... there are plenty of adults there (perhaps a much greater proportion of us if this discussion is to be taken as an example), we know about liability, and we have a lot more at stake in that while Wikipedia is unlikely to be cut from the Foundation, Wikiversity is still very much on probation.

So since I don't know what we're compormising about (or maybe "y'all" is better than "we", since I'm still not sure who's supposed to be making a compromise), I'll just offer my advice:

1. If a question is asked that can't be answered by citing reliable sources, but rather entails some sort of dialectical conversation, co-operative learning, or a research project, send it to Wikiversity.
2. If you're concerned about possible kookiness on Wikiversity, either get involved with the project or stop your bitching.

Wikimedia is an endeavor worth supporting folks. All the projects are wikis, and if you want to change something, you can change it by getting involved. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that advice. A.Z. 05:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

These amps go to 11. That's one louder.

Another request to turn it down a notch. There's neither need for lumping editors together, nor for distributing extreme labels. Sarcasm isn't very helpful at the moment either. And please don't turn this into a Wikiversity versus Wikipedia discussion. As pointed out before, WV's Help Desk along with three of its (more or less idle) user talk pages are no more representative of Wikiversity than the current heated and dissipated discussion here is representative of Wikipedia. Please focus on the issue of giving medical advice. Please don't focus on StuRat, he isn't the only one arguing against strict policy in this discussion. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are clearly a few different tangential discussions going on here. What goes on at Wikiversity, while clearly of interest to many of us, shouldn't really be an issue we should be discussing here. But what is of issue to us is how what goes on there effects what goes on here. The issue of using Wikiversity to attack Wikipedians is relevent (see WP:ATTACK#Off-wiki personal attacks) though it should be noted that that concern is not in direct reference to anyone discussing the issue here. However, that principle, that one might simply hop over to Wikiversity to circumvent Wikipedia policy or guidelines then link to it here, is germane to this discussion.

I would suggest that if StuRat, or anyone else, would like to make a content fork of our Reference desk by copying questions and answers over there oneself, then that is entirely fine (so long as GFDL is upheld). I would also not have an issue if one wishes to contact individual OPs on their talkpage and direct them to Wikiversity if they would like unqualified opinion in response to answers rather than references. Hell, I would even support as link somewhere on the refdesk headers making that suggestion ("We can't offer medical or legal advice here, but StuRat can at Wikiversity"... Ok, so i'm joking with that particular wording, but you get the point), because we should support our sister projects.

What i don't think is acceptable in the spirit of our policies and guidelines - and I think there is a broad based agreement in that here - is spamming multiple individual questions with links to a content fork in the sole purpose of circumventing our guidelines. Rockpocket 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind giving a link to whatever page on Wikiversity is being used for personal attacks? (Here might be the best place to do that). We do in fact occaisionally suffer from "attack accounts" created by people who have been banned from Wikipedia (actually we usually get them on Wikibooks or Commons first, then they find their way to WV once they've been blocked there as well), and block them accordingly. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 11:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Spamming" ? Links to sister projects are not, have never been, and will never be "SPAM", so please stop using that term. What you call "circumventing guidelines" I call "trying to accommodate a few individuals who, by a radical interpretation of Wikipedia policies, treat any medical info as if it were medical advice". StuRat 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is spamming when you take every opportunity to draw attention to your vanity responses. How not to be a spammer: "if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something ... you'll probably be disappointed... You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?" Rockpocket 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If I was here "just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site" then all of my tens of thousands of edits would be redirects to Wikiversity. In reality, it's something like 0.1% of my edits here, with thousands of answers given directly on the Wikipedia Ref Desk and several new articles written and thousands of edits to mainspace articles, as well. That said, it's entirely appropriate to redirect questions which aren't deemed to be appropriate here to where they are. Similarly, if somebody started writing a "How to build a car from scratch" manual here, I'm sure they would be redirected to Wikibooks, and that would not be considered "SPAM", either. StuRat 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to redirect questioners to an inappropriate site. Wikiversity is surely way down the list of places you;d send anyone (but for the fact that you;ve made it your personal lair). Look at it objectively - no track record on answering medical questions; few contributers; no medical people on the staff. Why on earth would you want to suggest this as a place for people to go? If you simply /have/ to redirect them to some other place where a question can be asked, could it not be to a site which actually has a track record and interest in medical discussions? It is your actions in light of this consideration that leads to a supposition of vanity on your part. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Just because the title of the page says wikiversity does not make it anymore than StuRats personal blog. David D. (Talk) 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was "my own personal blog" I would be the only one answering Q's there, but I count some 20 other responders. I do answer a substantial portion of the Q's, but then so does Clio on the Humanities Ref Desk, does that make it her personal blog ? Also, more questions are posted there directly than cross-posted by me. StuRat 15:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So you do think it is the best place to direct the orignal poster for an informed answer? By the way, don't throw in the humanities desk strawman because I would not necessarily direct people there either. David D. (Talk) 16:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the best place I know of. Redirecting such Q's there both avoids the overly strict rules (mis)interpretations applied here and provides people with exposure to a sister project which could use more participants. The real straw man argument was you calling the Wikiversity Help Desk my personal blog. StuRat 04:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary disclosure: I used to sometimes answer: "There's an article on fooitis, but we can't give medical advice, please go see a Doctor." Then I read several discussions here, with well-referenced and thought out arguments against touching any question that starts with "I have this pain in my foo ...". Even if I don't fully understand or agree with all the arguments, the fact that this raises a lot of concern among editors is enough for me to tread lightly. Gaming the system against the spirit of a formulated guideline is a very bad idea, I agree, and I ignore these strategies, because they add nothing to the discussion at hand. Martin and Gandalf, very valuable RD contributors whom I've never seen gaming the system, voiced there opinions against strict policy or against turning this into a moral issue. If we all agreed that these questions shouldn't be answered at all beyond "Go see a Doctor", then fine, we can remove these posts. But it's dangerous to claim consensus yet. No one can know the likelihood of a casualty by reference-desk or lawsuit, so my question to Martin and Gandalf is, whether it's not better to handle these questions with double extra care (also in the sense of removing medical advice), when a lot of editors (who by no means advocate censorship or literal enforcement of guidelines, no matter what others say) are this concerned. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the opinions of JWSchmidt and SB_Johnny, who also seem opposed to the ultra-strict definition of "medical advice" suggested by others here. StuRat 05:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And now User:A.Z. seems to agree, as well. I would also expect User:DirkvdM to agree, although he hasn't yet commented here. That's something like 6-7 people who have some reservations about following the "strictest possible interpretation of what constitutes medical advice", banning links to Wikiversity, deleting (especially without specific discussion) such content, and/or blocking/banning users who disagree. StuRat 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that what I said? ;p I'm not entirely convinced that we should be answering medical questions on Wikiversity either, except in a very narrow range (e.g., if I scratch my poison ivy, will the rash spread?), and I have no problem at all with the RD denizens making local guidelines for themselves. I'm not entirely sure about linking from the RD to the WV helpdesk either, though a link to a learning resource (such as a poison-ivy treatment research project) would certainly be most appropriate, or if we had something more along the lines of a "socratic discussions" resource where we could try to help people describe their symptoms better so that they could (a) search around the web for more information, and then (b) be a better educated patient when they go see their doctor. At this point, however, Wikiversity doesn't have a lot of medical-related content, so using an interwiki link in this manner is at best in the gray area of how appropriate interwiki links should be made. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 13:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my own position is as follows:

1. I agree with the reference desk guidelines that say "Do not request regulated professional advice ..." and "The reference desk is not a place to seek professional advice on medical or legal matters ..." - although note that these are guidelines, and should not be represented as Wikipedia policies. My own stance is to usually ignore any RD thread that looks as if it might be in breach of these guidelines.
2. I disagree with some of the measures proposed for enforcing these guidelines. In particular, I disagree with deleting threads or posts (except in the most extreme cases), issuing harshly-worded template warnings, putting threatening notes on users' talk pages or banning editors soley because they have broken these guidelines on two or three occasions.
3. I believe that some posts on this page have exaggerated the dangers of RD threads that appear to offer medical or legal advice, in order to justify the enforcement measures that have been proposed.
4. I object to the rhetoric from certain editors which implies that those proposing more rigorous enforcement have a monopoly on moral rectitude and that those of us who do not see the necessity for additional enforcement measures are either clueless and naive newbies, morally bankrupt sociopaths, or are somehow trying to undermine the foundations of Wikipedia.
5. I have no objection if other editors post links on the RDs to Wikiversity or other sites that may have less strict guidelines that the Wikipedia RDs. Posting such links is not spam per se.

There, had my say. That's my position, and I do not intend to enter into pointless debates about it. Gandalf61 09:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

99.99% Agreement: Not that chiming in here is going to accomplish anything, but Gandalf61 summed it up nicely. I don't think it is a stretch to assume there are others who haven't remarked on this latest brouhaha, who nonetheless agree with Gandalf61's enumeration of the issues. Moreover, Sluzzelin's start of this sub-thread merits serious reflection and consideration by all following along here. dr.ef.tymac 23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree wholeheartedly with Gandalf, but would add that we should convert a question to one we can answer, whenever possible. For example, for a recent question on back pain I said that they see a doctor for the pain, but also suggested some ways to lift without injuring the back, for after the current injury was healed. StuRat 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's at least be clear on one thing..

Just wanted to get one thing clear here- I have not seen anybody suggesting that any and all discussion of health or medical issues is "medical advice". I think any reasonable editor will agree that it's a bit of a judgment call. So I don't know where this notion of some mythical "ultra-strict" definition of medical advice is coming from- I see it as a straw man, a disctraction from any useful discussion. Friday (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Having just read through this torturous discussion it is quite obvious there are a massive number of strawman arguments causing a thick fog. As well as blind allegiance to a rule book. All I can say is what ever happened to common sense? David D. (Talk) 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree... that's why I'm still confused about who is compromising over what :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. We've seen this trouble before. Here's a hint for anyone who cares: if editors start telling you "I don't think you should do what you did here, and here are my reasons why", it is never appropriate to respond with "Oh yeah? Well, show me in the rule book where it says my actions are illegal!" This is simply not how Wikipedia works. Friday (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wish users would have the good sense to say, "I'm playing a game of trivia, and was wondering: should a person recently bitten by a viper go to the emergency room?", rather than, "I've just been bitten by a viper ..." --Sean 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If users had good sense, they wouldn't be interested in the medical opinions of a motly crew of random webmonkeys in the first place! Rockpocket 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Late arrival

I picked up this thread late (from a tip-off in Wikiversity), and have just read it through. In general, I applaud StuRat for the tireless (and mostly thankless) work he puts into the Help Desk on Wikiversity, and I think this thread has often been out of proportion to what StuRat has actually done (eg. see diff below). On this general topic, however, giving any genuine medical advice makes me nervous. I think Tagishsimon (in a comment @ 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)) has it right in that Wikiversity is not (yet) set up for answering questions requiring specialised medical knowledge - but that there are any number of medial advice forums that we can direct people to - as well as advising them to "see a doctor" (as StuRat has done). Of course, some (initial, friendly) advice is ok - provided it is given with an appropriate disclaimer, and an honest link to someone/where that might be of genuine help. In any case, this is already covered by Wikipedia policy, and still needs to be fully discussed in Wikiversity. Overall, I would suggest that thinking about our respective and overall missions is useful - Wikimedia is about educational content, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikiversity is for learning resources and activities. There is a wide scope here, (for example, it could involve learning about symptoms of diseases), but it seems futile to try to go beyond our station when there are already people and places much better suited for this type of thing. Cormaggio ^{is learning} 23:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Replace questions soliciting professional advice with boilerplate

Seeing the continuing flamewars and tug-of-war regarding what, if anything, constitutes an acceptable answer to questions which appear to be soliciting medical or other professional advice, I'd like to propose a change to the guideline on dealing with such questions:

Questions that appear to be soliciting medical, legal or other professional advice, including any answers so far provided for them (regardless of their nature), should be removed and replaced with a neutral boilerplate message informing the questioner of the removal and pointing to the reference desk guidelines.

This ought to rather neatly sidestep the contentious issue of how such a question may and/or should be answered, while sending a clear message that the question itself is inappropriate and should not have been asked in the first place. It also rather effectively deters any imprudent editors from trying to answer the question regardless, unless they're actually willing to dig through the page history for the original question, while still clearly informing the original questioner of what happened to their question. It's also rather simple and straightforward compared to the methods currently used for dealing with such questions, which seem to range from plain old stern warnings to collapsible tables and hidden comments.

I've put together a quick first draft of such a boilerplate message at User:Ilmari Karonen/sandbox/rd-deleted. It looks like this:

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~

Feel free to edit the page if you have any improvements to make. Should there be support for this proposal, the template can be moved to a more convenient title such as {{rd-deleted}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable, but I don't know how much it will help. The same few folks who currently enjoy giving out bad medical advice may end up digging though history and putting the inappropriate question back, despite the template. But it's probably worth a shot. Friday (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This idea has surfaced a few times. User:Hipocrite was using them regularly for a while but it did not really solve the problem and fizzled. I'd guess it is documented in the archives about six months ago. Someone else might have a link to some examples. David D. (Talk) 19:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember having seen anyone "soliciting professional advice", but I think that removing good faith questions is not needed. We can just reply saying that we are not professionals. A.Z. 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to link not just to the "NOT" section, but to the third of the five points which specifically relates to professional advice?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice feature. A.Z. 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant Support: I was against doing this kind of thing because it could be abused by people deleting questions that don't fall cleanly into this category - but given the new trend to game the system and skate close to the edge of the guidelines...I think we have to start doing this. It would certainly fix the problem at source. It's not OK to ask these questions - if we remove them then we have circumvented the entire issue of the acceptability of answers. Be Bold: Let's make a template and start using it. SteveBaker 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Concept I am not sure why all this drama need be given to a "Don't ask for professional advice" reminder, and reminding is all we are doing, not punishing, correct? The text of the third guideline copies-and-pastes quite nicely as an "in-line" message: no bold, no boxes, no colours, and thus nothing of the "naughty you" about it. I just tested that on my user page and it works easily. It is simple to do and doesn't require endless discussion about the exact wording. If someone feels a need to edit, he/she can just remove the names of the professions that do not apply in any specific instance. However, with all the names left in, it remains just a general, and relatively gentle, reminder of guidelines and has little personal weight. Put a "please" as the first word; that would be a better use of editing time, in my opinion. Bielle 17:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Martianlostinspace's idea is even simpler, if it is technically possible. Bielle 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the responses seem to have been mostly positive, I've now rolled this out, moving the message above to {{RD-deleted}} and editing Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines and Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice accordingly. (I've changed the latter quite a lot, but it could probably be further simplified; the current version still contains quite a lot of stuff that seems to be left over from earlier attempts to approach the issue by carefully discussing each and every instance on the talk page, and which is probably unnecessary with the simpler "just remove it" rule.) Note that, while I've tried to mention the template in as many places as possible in order to inform people of its existence, there's certainly no requirement that it be used: you can simply write your own personalized message if you like. Also, feel free to edit the template if you think you can improve the wording. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The editing of the guidelines, prompted a question/remark I posted at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines#Examples_of_.22legitimate.22_medical_and_legal_questions_removed_from_guidelines. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I feel this will be abused to delete questions which are either entirely or partially non-medical advice questions. No biology question will be safe. For example, somebody asking about a low salt diet will be assumed to have high blood pressure and asking for medical advice, and the question will be deleted. StuRat 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm going to be watching closely how this guideline gets applied, and I don't expect I'll be the only one. I'm certainly not going to shy away from reverting any grossly inappropriate deletions, nor of bringing the matter up on the talk page if I spot any questionable ones. (Incidentally, I see this new rule has had its first application; while I don't feel that specific question was anywhere near as inappropriate as some I've seen, I think we can all agree that it did pretty clearly fall under the definition of medical advice as given in the guidelines.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. As long as it is used responsibly and using good sense, this should function nicely. Rockpocket 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant support, per SteveBaker. I urge caution and discretion in applying these templates; there have been occasional problems with editors misidentifying questions seeking information on a medical topic as seeking medical advice. That said, our guidelines and instructions for identifying such advice requests have evolved quite a bit since that problem cropped up. As always, I'm open to alternative strategies as well—but anything that encourages participants to try to game the guideline is not on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Worst medical advice ever

Well, TOAT claimed he found the worst medical advice ever, but I've decided to one-up him with this gem. I'm not sure, but I'm fairly certain I've seen a similarly stupid piece of advice in the last few weeks from another IP. Anyway, I'm not what to do about it. I've removed the comment, but I figured I'd post here; enough of you seem to be interested in this kind of thing. Someguy1221 02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would take our resident troll to get in on the act. He is blocked and his contributions reverted. I'm off now, though, so if someone could keep an eye on the desks and my talkpage for the inevitable vandalism spree, I would appreciate it. Rockpocket 02:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Brief summary of abuse is Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Tiscali DSL. In general, any comment from the IP address range 88.108.*.* through 88.111.*.* that appears on these Desks can be reverted on sight. You'll not that today's IP has made other trolling contributions, as well.

I'd say that if we're going to keep track of worst medical advice ever offered on a Wikimedia project, we probably ought to draw the line between the stuff that is deliberate trolling and plain-vanilla frighteningly misguided. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But this one on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Bones is even more dangerous (because it's advice that is more likely to be believed): "I'm not trained but I have experience of a similar situation. The bones can be realigned and fused again but it will be a surgical procedure that will cost you in time, pain and money. Whether it is worth it is up to you. Also bear in mind that broken bones can take many months to remodel after a fracture so you may be need to wait a while yet. Like I said I'm not an expert, just giving you a general opinion"...in other words "No! Don't see a doctor! Save your money - wait a while and see what happens!"...we really have to put a stop to this. Recommending delay - when it's very possible that urgency might be required is insane. Jeez! SteveBaker 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

SteveBaker, I think the post above is acceptable. First, I didn't take it mean that they should wait to see what happens before they see a doctor. Second, even if the answer told them to wait to see what happens before seeing a doctor, there are three other respondants who categorically said "Go see a doctor." So, in the case that the answer did mean to tell the OP to wait before they saw a doctor (which I don't believe is true), assuming the original poster left their door open (which means they will actually do what a random person on the Internet tell them to do), it's like three people said they should close the door, then a fourth person said that they should leave the door open. In this case, it's more than proved that, if something bad happens to the OP, it's entirely their fault. A.Z. 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A tactic I developed back in the glory days of Usenet, whenever I was about to post something questionable, was to ask myself carefully: "What will happen if I don't post this?" I think that's a useful litmus test to apply to these questionable bits of RD medical advice. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've often asked that myself. When someone comes here with an obviously serious medical problem, and the other posts consist solely of "No medical questions allowed" or "Go see a doctor, we aren't qualified" (or even worse, deletion of the question), I feel the OP, who was obviously reluctant to go see a doctor if they came here, will just give up and not see a doctor, and possibly die as a result. On the other hand, if we can list some possibly serious consequences from ignoring their medical condition, we should be able to persuade them to see a doctor. StuRat 03:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A simple "you should see a doctor, we can not help you" should have exactly the same result without the potential adverse effects of using such scare tactics. Rockpocket 05:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, if no reason to go to a doctor is given, then people bringing a medical question here (who obviously aren't inclined to see a doctor) won't see any reason to do so (especially if we send people to a doctor when they ask about trivial matters like splinter removal). Listing a range of possible consequences of a medical problem is neither a diagnosis nor scare tactics, it is providing medical info. Our articles often list such a range, and this is well within Wikipedia policy. And what "potential adverse effects" do you mean ? An uneeded trip to the doc ? I'm willing to risk that. StuRat 15:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The urge to play doctor

There seems to be in some, an irresistible urge to play doctor. Most of us probably did it to some extent but what the heck, we were after all, curious children. Perhaps what we are seeing here is the result of either never having done it as a kid or having done it as a kid were unable to quit. ;-) - hydnjo talk 03:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This section enlightens on StuRat's motivations. A.Z. 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Many of us could provide advice based on personal experience or anecdotal evidence but it is also true that many of us believe that WP is not the place to provide that advice. I'm not singling out anyone with these remarks but only calling attention to intentions which I'm sure are admirable but don't, I believe, belong in this forum. The RD is a noble, helpful and interesting sideshow to the WP project but it should never compromise or even appear to compromise the project itself. These ancillary (the RD for example) services should, I believe, be provided without even the appearance of controversy with respect to the issues being discussed here. - hydnjo talk 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't understand how we RD'ers can be so strict about suspected homework questions, duplicate postings on other desks, SHOUTING, or unsigned (we got the bot for that thank goodness) postings and yet be so mixed about the seriousness and potential problems of offering even the most mundane of professional advice. It seems so simple; don't do it. - hydnjo talk 06:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't be strict about homework questions. My position on this is further explained here. A.Z. 06:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A.Z. that's a subject for another day. Any user is free to provide any level of homework assistance even though doing someone's homework is discouraged. That is, I believe, a far more benign transgression of the spirit of the RD than even comes close to crossing the bright line of professional opinion. - hydnjo talk 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad reaction to templating

An early use of the RD-deleted template here has triggered some unfortunate reactions both on the RD itself and on the questioner's talk page. I suggest this demonstrates that the well-intentioned idea of using of this template to replace controversial questions is deeply flawed. Gandalf61 14:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat hesitant to declare a process 'deeply flawed' because one individual insists that his request for medical advice ("...I got [a pneumonia vaccine] today. Are they supposed to swell up like I've been lifting weights all my life and burn like crazy plus make my arm and shoulder sore? ..."[7]) wasn't a request for medical advice.

Still, if there's someone who wants to take on the project, I'd be pleased to see a record of all uses of the template. If it's being misused (or if there's a broader problem of medical advice requests and responses being misidentified), I think we'd all like to know about it. If there's an alternate idea for how to handle questions that seek medical advice, I'm sure that people here would be open to any suggestions. The problem is that any solution that leaves the question in place seems to draw answers from editors who insist on playing doctor, and may trigger a whole lot of metadiscussion on the Ref Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Metadiscussion on the desks doesn't bother me at all. I am strongly against this template. The solution is that people who are against medical questions paste a standard post with their opinions about it. The querents will read this post and take their own informed conclusions about how to deal with subsequent responses. We shouldn't choose for them what they can or cannot read. A.Z. 03:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the metadiscussion. Occasionally, self-reference fits the question and entertains the reader. Another type of self-reference is discussing guidelines. Excuse the analogy, but librarians don't start arguing about procedure in front of customers. That's why we have talk pages. Of course, the desk/question/template can link to the discussion on the talk page. So the querents can read that (unlike librarian staff discussions behind closed doors). As for medical advice, I'm with hydnjo's thoughts one thread above: Don't do it, and we won't have to waste time discussing enforcement of this guideline.

Back to the question on how to proceed in these cases: I don't like templates. They appear automatonic and robotic, which goes against the grain of what characterizes the reference desk among other. And, though it's a comparably subdued template, it still breaks the flow of threads in a negative way. ("Look here, something bad happened.") I admit, I don't like them on user talk pages or on top of articles either. We're obviously so worried about possible hazards and risks, that we take it upon us to remove (not put in context, remove) other people's good faith posts, something we generally don't like doing. Then we should also take the time and write actual sentences explaining our actions on the talk pages of every user whose post was removed. This approach has been used recently, and I think it was more constructive while drawing less attention at the desks themselves. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(Addendum: I understand the concerns about removing a question without leaving a trace on the desk (anonymous users may never see their talk pages and get confused or post again, etc.). I guess I favor an inconspicuous placeholder. Either leaving the original question title but replacing the actual question with a note, or something else that doesn't stick out by being box-shaped, framed, and colorful. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

I've changed the {{RD-deleted}} template to be a little less "boxy", while still trying to retain the message that it's a boilerplate notice, not something you're supposed to answer and discuss. Would you consider this an improvement? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would. Now it won't stick out when scrolling down the desk. (I just tested it rushing through WP:RD/S at different speeds) Thank you, Ilmari. I still think users should be informed on their talk pages as well, but I have no more objections to this template being used as a placeholder. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow all advice

I think we should allow all kinds of advice, and allow everything on the reference desk but personal attacks (as suggested here). We do have a medical disclaimer already that says that you shouldn't trust anything you read here, and anyone who wants to emphasize this on the threads is allowed to do so. A.Z. 17:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're never going to get consensus for such a broad statement. There will be things that people find unhelpful and objectionable, so many editors will want to trim them. Friday (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about the statement itself? Would you support it? Don't you think it's stupid that people want to remove posts or stop people from posting them on the basis that they think it's unhelpful or that they disagree with the content? A.Z. 18:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support that concept. People should feel free to disagree politely with another editor's post, and should disprove it if they can, but shouldn't just delete posts they don't like. StuRat 07:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For me, there appear to be two seperate issues. A) What are the legal implications for providing medical advice on the reference desk? B) Will providing potentially harmful, "bad" advice bring Wikipedia a lot of bad press and drag it through the mud to the extent that medical advice should be banned, regardless of the answer to A.
I feel the obvious answer to A is: We aren't lawyers, so our speculation as to what laws in what states or countries it might violate is all irrelevant, and anyone who thinks it does break the law is free to ask Wikipedia's legal counsel (or ask Jimbo to ask Wikipedia's legal counsel) whether there are actually any legal implications. B is a question that should be taken up by community consensus, preferably after A has been answered (as the existing consensus was, in my opinion, tainted by possibly irrelevant issues regarding question A). But as to my personal opinion on the templating, I find it rude. Someguy1221 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A) The legal implications are, for purposes of Wikipedia, already handled by the relevant disclaimers. Implications for specific individuals are the responsibility of those specific individuals. Question B is mostly the stuff of fanciful speculation. My own speculation is that people make a big fuss over B, when there are far more detrimental and salacious uses of the internet out there that warrant (and are much more likely to get) media attention. dr.ef.tymac 02:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On Question B, remember the Seigenthaler controversy? It's up to you whether or not you would characterize it as a tempest in a teapot. In this day and age, any news story only lasts until the next news cycle. Wikipedia gets the media attention not because we're the most salacious, titillating, vile, malicious, or even incorrect. Wikipedia draws news coverage because it's the biggest. We're the ninth-highest-traffic web site in the world (going by Alexa rankings). If we do something that can be interpreted as conspicuously harmful, evil, callous, or just plain dumb, you can be we'll get noticed. We're getting web traffic that's comparable to Microsoft, or Facebook, or YouTube, or Google; we're getting to be just as much as a household name as they are; you know what happens when they screw up.

I'd rather avoid bad media coverage, even if it's unfair. I'd rather not see Wikipedia get hit with a lawsuit, even if it's groundless. I'd rather not see the Foundation slap a BLP-type policy on the Desks – or shut them down altogether – because someone here couldn't resist playing doctor. Most important as far as my own moral compass goes, I also genuinely believe that a policy barring professional advice makes good sense to protect the health and well-being of our readers. I know that I've seen medical advice given to children here. I know that I've seen editors give questionable – and sometimes flatly terrible – medical advice on these and other desks. I've heard the argument 'Well, some people don't have easy access to medical professionals' and I can't be comfortable with 'We should let them ask random encyclopedia editors to give an opinion that may or may not harm them' as an acceptable response. I'd like to think that we are an encyclopedia project first and foremost; I'd like to think that we know and understand the boundaries and scope of both our skills and our mission. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Seigenthaler controversy in context: as I've already indicated before when this was mentioned, a sympathetic and uninvolved third party getting directly defamed by WP content is a legitimate tempest. That's why we have WP:BLP, that's why every WP admin is expected to vigorously and unconditionally enforce this specific policy. Should we take this kind of thing *very* seriously? Of course.

In contrast, ask yourself how sympathetic a random third-party can be considered if he drops a chair on his foot, and immediately of his own accord logs into Wikipedia (or any other random internet site) for advice from anonymous strangers on what to do next: in direct contravention of plainly worded disclaimers; in direct contravention of common sense.

I'm not saying we should wink and giggle at this kind of thing. It's definitely undesirable to see people "playing doctor" (or even "playing patient" for that matter) here on WP.

As undesirable as this is, however, do you really think CNN is going to pick up the story on "chair boy"? My bet is, if anyone does run with this, it will be SNL and not CNN.

My point is very simple, it is possible to go overboard in making pronouncements of irreversible doom when speculating on media reactions to RD content. I'm not even saying anyone actually has gone overboard in this instance ... just that it is possible. dr.ef.tymac 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of Dreams

Re this: Without picking on Froth, I think we should add to the disclaimers that people should not ask for their dreams to be interpreted; and if they do ask, they won't get an answer. This is an incredibly personal thing, with a multitude of theories about meanings or lack thereof. Two people who have dreams with similar imagery and symbols might have completely different intepretations of them, and nobody could say either was right or wrong (not that right and wrong have anything to do with it). No real-life ref desk of any integrity would remotely contemplate answering such a question with an intepretation. They might direct the questioner to resources such as Man and His Symbols (Jung), The Interpretation of Dreams (Freud) and many, many others, for the questioner to come up with their own answer. The point of dreams is that they are a message from one part of the person's psyche to another; and the key to the message, if there is one, must ultimately come from the same psyche, not from some outside person saying "It means X". -- JackofOz 02:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A sagacious commentator once said:

   the desk does sometimes engage in tangential discussions. I don't see that as a bad thing

Those words can be found here in case anyone wishes to see them in the original context. Some folks are not too keen on perpetually expanding disclaimers. Sometimes, dubious questions nevertheless yield some noteworthy content -- and everyone has his or her own definition of "noteworthy". dr.ef.tymac 02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the gentle reminder, dr.ef.tymac. I don't resile from that post, which was about discussions that go off on a tangent from the topic. My point above has nothing to do with tangential discussions. It was about whether we should get into a discussion at all. Some types of questions cannot be answered by the most expert ref desk in the world, and the interpretation of specific dreams is a classic case. -- JackofOz 03:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Distinction duly noted -- indeed, this is why I linked to the previous context, so as not to unfairly conflate the different issues, or muddy the clarity of your basic point. Of course, the follow-up issue becomes whether "unanswerable" questions (and the speculative responses they inspire) are always undesirable, especially in comparison to purely "tangential" ones. Some might say "yes" ... others might be less certain.

I don't necessarily disagree with your basic point, but it would seem a reasonable person could interpret these separate issues as related and worth thinking about together. One man's science is another man's art. dr.ef.tymac 03:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of compiling some reasonable rules and promptly ignoring them per your comments. It seems like a good rule to add to the list, go ahead and do it. Just don't make them binding --froth^t 04:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to get across. This is how I intended it to be read: is it fear of embarassment? a sexual element (the child's mind trying to explore the unfamiliar of sexuality, and picking a familiar environment)? there's really no telling, i'm not a phychologist. I wasn't actually trying to sikowanalyze them --froth^t 04:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz, everyone, I think we should just say out loud "Do not ever trust this reference desk, do not ever trust Wikipedia! We are not professionals, we may be lying all the time, we could be wrong, we are not doctors, nor lawyers. We are just people with computers." and then let people engage in whichever conversations please them, without further bothering them. A.Z. 05:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

empiricism

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#heart_attack.21

As I'm a strong believer in the empirical sciences, I've decided to probe for myself the sensitivity to supposed medical questions, by asking a perfectly reasonable biochemistry question on the science desk, consisting of a quote from a biochem text, but containing several red flag words such as "heart attack!" that may cause people to overreact and view it as a medical question. I'm simply trying to probe whether or not the science desk is still open to non-medical biochemistry questions, or if this is no longer possible. And if anyone is interested, the question is actually answered in the textbook, so I have no actual stake in whether the question is actually answered here on wikipedia.--VectorPotential^Talk 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like everything is working as it should. Of course, by posting this notice here, it's going to draw the attention of the people who have most closely followed the development of these guidelines.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How to disassemble the HTC Touch smart phone?

(This question has been moved to the Computing Reference Desk - [8] --LarryMac | Talk 14:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Regulated" advice

I think the guideline stating we should delete medical and legal questions may be based on a misconception.

I am not a lawyer (as we say), but I cannot imagine that simply giving medical or legal advice is against the law anywhere in the United States.

If a co-worker comes into the office complaining of a cold, and I suggest that she have some chicken soup, am I breaking the law? I can't imagine so.

My guess is that it would be illegal to charge people for medical or legal advice without a license, or to give medical or legal advice under the false pretense of being a doctor or lawyer.

If I'm right, we should not warn against asking for "regulated professional advice," since the guideline would not be a response to a legal concern.

We still may want to avoid giving out medical or legal advice for ethical reasons, but the guidelines should be written accordingly. -- Mwalcoff 04:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Electronic Medical Record (EMR)

Are there any agencies who will be requiring hospitals to convert to an EMR system? If so, when and which agencies?

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvzgrl (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal revert

I removed a question from the Science desk because it was asking for a prognosis on a medical condition. See it here. Another editor reverted my removal. I don't know what to do next. I'm reluctant to start a ping-pong game, but you could say the game has already started. It seems to me that it was "pointy" of the other editor to revert like that. Shouldn't such a reversion be discussed first? --Milkbreath 22:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a question very plainly not requesting medical advice, but biological information. Further, the question has nothing to do with a medical condition. It's no less innocuous than asking how long it takes hair to grow back after nairing yourself. Yet further, the OP gives no hint of concern about even a possible medical condition. The medical advice ban exists so people don't mistake us for doctors, not so they can't learn about the human body. If the OP had expressed concern that what was happening to him wasn't normal, this would be an entirely different story, but he didn't. Someguy1221 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. My opinion is different. I'm hoping for a third party to provide a third opinion, and to let me know if an edit war is the only way to handle this. I've never been in an edit war, but I've heard vague things about them. They sound unpleasant, and I'd always imagined that they were the result of either one person's being malicious or both people's being wrong. Since I'm right, and I don't think you are malicious, I'm in a quandary. By the way, "no less innocuous" makes my head spin—nice one. --Milkbreath 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't expect to change your mind, I really just posted here so that yet-to-arrive third opinion could read the first two. And I believe that edit wars result from each side possessing different definitions for one or more words without realizing it (or both sides being composed of idiots). Someguy1221 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP Signpost on FAC and FAR/C reviewing

Dear colleagues—This week, the article concerns how reviewing at these locations are critical to maintaining WP's high standards, and the other advantages of being a reviewer. Here's the link:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches

I'm posting here in the expectation that this site is teeming with experts; we'd be delighted to have more reviewers, so if you have a mind to review, please drop in at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, the engine rooms of WP's standards. TONY (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement on a removal

On the Miscellaneous desk, this question was posted:

Do living people fall under public domain?

I want to write a story involving people from Cappagh in 1901 & 1911, as taken from this census. However, I also don't want to get sued. Since these records are about a hundred years old, would they (and the people mentioned in them) fall into the public domain? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, "I don't want to get sued" clearly marks this as a request for legal advice. Further, the poster appears to think that the only issue is whether census records are copyright or public domain, but the question says he's talking about living people, which means there are other reasons why someone could "get sued".

The first response read:

Census data is never copyrighted anyway (it is just route collection of data, it has no creative content). The people mentioned in a census are not copyrighted, they are not creative works of an author (for the purposes of the law, anyway—theologians might disagree!). In general this page is a handy-dandy chart to figuring out whether something is in the public domain (in the United States), but in any case, for something like what you are asking it is totally not an issue. Even if the census was done last year, it wouldn't be an issue. Even if the records in question were done by a private company, it wouldn't matter. Census isn't creative; and names of people aren't copyrighted. It's like data in a telephone directory. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The responder cites a web page and a court case that both relate to US law, but the question is about a census taken in the UK. Maybe the general principle cited by the responder is correct in the UK as well; I don't know; I'm not a copyright lawyer in the UK or anywhere else. The response may be correct but it provides no evidence to say so, and as I noted above, may not address the primary reason one might "get sued" anyway.

This seemed clear-cut to me, so I replaced the question and answer with a generic "No legal questions here" note, with the edit comment "Deleted legal question and answer based on the wrong country's laws".

My change was reverted and a message was left on the talk page IP address I was working from, "Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary."

I repeated the change, now with the edit comment "Removed request for and provision of legal advice AGAIN. Please do not revert removals of improper questions."

The question and answer were restored by a different user, this time with my "No legal questions" note left in place ahead of it, and a comment justifying the change inserted below it. As I write there are now three comments there:

If you're going to delete questions, please have the courtesy to identify yourself. I contend that this question was regarding facts, not "advice". Not everything touching on legal topics equates to legal "advice". --Nricardo (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking whether something is copyrightable is not an issue of "legal advice". It's easy to answer for someone who has even the faintest association with the basic ideas behind copyright law. I'm restoring the question. If you object, take it to the talk page. And if you are going to delete questions, please sign your posts. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon, please report removals of requests for proffessional advice on the RD talk page. I'm not saying that I don't trust your judgement but it's always nice to have a second opinion. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First, as to identifying myself, I should note that I post to the Reference Desks from multiple IP addresses (all of them shared by other users), but I always sign myself "--Anonymous" or "--Anon" for short. This is not much of an identity but it's the only one you're going to get until I decide to make it public that I contribute to Wikipedia. I note incidentally that the person who restored the question was also anonymous.

Now, at the top of each RD page are the words "such questions may be removed", referring to medical or legal advice. This is a link to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice; there doesn't seem to be a corresponding page about legal advice, but presumably the same guidelines apply. The guidelines say — oops, there's a broken wikilink. Okay, fixed now. The relevant bit says:

If the question appears to be asking for medical advice, remove it and any responses given so far. In their place, insert a neutral boilerplate message (such as {{RD-deleted}}) pointing to the appropriate section of the reference desk guidelines. You may wish to sign the message or provide additional information about why the question was removed, although this is not required.

Note the part I've italicized. We now appear to have several people who feel that removal of questions should not be done anonymously, even if appropriate. If so, the guidelines should be changed. In any case it appears that they should be revised to address legal as well as medical advice.

Second, just because a question is "easy" if you know "the basic ideas behind copyright law", doesn't mean it isn't asking for legal advice. The guideline page that I cited above also says

...suppose the following question is asked:

I have a persistent cough. Can that be caused by heartburn? Tussitor 23:59, 31 December 2000 (UTC)

Although we can learn from the articles Cough and Heartburn that in some patients heartburn is a causative factor, there is no article in Wikipedia that states that specifically this questioner's cough may be caused by heartburn. The question is therefore off limits.

I think the original question is an analogue of this one in the legal domain.

Okay now, that's enough of me talking and way more time than I wanted to spend on this. I am happy to assume good faith on the part of the reverters, but I still say in good faith that I think the question and first answer obviously fell outside the guidelines and it was correct to summarily remove them. I've said my piece and will not edit the original thread any further except to link to this discussion here.

--Anonymous, 22:24 UTC, May 5, 2008.

who to stop mustache from not growing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.178 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)