Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Medical advice

This question appears quite dispassionate—not a specific request for actual medical advice, but instead answerable in general with links to WP articles, references to scientific literature, or other WP:RS external sources. This response by Guy Macon seems to contain that that: although it is clearly written as medical advice because it's an extensive quote from the ref, Seattle Children's seems like a reliable source and there is neutral information in there. A statement such as a paraphrase of the "Sun exposure can darken scars permanently, making them more noticeable" portion, and maybe that sunscreen can mitigate that effect, cited to that ref seems like it would be valid in our scar article. Abductive thinks the question is a hopeless request-for-advice as a whole. I'd welcome others' comments on the suitability of the question, and at least a portion of the Seattle Children's info as a response. DMacks (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Let people Google it themselves and delete with prejudice. It's better that way. Abductive (reasoning) 04:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA HAS NO POLICY THAT SAYS THAT MEDICAL ADVICE IS NOT ALLOWED. We do, however, have a Wikipedia behavioral guideline at WP:TPOC that says that deleting other editors comments is not allowed except in certain circumstances -- and deleting an answer from the refdesk because of an imaginary rule about medical advice isn't listed on that page.

Some medical advice ("don't risk eating rotten food. Throw it out and thoroughly clean anything it touched") is OK, and is vastly preferable to "ask your doctor if eating rotten food is OK". Other medical advice ("go ahead and eat rotten food") is definitely not OK. The difference is that telling someone not to eat rotten food is not a harmful post as defined at WP:TPOC, but telling someone that it is OK to eat rotten food is a harmful post.

There are some miguided editors who believe that Wikipedia has a policy against giving medical, legal, and business advice, but no such policy or guideline exists. (If you are about to cite the reference desk guidelines, please read WP:LOCALCON and then show me where the Wikipedia community approved them).

Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't. (medical disclaimer) Here is some legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is. (legal disclaimer) Here is some professional advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will use up all of your money and is likely to get you fired. Don't bother asking a certified financial planner if becoming a meth addict is good for your finances. It isn't. (general disclaimer, risk disclaimer)

There. I just provided medical, legal, and professional advice, and while I did make a point, I did so without being disruptive.

Feel free to report my behavior at WP:ANI if you believe that I have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline. But don't delete other people's edits. Do that again and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia for ignoring an actual guideline while enforcing an imaginary one. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So you can just ignore the work editors put into Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice, building consensus for how best to handle medical and legal advice? Why should your interpretation of the talk page guidelines override that of editors who actually discussed these issues and their application to the ref desks to build a consensus? fiveby(zero) 13:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. I sure can "ignore the work editors put into the refdesk guidelines , building [local] consensus for how best to handle medical and legal advice". Oh sure, some of it is good, and I follow those parts, but some of it is against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and I will gladly ignore those parts any time someone tries to enforce them.

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments gives you a complete list of when you are allowed to remove another editor's comments. "Any answer that provides medical advice, whether the question sought it or not, should be removed" is not on that list.

• Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

• The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has ruled that "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. "

You claim that editors put a lot of work work into the refdesk guidelines. I suggest that you either do the additional work to make your local "no more status than an essay" page follow Wikipedia's real guidelines or that you do the additional work to get the real guidelines changed to agree with your "no more status than an essay" page.

Also, and I can't emphasize this strongly enough, don't do crystal meth. It really is bad for your health. See Methamphetamine#Adverse effects. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

All i see in the above are insults and WP:Gaming the system. fiveby(zero) 15:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is not gaming the system. Pointing out that someone else is violating WP:TPOC and WP:LOCALCON is not gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, could you tone down the bold and all caps a bit. I'm sure there's no policy against it, but it makes your entire post look louder and more aggressive than necessary. It doesn't make it more readable for me, and one can be emphatic in one's choice of words rather than font style. Thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Will do. In a perfect world, all I would have to do is type WP:TPOC and the person reading the post would follow the link and discuss the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It happens every time someone asks any question even remotely related to human biology. It's like people either don't actually read the question and just default to MEDICAL ADVICE OH NO, or - far more likely - don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. I'd ignore them, and answer the question with and RS, like what happened here. To suggest good and interesting questions like these should be deleted is quite frankly astonishing and shows that people indeed don't know what they're talking about. It's the same as why most Wiki biological science articles are so terrible, because of the bizarre edict against "primary sources", IE, the actual research. Just means they're always several years out of date, as you can't use the actual sources you need. Means I don't waste my time writing any. Refdesk is at risk of turning out the same way, with polices written by people who don't have a clue stopping good work being done. Fgf10 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Alas, "just ignoring them" only works when they make "No medical advice" comments based upon, in the words of Arbcom, "Local policies that have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process and thus have no more status than an essay" Ignoring them doesn't work then the violate an actual guideline (WP:TPOC) by deleting other people's comments.

As a great example, look at this completely bogus removal: [1]

I mean look at it! On what planet is that medical advice? Free clue: a refdesk answer about someone's possessions cannot be "medical advice". Also note that it wasn't done as a revert so as to hide it from my notifications.

Not that it not being medical advice matters, because the is no guideline or policy against giving medical advice (did I mention that my medical advice is that you shouldn't do crystal meth?), but deleting things that are not medical advice just shows that some Wikipedia editors are just looking for any excuse to censor other editors by deleting their comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: Debates that follow the removal of an edit on the grounds of medical advice always seem to focus on whether or not such edits should be removed. Instead, such debates should focus on the dual questions of what is the risk of harm caused by the answer, and what risk is avoided by removing the answer.

There is nothing intrinsically unacceptable about medical advice; the thing that is unacceptable is that some answers on Wikipedia might present a risk of harm to one or more potential victims. Besides, there is no litmus test for medical advice; one person’s helpful information is another person’s medical advice.

I have looked at the original question about wounds, sunlight and scars, and at Guy Macon’s answer. I have asked myself about the risk of harm that might flow from the answer. I can find none. I have asked myself about the risk that might be avoided by removing the answer. I can find none. I have gone in search of the victim of this answer. I can find none. The worst thing that might flow from Guy’s answer is that one or more people might apply sunscreen to a healed wound. No victim there.

One of the principles that applies to our interactions with others at Wikipedia is that we rarely remove another User’s signed edit. If we do so, we must have a damn good reason for doing so and, more importantly we must be willing and able to objectively and comprehensively explain our actions. We must expect our removal to be challenged so we must be willing to spend as much time as necessary to give an account of our decision to remove. A few hundred words would seem to be the minimum to adequately explain why we removed someone else’s edit. Abductive has dismissed DMack’s challenge in thirteen words. In my view it suggests that Abductive, while willing to remove Guy Macon’s answer, is not willing to objectively and comprehensively explain why. Abductive’s response is unsatisfactory because he makes no attempt to identify the risk of harm that he saw in Guy’s answer; or to identify the benefit that might flow from removing the answer. He has made no attempt to identify the potential victim of Guy’s answer. Dolphin (t) 06:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I should have thought that my lack of response here would indicate that I don't intend to keep deleting people's signed edits based on what I thought was a pretty clear rule that there is to be no medical advice. Abductive (reasoning) 07:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a very clear rule that we don't offer medical advice so we must keep that in mind as we compose an answer to a question. There is no similarly clear rule about removing other User's answers. Remember, there is no litmus test for medical advice - one person's helpful information is another person's medical advice. If we see an answer that might be medical advice we need to move carefully and think clearly. If we go ahead and remove the answer we must be willing and able to give an account of our action, objectively and comprehensively. Dolphin (t) 07:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: "what I thought was a pretty clear rule that there is to be no medical advice" and "there is a very clear rule that we don't offer medical advice", NO SUCH RULE EXISTS. Seriously. A small group of Wikipedia editors decided to make up a new rule which they have never submitted to the community for approval. Please stop saying that an actual rule exits. It does not.

The actual rule is "no harmful posts". The actual Wikipedia policy tells us that Some medical advice ("don't risk eating rotten food. Throw it out and thoroughly clean anything it touched") is not harmful, is allowed, and is vastly preferable to "ask your doctor if eating rotten food is OK", while other medical advice ("go ahead and eat rotten food") is harmful and is not allowed. The difference is that telling someone not to eat rotten food is not a harmful post as defined at WP:TPOC, but telling someone that it is OK to eat rotten food is a harmful post.

Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has ruled that "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. "

Those who wish to enforce made-up rules should either either do the additional work to make their local "no more status than an essay" page follow Wikipedia's real guidelines or do the additional work to get the real guidelines changed to agree with their "no more status than an essay" page.

Also, and I can't emphasize this strongly enough, My medical, legal, and professional advice is "don't do crystal meth. It really is bad for your health." See Methamphetamine#Adverse effects. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: you have emphasized that global is used even if local contradicts it but that local is used when thre is no global, and the policy>guideline>essay hierarchy. I don't see where you have stated with link what the relevant global guideline is that overrules the RefDesk local guideline about medical advice. Do we have a guideline that says something like "it's okay to give advice, even medical advice as long as it likely to be considered harmful"? DMacks (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that "global is used even if local contradicts it but that local is used when there is no global" is incorrect. The actual policy is "on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account." There is a global consensus that certain specific things are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia and that anybody wishing to add to that list, whether they want to forbid Depictions of Muhammad, Xenu, calling pseudoscience pseudoscience, or giving medical advice, must first go through the standard procedure for suggesting changes to Wikipedia policies.

You appear to be taking the position that unless Wikipedia's policies and guidelines explicitly allow something a handful of editors can forbid it. New rule: taking such a position is now forbidden, so please stop doing that. (If other people can make up rules and act as if they are actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines, why can't I?) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#What the reference desk is not there is the following advice: However, general medical and legal questions ("What is sleep apnea?", "What is the role of the U.S. President in making laws?") are fine.

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Why? there is the following advice: The purpose is to avoid doing harm to readers by advising them on medical issues—either because the advice is dangerous or because it discourages them from seeing a medical professional. Dolphin (t) 13:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to a non-policy that Wikipedia's real policies say has "no more status than an essay". Your point being? The part about avoid doing harm to readers is also found in an actual policy (WP:TPOC), but of course not all medical advice is harmful and discouraging someone from seeing a medical professional isn't always harmful either. Example: Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. That's a total waste of time. Your doctor will tell you that crystal meth will screw up your health. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI for violating your made-up rule. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Homework policy

There are now many sites on the internet where students can get help without any requirement to show any effort, e.g. here: "Here you can ask reddit to do your homework assignments. There's no need to show effort or attempt to learn anything."

It's therefore better if we got rid of our policy because students will go to these other sites if we don't help them, so there is no gain by not providing the students help if they don't show effort. But by providing help in comprehensive way the student is likely going to learn more than if only answers are posted without much explanation. So, we then do make a difference by providing help to lazy students. Count Iblis (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Count Iblis makes a very good point. How about replacing the advice (not an actual Wikipedia policy) to not answer homework questions with some carefully worded advice that basically says to help them in such a way that you are helping them to learn rather than handing them the answer on a silver platter? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of evidence that homework doesn't affect outcomes, so why should Wikipedians worry about whether a kid might be taking a shortcut and asking for help here? Either they are shortchanging themselves, or they are learning the answer by reading. Maybe they'll remember it better if they learn it here? Abductive (reasoning) 07:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)