Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines
Responding to a question by a counterquestion[edit]
I'd like to add a paragraph to the section Content and tone, just above "We should in all cases strive to exceed the minimum standard of civility":
- Also, do not respond to a question by a counterquestion such as "Have you read our article XYZ ?" Any questions in response to a question posed on the Reference desk should be questions asking for clarification or missing information needed for giving a helpful answer.
Objections? --Lambiam 12:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Is this the "reference desk" or the "do the OP's work for them" desk? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. There is no need for such a counter-question. If there's an article relevant to the OP's question, just post a link to it. There's no need to turn it back at the OP with a question. --Viennese Waltz 08:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- So instead of "Have you read [article]?", the right way would be to say, "Please read [article]". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. But make sure the article indeed provides an answer to the question in a more or less obvious and straightforward way. Even better is to give the answer and point out that it can be found in the article, if possible also naming the relevant section. --Lambiam 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- So instead of "Have you read [article]?", the right way would be to say, "Please read [article]". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Unconvinced. The issue is that the admirably polite proposer hopes to restrain or retrain another responder who is prone to giving isolated quick-fire snap questions. They know who they are. The proposed instruction creep adds no real value if it only persuades someone to qualify giving a link with "(if you) please". The nominal function of the Ref. desk is actually fulfilled by a simple "See [article]." to which no offence can reasonably be taken. Further qualifying where in the link to read and why as Lambiam suggests is to go an extra mile towards helping the OP and such good work is done best voluntarily by a good soul who doesn't fret about their work time on the OP's behalf. Philvoids (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- The proposal is only about not asking unhelpful questions, not about politeness or giving links. It is not uncommon to see a counterquestion like "Have you read Jackass: The Movie?" while the article linked to does not contain the answer to the question, or at least not in an obvious way. --Lambiam 13:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- "They know who they are" seems to be counter to assume good faith. How ever frustrating it might be to feel someone is being a troll, without evidence there is no way to distinguish between a troll and a person who means well. All responding with a counter question achieves is create a toxic environment like stackoverflow where newcomers feel intimidated and probably many non newcomers too. Better to write better policies for trolls specifically than to allow "easy" not-really-fixes that surely allow for addressing trolls, but get rid of a lot more, like cutting off an arm for getting rid of overweight. Ybllaw (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Comments such as "Have you tried Googling it?" are not helpful. I'm of the opinion that those manning the ref desk should be prepared to do some research, extrapolate and summarise the relevant findings, and cite the supporting sources.--Ykraps (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note this discussion about eyeglasses.[1] Maybe you should yell at the users who insist that the OP read the articles rather than reading them for him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Add to "don't poke fun at a poorly written question"[edit]
Currently says "may not have enjoyed a formal education, or may suffer from learning disabilities".
Other reasons could be a mistake or limitted mental capacity without classifying as a disability, or even having a disability without "suffering from it".
These choice of words come across to me as alienating people with a disability saying "that having a disability is suffering". It also comes across to me as "elitarianism about education" in that the only examples given as to "why a person writes a question containing mistake(s)" are both about "not being educated" ("LEARNING disabilities") saying "if you make mistakes you are assumed to have not been educated" as well as "the only reason to not have been educated is if you have a disability". A person is free to not follow an education merely because they do not want to (maybe it is not for them). Also there are many practical educations that don't involve much written text, which sounds here to not be counted as education.