Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only.

Please post general questions on the relevant reference desk.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.

Please do not discuss general policy/guideline proposals on this talk page

We are currently drafting a proposal at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.
Please discuss those issues on its associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.

Archives (dates are close, not exact)
(1) Jan 1-Sep 15 '04	(2) Feb 1-Nov 13 '04
(3) Mar 20 -Aug 17 '05	(4) Aug 19-Aug 30 '05
(5) Sep 4-Sep 18 '05	(6) Sep 25-Dec 3 '05
(7) Dec 10-Jan 9 '06	(8) Jan 9-Jan 19 '06
(9) Jan 19-Mar 27 '06	(10) Apr 2-Aug 2 '06
(11) Aug 9-Sep 20 '06	(12) Sep 21-Oct 22 '06
(13) Oct 21-Nov 1 '06	(14) Nov 1-Nov 11 '06
(15) Nov 9-Dec 4 '06	(16) Dec 5-Dec 11 '06
(17) Dec 11-Dec 13 '06	(18) Dec 13-Dec 16 '06
(19) Dec 15-Dec 19 '06	(20) Dec 19-Dec 31 '06
(21) Jan 01-Jan 09 '07	(22) Jan 09-Jan 18 '07
(23) Jan 18-Jan 31 '07	(24) Jan 31-Feb 13 '07
(25) Feb 13-Feb 28 '07	(26) Mar 01-Mar 13 '07

Color?

Did we ever decided which color scheme we were going with?--VectorPotential^Talk 19:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Copied from the archive for continuing discussion.. we need more suggestions --froth^t 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion? Basically Grey Edit 1 (slightly blue), or Basically Grey (no edit). Or Au Naturale (by Amp'd). Guroadrunner 07:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I need you to help choose a color scheme for our new RD style. Propose a new style here by following the instructions below. If you don't feel confident about hex RGB, leave comments and I'll tweak existing styles to fit your specifications and add them as new proposals. --froth^T 01:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Instructions for Proposing

1. Go to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/colors and edit the page
2. Tweak the options to create your own style. If there's nothing there, just edit the first revision from History to reload the options.

• headingbg is the background color of the heading blocks
• mainbg is the background color of the content blocks
• highlightbg is the background color of the "current desk" highlight box in the navigation column
• headborder is the border color of the heading blocks
• mainborder is the border color of the content blocks
• highlightborder is the border color of the "current desk" highlight box in the navigation column
• navlinks is the color of the large links in the nav box and "See other" box.
• dottedlines is the color of the dashed lines in the middle of the leftside column

3. Save your changes. This will not affect the actual reference desks. Be sure to give it a descriptive name in the edit summary.
4. Copy the URL of your revision from the "Permanent link" option in the toolbox on the left or from the page history.
5. Post the link to your revision below using the format started by me.

Proposals

1. Basically Grey by froth^T 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Basically Grey Edit 1 (slightly blue) per suggestions from User:MacGyverMagic by froth^T 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Basically Grey Edit 2 (blueberry blue) per suggestions from User:VectorPotential by froth^T 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Green & Purple Mutes No.1 − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Plain White by User:VectorPotential
6. Orangey by AMP'd
7. Au Naturale by AMP'd
8. Peachy by AMP'd
9. Orangey Mark II - Mutes by AMP'd
10. Green No. 1 by AMP'd
11. Slate Blue No. 1 by AMP'd

Comments and suggestions

Leave comments here --froth^T 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say the slightly blue is the best followed by the grey. I'm not keen on the blueberry. David D. (Talk) 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Basically Grey (No edit). The grey is somewhat bland yet not distracting. I find the slightly blue does not contrast enough with the blue links. The blueberry blue is just too dark for my tastes and contrasts too much with the page. --The Dark Side 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  Please, put up your own proposals! --froth^T 07:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I enjoy blueberry the most, followed by the original greyness. The slightly blue has an ugly inharmony between the colour of the links and the colour of the background. Yuck! I think The Dark Side is right that the blueberry contrasts, but I think that is a good thing for us! Unfamiliar users will be drawn by the contrast, and so be more likely to read it before asking a question. Besides that, I will suggest having unique colours for each desk. Though they should all be muted colours. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  I've added an example (#4, Green & Purple Mutes) to encourage some colour schemes outside of the grey-blue palette. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• How about a plain white background, seems like this would maximize the contrast between the writing and the backdrop. Although I kind of like the idea of giving each desk a different color--VectorPotential^Talk 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• As per suggestion by Twas Now. This will do very well. Clio the Muse 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I vote for Green & Purple Mutes. :). --Parker007 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Slightly blue for me. Rockpocket 02:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• How about a warm pale orange. I have hexadecimal color editing dysfunction, so I can't draw one up myself, but I might mess around and try to get some example colors. - AMP'd 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So I overcame my inability and edited the page, but I think anyone else who is unable to mix colors will enjoy ColorBlender, which allows you to mix color combinations. - AMP'd 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if anyone cares anymore, but I've been working hard on toning my color schemes down, and input would help. - AMP'd 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The easiest way to do it IMO is to just edit the hex digits by hand. The first octet is red, the second is green, the third is blue. Of course each octet is a number from 00 to FF. You can also just use a single hex digit for each component and it will expand: #000 becomes #000000, #abc becomes #aabbcc. Higher values in a component will add more value to that color's channel. To get an overall brighter shade without changing the color, add the same thing to each component- subtract for a darker shade. Remember your hex arithmetic- 9+1=A and on up. I suggest cooler colors- warm colors are virtually nowhere to be found on wikipedia.. or the entire internet for that matter (with the possible exception of red). --froth^t 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Also remember you can change the color of the links --froth^t 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I figured that if I changed the link color, people would have to search for the hyperlinks. - AMP'd 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Ya'll are talking about making the ref desk have a different color scheme than the rest of Wikipedia? I don't see why this is helpful. Don't we risk making these pages less accessible? Friday (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We plan to change the colors of the boxes containing important instructions, not the colors of the desks themselves. - AMP'd 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• I like all of them except the ones incorporating green, yellow, and the white one. :) Does that even help? [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It helps because now I know that only one of my efforts worked out. Oh well, 1/56 is OK. - AMP'd 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing Questions and use of the question title for personal attacks -- now with APOLOGY to Dweller and corrected name

my apologies for misidentifying/nameswitching here and elsewhere. I have tried to make the needed changes everywhere, and owe Dweller a HUGE plate of virtual brownies or something for the misplaced accusation. The actual party I am concerned with here is DILIGENT, aka Leasing Agent, Barringa, and a whole bunch of other names.

I freely admit I changed the title to a recent question on the Humanities desk to note that a question was not a "reference question" -- technically accurate (it was not), though I have made my apologies for mishandling that in the question itself. This was not the place for trying to pre-empt what I SAW as trolling; I stand corrected, and thanks to JackofOz for his support.

BUT a user called Dweller Diligent then changed the title again to say, in essence "Jfarber, stop changing my titles and my TALK PAGE", and using my name. The history of Dweller DILIGENT 's talk page is clear: the only "edit" I made there was to ADD a plea I stand by. I can learn to live with what I FEEL is constant trolling. The personal, public attack, I cannot let sit.

I believe I have been unduly harsh, but not personal; I believe I have been true to WP:TPG, and struggle even here to make this a query about WHETHER this is crossing the line, and if so, what recourse does wikipedia offer. I believe Dweller DILIGENT has not been true to many of the community standards, and egregiously so, but I ask for a third-party audit of that.

I ask the desk folks to please consider whether or not, from a third party perspective, it does indeed look as if Dweller Diligent has personally libeled me in public (clearly intending to make it look like I was erasing or changing HIS words or talk pages inappropriately), an ad hominem attack I have not yet stooped to. I will happily "take" a suggestion if I am equally to blame for the escalation, but can't tell from my own subective and angered standpoint. But, if others agree that someone has clearly stepped over a line, I'd ask this: what can we do about it? As I said on Dweller DILIGENT 's talk page, I DO want my students, and other students, to see the ref desks as a safe place; I do maintain that Dweller Diligent has made this place unsafe for any but the most mature and confident of adults, and am trying to present this as factual, not as a whine. Is there recourse? Am I mad, overreacting? Please advise.

(I would not have put this here, save that it has been happening here -- if this belongs somewhere else, please, by all means, move it, and let me know where it's gone, or teach me, that I might follow the thread. Thanks in advance, folks.) Jfarber 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find you've fallen for someone impersonating me. I suspect this is what Sluzzelin has been talking about at my talk page. --Dweller 10:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's odd, I can't see why you think it was me in the first place? --Dweller 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Dweller who made the change, Jfarber. Look at the edit history: it was Diligent/Leasing Agent (aka Barringa/Nocterne/Rabbi Benton etc. etc.) Clio the Muse 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

::My sincere apologies for confusing the usernames. Folks, the person in question is DILIGENT, not Dweller. I feel awful for pointing in the wrong direction -- please help me correct it. Original query/concern, directed towards the user noted above as (most recently) DILIGENT still stands. Jfarber 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

More on Archiving.

Has the automation process stalled again? Clio the Muse 05:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like RefDeskBot (talk · contribs) stalled halfway through the 16 March 2007 archive--VectorPotential^Talk 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• No and yes, in that order :). The toolserver lost its internet connection for a moment last night (or was shutting down), so the bot was unable to finish. I'll bring it back up to date now, and the bot should operate perfectly tonight. Martinp23 17:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we support UNsigned posts?

Recently, on the ref. desks, user 81.144.161.223 has proudly proclaimed that he/she does not sign his posts but has been active "for 6 months"; a look at his/her talk page suggests ongoing marginal behavior and a recent 24-hour block for trolling (March 9).

I'd not complain, but I think it's both against policy and MUCH harder to follow the deskthread without signage, and the PIQ (person in question) has answered "no" to all requests for signage. Can something be done / should it? Any admins want to extend the block? Thanks for helping this newbie learn the protocols & ropes... Jfarber 15:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what could be gained by forcing someone to sign their posts, this isn't exactly a talk page, it's a reference desk, and I'm not really sure what's the harm in someone posting anonymously. Besides, this page is monitored by hangermanbot so all posts are automatically signed, sometimes they're even signed multiple times if/when the bot gets confused. Although it does seem as though they might be a troll, I'm not sure this has any connection to the issue of forcing users to sign their posts, and while a block for trolling *might* be in order, a block to force a user to sign their posts is a bit extreme--VectorPotential^Talk 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A look at the pages in questions shows that the bot is NOT signing this person's posts -- not sure why, but see the Misc. desk for multiple and ongoing examples. I agree that, IF hangermanbot were working, this would not matter, but the person involved seems to have deliberately subverting the bot recognition somehow, and insistently so, solely for the purpose of being able to act without even IP-based recognition.

As for WHY it matters -- visually, it makes it impossible to tell which information was added when, and by whom, in those reference desk queries as the answers pour in. This can make answers themselves less useful, and certainly erodes the clarity potential of the desks themselves.

In the best case, then, the prevalence of unsigned posts is merely confusing, which may corrupt the potential of the desk to serve those who most need such a desk. But in the worst case (and in many recent cases), it makes it appear as if those words were part of the subsequent user's post. I believe the person in question is aware of this problem; they have chosen to refuse to sign despite several users' friendly requests in those questions. Jfarber 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"..deliberately subverting the bot recognition" I don't think that's actually possible, hangermanbot scans page histories and then looks for timestamps, the only way to subvert that process is to provide a date in (UTC), ie, signing your name is the only way to deliberately subvert the bot (: VectorPotential^Talk 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Eppure si muove. All I can do is point you to the desks, where it is unquestionably true that the same user (we presume) is all over the place, with unsigned posts. (Perhaps the user in question is coming in immediately after botsigning and deleting the bot's work? But regardless of HOW, the problem is that it is happening.) Jfarber 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Example, for those interested in seeing this -- start at that link and then go through the next few desk queries following; you'll see the phenom I'm describing in action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.249.241 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Not signing just isn't that big of a deal, if it really bothers you, you could always manually tag them with either {{signed}} or {{unsigned}}--VectorPotential^Talk 01:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not signing is a very big deal. I have spent time identifying unsigned posts, and sometimes it takes a while to scroll through the history and find the poster, especially if they did not create the header for their question. There are trolls who drop in here and ask a bunch of questions that are wierd, or insulting to some nationality. Before Ref Desk volunteers spend time Googling for an answer or dashing off to a university library to find an answer it is worth knowing if the questioner is seriously in need the information or is just yanking our chain with a mass of bizarre or insulting questions.Sometimes a personn really needs or wants the information, and sometimes it is a troll who posts a dozen such questions with no desire but to provoke angry responses or to see people waste their time providing referenced answers the questioner has little real interest in. It is useful to see that such a question is from a troll so that we can spend our time answering more serious questions. Edison 16:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To opt out of being signed you just go here and click "Stop watching me". --froth^t 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they aren't that big a deal. Sure they can be a pain, and I would be interested in examining a positive, non-punitive solution to the issue. Ultimately, it is the choice of each editor to respond to a question or not; I have read many comments by RD editors that their answer is not just for the person who asked, but for other readers. Therefore, the relative importance of the good faith of the original poster is diminished. Sure, I sometimes get pissed when I realise an editor whose question I took the time to answer is a troll, but IMO the issue of trollish or unconstructive answers to trolling (or non-trolling) questions is much more of an issue. I think that if an editor can't either answer a question in good faith and release it to the universe, or good-naturedly take the time to determine themselves the identity of a poster before responding, they should restrict their answers to identified, manifestly good-faith questioners. Anchoress 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Anchoress, you seem to have misunderstood two things about my concerns:

• First, this issue is NOT about people who ASK questions and do not sign posts, and
• second, the issue here is about creating clarity for all reference desk users and querents; it is NOT about RD volunteer confusion/frustration, but about user/querent confusion, and, ultimately, about the effectiveness and usability of the desks themselves.

Let me clarify, then. I recognize that many people asking questions may not even know to sign their posts; my concern is not with them. I recognize that, like Edison says, it is annoying to some folks to spend time researching, only to find that they have been sent on wild goose chases; I sympathise, but my concern is not Edison's (for example, Edison would prefer not to waste his time on trolls, where I seem to have a habit of spending far too MUCH time with Trolls, as my recent history surely shows).

My concern is that the reference desk is not primarily for us volunteers, but for querents...and that answers which are harder to follow by people who are NOT RD volunteers are less useful answers, which means the desk is less effective. Period.

That confusion with which I concern myself doesn't generally come up, incidentally, in the case you assume to be the concern here -- ie. when the original questioner has not signed their post. If the person(s) in question are only ASKING questions, in fact, my concern about answer clarity doesn't even come up. But in the middle of an answer SET, an unsigned (and unbotted) comment/answer, or, worse, several of them, makes it unlear who is saying what. This is especially true when the person in question (and it's just ONE person) is sticking answers between existing questions and answers that already exist, because we cannot assume the person who needs the answer has seen the thread by then, and the lack of timestamp can make the good-faith answer and the good-faith question separate, and thereby become less comprehensible. In the case I am concerned with, a commenter has atually stuck in one word answers in the midst of a discussion, and in between several statements under one single signature. All these strategies make the thread disrupt, and make answers FOR those same people we might hope ask questions...harder to get to, for those questioners.

The problem isn't me, and your projected assumption that I want only to talk with people who identify themselves; I could care less. The problem is clarity for querents, not for US, the folks who would come to the talk page in the first place. I thought the reference desk was here to serve people who might need help, which can mean people who are not familiar with the way that wikiresponses thread out; anything which goes against stated policy AND which makes answers harder to follow undermines the very potential for the RDs to be useful, doesn't it? As such, my concern is making those answers readable and most accessible to everyone -- not to the volunteers who have the skills and knowledge to work around or ignore people determined to disrupt and obscure. (sorry for length here, folks -- I have only enough time to go long, not tighten my language, today...)Jfarber 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then let me clarify; I don't have a problem with people who don't sign their posts. That's it. You can ignore anything else I said that doesn't apply to you and your concerns; and BTW just because my comments do not address your concerns as you feel you stated them does NOT mean I didn't understand your post. I am coming to this discussion late, and making general comments, synthesising my responses to other comments with my own additional observations. Perhaps you didn't understand that. Anchoress 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough -- apologies for mistaking your use of the word "question" as a misunderstanding of the bigger issue rather than a response to other peoples' specific reference to unsigned questions. The clarification is useful.

Might I note that the reason I misunderstood where/ to whom your comments applied was that your indent didn't "thread" or indent as if it were a response to Edison, but to the original post here? Perhaps my concern that such things matter is misprojected; perhaps such issues as organization and signage only confuse me. Maybe the medium is not the message here. I just thought it would be clearer for others, and not just me, if it were. Jfarber 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If the anon editor is refusing to sign and then tacking their answers onto others' to purposely confuse readers then lets take action for purposeful disruption. If not then its hard to see what basis one could act. Rockpocket 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rockpocket -- That's exactly the concern I have. Though I believe that confusion is not ideal, and seem to have gotten bogged down in defending that, I believe the refusal of this user to sign edits despite being asked repeatedly is indeed deliberately designed to confuse readers...and I believe this because ONLY by actively working to erase signatures is it possible to circumvent the bot. SHOULD we assume deliberate bot circumvention is a sign of dishonesty? Why else would someone work so hard to circumvent what should be an automatic signing process by the bot? Thanks for simplifying. Jfarber 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make a change so that posts are signed automatically? I don't know how realistic this is, but wouldn't that fix the issue? 68.231.151.161 06:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems not -- as long as there is a way to opt out of or circumvent that change. Looking into the newer additions to the thread above, I see that a) a bot currently signs posts automatically, but b) there is at least one legitimate way to opt out of this, and at least one sneaky way to post without signing/autosigning. Here, though -- I'll NOT sign so we can see the bot in action: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfarber (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

...and now I'll try circumventing the bot, so we can see it in action:

Ok, so from the above it appears that it is possible to opt out, but this particular editor does not have their IP on the opt out list, so is there another way to circumvent the bot signing your comments. WP:BEANS notwithstanding, could you let me know (by email perhaps) how this is done? If an anonymous editor is purposely circumventing the bot for no good reason, and this is leading to confusion then I'm willing to act for disruption. Rockpocket 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No beans nessesary, the explanation is simple, bots aren't human beings, they have no way of knowing whether they're doing right, or wrong, from time to time they miss edits, or get otherwise confused, there is no way I know of to deliberately circumvent Hangermanbot, deliberate being the key word, sometimes it just misses edits, I'd hate to see us start to penalize users just because a bot is less than perfect--VectorPotential^Talk 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thats good to know. It appears some of this editor's comments are signed by the bot anyway, so it seems highly unlikely he or she is deliberately circumventing the process. I'll ask the editor nicely if, considering how active he or she is, he or she would possibly consider signing out of good faith. That seems all we can do at the moment. Rockpocket 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned inquiries galore

I see that some are getting into a fret over this. My own unscientific survey awhile and several times ago suggests that unsigned inquiries and for that matter red sigs usually don't bother to come back for our pearls of wisdom and are typically a first edit. Every now and again I add sigs to the anon inquirys and then check back just to satisfy my own curiosity about all that; too much time on my hands some would say. Anyway, please don't fret or add any new rules please. If the bot doesn't add a sig then do it yourself, that's what I do now and again. Please don't make another big deal out of something as frivolous as an RD missing sig or, if it's important to you then take a few seconds an add {{unsigned}} to satisfy your need for exactness. It helps me at those frustrating times when I have a need to rag on someone (Heidi also says thanks).  ;-) --hydnjo talk 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Violent contribution

Could users sensitive to these matters have a look at the juvenile garbage posted by 220.239.107.13 on the 'Why people like violence' thread (item 3.2, 17 March) and tell me if this is legitimate contribution or not? My inclination was to flush it, but I have no wish to do so without consensus. Clio the Muse 14:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked the user to rephrase; see here. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive...and starting to use the ref desk as an example of Web 2.0 for middle school students, so thanks for your attention, both of you! Jfarber 18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot scalping!

I see the automated bot has completely scalped the Humanities RD. All the introductory information has been removed, as well as the QAs for 17 March. Clio the Muse 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd hoped it had stopped doing that, give me a second, I'll sort everything out--VectorPotential^Talk 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed--VectorPotential^Talk 00:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Clio the Muse 00:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is *really* weird. Currently the bot is running on the toolserver, so it's not easy for me to monitor what it's doing. I'll take a look tonight if I have the time. Martinp23 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More scalping tonight! All of the desk preamble has vanished. This is just on the Humanities RD. Clio the Muse 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed again--VectorPotential^Talk 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a Wikiforum?

There seems to be an endless controversy concerning whether even the most civil of debate is appropriate for the RefDesk. I'm completely for it, as I find debate to be a great tool for learning, yet the RefDesk guidelines, as well as many editors, seem to be totally against the RefDesk being used in such a manner.

For example a little while back someone asked a question something along the lines of: "If you were to start a new society, and could bring three books with you, which ones would you choose?" One editor objected that this wasn't a valid RefDesk question, and according to the strictest interpretation of wiki's guidelines, indeed he was right. Yet another user disagreed, basically saying: "Whoa! Wait a minute, this may not strictly be a Refdesk question, yet it's still an interesting one, and I'd be interested in hearing some responses!".

Now I realize that the RefDesk isn't meant to be a blog, or an internet forum, and if people feel strongly enough about keeping it strictly as "wikipedia's version of a library RefDesk", then I suppose they have a point.

The problem, however with blogs and internet fora is that their quality and the quality of their contributors is nowhere near as high as is so at the RefDesk, on top of the fact that very often they're no more than one topic "rah-rah-rah" places for people who already agree on a certain specific ideology or POV to gather together and all gripe about the same thing, and basically support each other in advancing whatever POV they all already agree on.

What I was thinking, is that with all of wiki's branches, such as wikipedia, wikiquote, wiktionary, wikisummaries, etc. Perhaps it would be a good idea to create some sort of "wikiforum", a place where it's totally ok to debate with people with a variety of intelligent yet diverse POVs, with the added feature that we can just as always provide hyperlinks to wiki articles, yet a place where civil debate, even perhaps civil soapboxing is not only not discouraged, but actually encouraged, rather than constantly being labeled as some sort of terrible transgression. After all, while soapboxing may certainly be inappropriate in certain decidedly NPOV fora, soapboxing in and of itself is not a bad thing.

Any ideas? Who'd like to see the creation of a brand new branch of wikipedia called "wikiforum" for all of us who are just plain addicted to debating interesting topics, without constantly being harrassed that our predelictions for such debate are "inappropriate", and that the RefDesk is but a dull place for simply answering people's questions without being allowed the joy of what I consider to be the ultimate learning experience -- that being debate?

Just a thought. Tell me what you guys think. Loomis 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful! Though I'd like it if the RD doubled as a "proper" reference desk and a place where interesting debate took place. I don't see anything wrong with that. —LestatdeLioncourt 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would indeed be interesting if you found another place people could go to chat about these things. I personally feel it is inappropriate here, since not allowing such soapboxing and debate is what has made the reference desks such relatively high quality places, with high quality contributors. If such things were allowed here, I suspect they would end up as troll-filled and unenlightening as many message boards. I've known boards and forums that started off as lovely places, formed by refugees from other boards, with idealistic structures and beliefs in allowing anything to be posted without censorship, relying on community response, or lack thereof, to deal with problems. They were truly lovely places, for a few months, then they deteriorated. A few, loud, forceful people ended up monopolising most discussions, leading to those with differing opinions to stop bothering, to go somewhere else for their chat. Eventually the sites were just like most, little shoutboxes for people to agree with each other and say nasty things about those who disagree. I do not want this to happen to the reference desks. So, by all means, create somewhere like a wikiforum. I'd probably join in, at least while it's still nice. But please, let's keep the reference desks lovely places. If answering questions is really so dull, why are any of us here? Skittle 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of us are here because we're breaking the rules! The "incest" debate, the "Jesus" debate, the "three books" debate ... are these really the type of things that would go on at a real life library RefDesk?

You make some very valid points, Skittle. Yet I'm not so sure you fully understand my proposition. The type of "Wikiforum" I'm proposing wouldn't be a simple free-for-all. With the exception of the "no debating" and perhaps the "no soaboxing" rules of the RefDesk, all other features would still apply, such as civility, no personal attacks, oversight by admins, no clearly offensive or trollish behaviour allowed, "don't feed the trolls" ... etc. And when I speak of soapboxing, the POV being pushed would have to be a civil one as well. Offensive soapboxing would of course be banned. If you're concerned with the existing RefDesk, I can only see it as benefiting, as all us debaters would have a more suitable place to debate, and the RefDesk would finally begin to resemble what it was originally intended for, that being "Wikipedia's version of a library RefDesk". Loomis 19:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care at all where is the right place for "interesting debate", as long as people understand that it's not on Wikipedia. The creation/location of s suitable place for it can happen completely independently from removing inappropriate content from Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. By "Wikipedia" are you referring strictly to Wikipedia proper, or to all the other wikis as well (Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisummaries etc)? Even if you're referring to Wikipedia proper, why is debate considered as being so awful and so terribly inapropriate? Is it because Wikipedia is strictly an online encyclopedia? If so, to be consistent, the entire RefDesk would have to be removed. A reference desk belongs in a library, not an encyclopedia. Since when is Wikipedia a library? Loomis 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are plenty of such forums on the internet (eg MozZine.org, ZDNet, CNet). Wikipedia isn't the most effective forum tool by any means. Xiner (talk, email) 02:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Much agreed. I'd like to see what Loomis is talking about, a place where people can soapbox a bit and others will listen attentively, or pose arguments if they feel like it. Of course, there would need to be some kind of set of rules that would keep this from turning into a regular message board (again, as Loomis said, against trolling, personal attacks, and other annoying behavior). V-Man - ^T/_C 02:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Opinionated discussion is completely contrary to the purpose of the project. Why don't you create your own forum or wiki and have your debates there. Those that are interested can join you and you will get the level of debate you are interested in. Rockpocket 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what was being said; a Wikimedia project outside of Wikipedia where soapboxing could belong. V-Man - ^T/_C 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm only proposing that it be done within the "wiki" world because wiki is so effective at generating the highest quality, most civil and most intelligent editors. Without the support of the wiki ground rules and structure, there'd be no point in starting up some sort of debating forum, as I have no doubt it would simply degenerate into a place for ignorant ideologues to push their offensive POV's, which is not what I'm looking for at all. To clarify, what I'm looking for is a forum which would be officially NPOV, yet would be ok with civil debate by all sides on intelligent topics. Perhaps what I'm proposing may be unrealistic in that it would inevitably degenerate into yet another chaotic and uncivil "shoutbox" as Skittle put it, and if that's the case I'd surely withdraw my proposition, as that's obviously not what I'm looking for. However assuming it could work, I don't understand the resistance to it. Wiki has been innovative in so many areas. I absolutely loathe all those other "shoutboxes", and that's why I come here to interact with intelligent civil people. Perhaps my idea is just just a pipe-dream, but if it could actually work, what's so wrong with giving it a try? Loomis 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Loomis's idea. Re Friday's I don't care at all where is the right place for "interesting debate", as long as people understand that it's not on Wikipedia - I must disagree. The Ref Desk may not be the right place, but Wikipedia has plenty of tentacles already, so why not create a different Wiki-place where people can just talk about stuff, free of the sometimes irritating shackles of the Ref Desk. JackofOz 13:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There are the notorious IRC channels (of which I know close to nothing, apart from the tremendous uproar they have occasionally caused within the community). Or you could run a sandbox test, Wikipedia:Sandbox/Discussion_Forum e.g. I have to say though, that this sandbox version's chances of survival might be very slim. WP:WASS, a sandbox "game" with various spin-offs to which I used to enjoy contributing, gets nominated for deletion every so often, and the only reason some of it has managed to remain undeleted (sofar), is that it could be demonstrated, that it can and occasionally does help improve the encyclopedia directly. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand Loomis' ideal, but I think it is a pipedream. My understanding of debate is inherently incompatible with WP:NPOV. The questions you appear interested in debating ("If you were to start a new society, and could bring three books with you, which ones would you choose?") require a personal opinion to be stated by the respondents. However civil such a debate might be, it most certainly isn't NPOV, and so in that sense it is incompatible with Wikipedia. There may well be a place for a forum where individuals can discuss opinion in a civilised manner within the Wikimedia foundation, but I don't think it will work. The reason the "debate" here is so civilised is because it isn't encouraged or even permitted (depending on your interpretation of our policies). So only the most erudite stated opinions tend to be tolerated because they are deemed to have educational value. As soon as you encourage opinion to be stated, this place would fill up with the same tedious armchair philosophy as any other discussion forum on the web. Is that intellectually snobbish? Probably. But its also realistic. Rockpocket 17:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Loomis' idea. As for violating NPOV, there are two ways to have a neutral POV. One is to require that every statement be NPOV, the other is to include as many POVs as possible, such that the aggregate is NPOV. Teaching proper debating methods would be quite valuable, as such skills seem to be sorely lacking in modern society, and even here, where responders have resorted to arguments from authority and other logic errors in the past. StuRat 03:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your mom. V-Man - ^T/_C 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see an analogy with a traditional encyclopedia, eg. the EB. While the content of EB may be required to conform with all manner of quality-related rules, the people who write it obviously engage in discussion amongst themselves, and not necessarily always about the subjects they're writing about right now. Why can't we have a similar forum for discussion about whatever takes our fancy, while at the same time striving to continue to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia the universe has ever known. Sure, any one of us can contact anyone else on their user page or by email, and talk about whatever we like. What Loomis is proposing is a simple extension of that existing right, to include more than 2 people at a time. JackofOz 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You should take a quick look at the two MfD's for Esperanza and the Coffee lounge MfD to get an idea of just how much objection there is to such fora within Wikipedia.—eric 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Much agreed. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia. However, I believe the proposition is for such to be outside Wikipedia... V-Man - ^T/_C 05:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, it would appear that despite those who support the idea, there are still far too many who for reasons I still can't understand, are dead-set that even the most civil of debate "has no place in Wikipedia". I still think it would be a great idea, and I'd support anyone who'd be willing to take on the project. As for me, though, there's apparently far too much objection to the idea, and I'm truly in no mood, nor do I have the energy to voluntarily enter into yet another situation of great contention. However, once again, should anybody wish to take this proposed project on, you will of course have my full support. Loomis 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't get it, please see Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For those that don't get what I'm talking about, once again, I'm not talking about Wikipedia, I'm talking about Wikimedia. For example, Friday's above link mentions that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yet surely Wiktionary is a dictionary, is it not? Loomis 11:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If they decide they want to spend their money on providing a chat board, by all means, go use that chat board. I doubt they will, as their purpose is educational. Until they do, or unless you're looking for a plan on how to present this idea to them, what is there to talk about? Friday (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to get all this straight, Friday. Right now you're debating about the fact that there's no place for debate at Wikipedia. Apparently your argument is that any form of argument at Wikipedia should be forbidden. Your POV is that Wikipedia should be completely NPOV. Do I have it all right? And of course, though this is off topic, I'll add it because it seems to nicely follow your apparent fondness for irony: You tell me that due to my alleged personal attacks, I'm unwelcome at Wikipedia and contribute nothing of relevance. Are you even capable of any comments that aren't self-contradictory? Loomis 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As for your implication that debate serves no educational purpose, along with myself, one of the greatest philosophers to ever exist would seem to completely disagree with you on that one. The Socratic Method posits that debate is by far the most effective tool for learning. However if you indeed prefer that dullest of educational methods, that being learning by rote, then by all means: 2 x 3 = 6, 3 x 3 = 9, 3 x 4 = 12 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....oh, sorry, I must have fallen asleep. Loomis 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I should clarify. When people say "our opinions have no place in Wikipedia", this comes with a few exceptions. Our opinions about Wikipedia are very relevant, in user space or project space. Our opinions about how to improve an article are very relevant on that article's talk page. You have to understand what the different name spaces are for. Some of the things you claim I've said don't sound like anything I've said, to please be careful paraphrasing me. As for debate being a useful educational tool, certainly it can be, under the right circumstances. But this is hardly the place for it. And, the "debates" here tend to turn useless quickly- there's little point attempting to reason with someone who's more interested in being right than in reaching some workable solution. Friday (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I won't paraphrase, I'll quote you verbatim: "For what it's worth, I see very few useful contributions in his [Loomis'] history. Maybe it's best if he moves on? Friday (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)" WP:NPA? Nahhhh. How can I possibly be insulted by such a flattering statement? I must just be paranoid if I'm insulted when someone writes that I make "very few useful contributions"...and that I should probably "move on", right? Loomis 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have another suggestion to adress the problem besides the Wikiforum? The Wikimedia Foundation seems to have all the means needed to implement the Wikiforum, which seems to be most needed on the Internet. The Reference Desk constantly receives soapboxing and debates, as do the talk pages of the articles, and they are only finished because people feel constrained, they feel they can´t start talking too much or someone will come and say they're violating policy. The repressed demand for a Wikiforum is rather huge as far as I can see, and the value of this enterprise, if it works, would be a great one! If the Wikimedia Foundation implements it and for some reason we discover it just doesn´t work, the website can be deleted and that´s it. But imagine how great would it be a forum of the Wikimedia if it were as successful as Wikipedia! Imagine all the great ideas and debates that could exist there! Of course there would be problems, as there are and have been on Wikipedia. Imagine if 15 years ago someone had the idea of creating the Wikipedia, imagine how most people would react badly to this idea: there would've been infinite arguments against it! And now Wikipedia is what it is. A.Z. 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I support 100% the Wikiforum and I think it WILL be created one day and it will, in a short period of time after it´s created, become by far the biggest of the Wikimedia projects, with millions of users who don´t necessarily like editing an encyclopedia, but like to debate and learn through debate. A.Z. 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please make a userbox saying "This user supports the Wikiforum"? A.Z. 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just found out there have been many proposals for a Wikiforum on Wikimedia Meta, including many with this very name. One of them became a demo version called Wikireason (wikireason.net). I don´t know whether this version belongs to Wikimedia or not. The problem seems to be a lack of advertisement: the information is not getting where it should. We all who support the idea of a Wikiforum didn't know about this until now. My idea is that all of us coordinate our efforts to try to build a stable and big community that supports the idea of a Wikiforum. I don´t really know the best way to do that. I´m sure the starting community of the Wikiforum must be of users of Wikipedia, so we can start trying to gain supporters here and learn better how are new projects started on Wikimedia Meta. A.Z. 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work A.Z.! I don't know why m:Wikireason has not come to our attention before this. I feel Reference Desk contributors should immediately begin to support and advertise this Wikimedia project by removing opinion based responses and the few questions that seek only to generate debate, and pointing those editors to the appropriate place to make such contributions.—eric 21:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But the project has gone into hibernation: "the Wikireason project has made great progress, but has yet to establish a sustainable community." We need to help establishing such a community! Then we´ll be able to send all those debates and opinion questions directly to the Wikireason. Probably all debates taking place here on the Reference Desks will be enough to sustain the project for some time, generating each day more interest in the project and thus giving an incentive for Reference Desks contributors to go there to debate, soapbox and give their opinions. And eventually people will start asking questions there even before they come to the Reference Desks. The Reference Desks will become more of Reference Desks and people who want to debate, discuss, soapbox and find new things through conversation will have a nice place that accepts and embraces those things and has no policy forbidding original research and soapboxing! A.Z. 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can get Wikireason out of hibernation mode, it would be good to link to it from the main Ref Desk page. Right next to Computers, Science, Math, Humanities, Language, Entertainment, and Misc., we could have an Opinion Desk, which would actually send them to Wikireason. This would also help those who hate any opinion questions on the rest of the Ref Desk. Some work would need to be done to make Wikireason look like the Ref Desk, with automatic archiving, headers, etc. To start with, I'd just put one big debate page there, but it could be split into sub-pages if it grew large enough. Perhaps the first step would be to form a project to gather people willing to work on this. Sound like a good idea ? StuRat 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, per [1], "Wikireason is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation." Just to clarify, since it sounded like people were thinking there's a connection. But, of course, I'm not remotely suggesting people shouldn't use it, we should just be clear that it's just somebody's website, not a Wikimedia thing. Friday (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, if it's not associated with the Wikimedia Foundation, why is it discussed at Wikimedia ? [2]. StuRat 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Must have been set up by someone who also contributes on meta. A spin-off of sorts. Friday (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it, Stu. Don't bother. For what it's worth, I really don't see Friday contributing anything of value to Wikipedia. Maybe it's best if he moves on. I'm sure he's a great person, though. I just don't see anything positive in his contributions. Just to be clear, I'm not attacking the guy personally in any way, I'm just saying that his posts aren't worthy of response. I'm sure his vast repertoire of talents could be made of better use somewhere else, apparently, though, not here at Wikipedia. Good luck in all your future endeavours, Friday! Loomis 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Loomis, Loomis, Loomis. What will it take to convince you that this sort of childish sniping is beneath you? Didn't you learn anything from the Clio episode? Grow up! JackofOz 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I've learned. Haven't you noticed I haven't been around here much lately? The RefDesk used to be a fun, fascinating learning experience, but lately it's been going through a bit of a Lord of the Flies stage, or, to mix metaphores, a stage where the inmates are clearly running the assylum. But I have faith in Wikipedia. The problem will be fixed. I'm just on break until the rest of you guys figure out how to fix it. However for now, I have no interest in participating in this circus. Even what I've said right here is too much, as someone will surely find some guideline to twist into shape and accuse me of violating it. Oh well. I know I'm fully "grown up". I'm just waiting for the rest of the RefDesk to grow up. Loomis 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a POV desk? --The Dark Side 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's basically what I proposed. The problem is there is significant opposition to that within Wikipedia, which is why I suggest that the Opinion Desk/POV Desk should redirect to another wiki which encourages polite, moderated debate. The problem is in finding or creating that other wiki. StuRat 02:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I know this topic is kind of old, but since we were talking about Wikireason I emailed the guy that started it. He said it's in hibernation due to lack of users and he's got a lot of work to do in real life. He suggested we all take a look at Chains of Reason. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd redirect upon responding

I've responded to two questions at the Lang. desk in the last couple days and both times now the page that loads when I hit edit next to the question is the archive for that particular day (the day the question was posted). Why is this happening? Dismas|^(talk) 08:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It does that for me as well, but only on threads that are a few days old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this not happen when a particular day is on the threshold of archiving? Clio the Muse 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it has to do with bot archiving; the bot, to be safe, probably duplicates the information before deleting the otherwise extant version of the RefDesk. V-Man - ^T/_C 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the normal behavior when you edit a transcluded page. The only way to avoid it is to hold Shift or Control down when you pick edit, so your browser will open a new tab or window and leave the old one on the proper page. StuRat 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

More botched bottiness (?)

The entertainment desk now has questions from March 5 - 11, plus one question added today (March 20). Questions from March 12 thru 19 are gone. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Just saw that yesterday's question on TV shows somehow managed to sneak its way into March 10th. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• twas not the bot this time, at least not directly, all the bot did was duplicate the header(for some reason?), StuRat must have reverted to a much older revision by accident, either way, it's fixed now--VectorPotential^Talk 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (and apologies to Sir Bot) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Colo(ou)r collaboration... icon

Could the person responsible for placing the icon at the absolute upper right location please move it. I'm using Safari browser with Classic skin and the icon renders over the Go and Search buttons making them useless. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, is this any better?--VectorPotential^Talk 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC) nevermind, I've pulled the whole thing, we don't really need it anymore now that the discussion has been moved to the current page--VectorPotential^Talk 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fixed but note that the sine wave icon on your user page obscures in the same way. --hydnjo talk 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is {{RefDesk}} causing the same problem? or is it small enough not to get in the way?--VectorPotential^Talk 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, small enough to not obscure any functions. I don't know about any other skins though. --hydnjo talk 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

0:00 has come and gone..

I assume RefDeskBot is down for debugging? or did the database crash about an hour ago have some effect on toolserver?--VectorPotential^Talk 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole toolserver was/is dow, I'm afraid. Martinp23 06:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can any one help me how to build a UNICODE Website ?

Hi, This is Krishna Here. Can any one help me how to build a UNICODE websites.IF possible please send me a piece of code.Also, the Intial req to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krishna.logic (talk • contribs) 07:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Krishna, please put your question on the reference desk page, not this talk page. Thanks! Think outside the box 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed comment

I removed[3] a comment by Loomis and the resulting responses. A number of editors have asked him to cease this type of behavior yet he appears unable to do so.—eric 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I see very few useful contributions in his history. Maybe it's best if he moves on? Friday (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The hate campaign against me is relentless. I see I am now accused of 'Nazi Apologism'; yes, that's right. An apology was posted on my talk page not so long ago for persistent personal attacks (Mea Maxima Culpa). I suspected this to be worthless. Now I know for certain. Clio the Muse 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything unacceptable about his post; he stated his opinion, and others stated theirs. Perhaps it needed to be said that "while there were numerous causes of anti-Semitism, none of these causes justifies the Holocaust". StuRat 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No attempt was made to 'justify' the Holocaust. A bizarre misreading of my remarks was followed up by accusations elsewhere of 'Nazi Apologism.' Read the thread again, particularly what I wrote, very slowly, then you might begin to understand. Clio the Muse 06:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You statement that I have to read things very slowly to begin to understand them is a personal attack. When somebody has an opinion which differs from your own, that does not mean you should engage in personal attacks against that person. You obviously need to learn how to engage in a civil debate. StuRat 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You have an odd conception of a personal attack, Mr Rat. To suggest that someone read more slowly to aid their comprehension is one, but to accuse a person of being a 'Nazi Apologist' is seemingly not. Your remarks were so far from understanding the point that I thought that you really needed to go over the issue again, clause by clause, sentence by sentence, on the assumption that what you were saying was not born out of pure prejudice against me, but was simply based on an abscence of intellectual comprehension. This is not a matter of debate, and I really could not care less for your opinion, on this or any other issue. You are, in any case, Mr Rat, not the kind of individual that I would ever wish to engage in debate with. Clio the Muse 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And you are not the type of person I would ever wish to debate with, due to your immature use of personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you. StuRat 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions of random people on the internet are of little value to those seeking reliable information. (cf. your ridiculously ill-informed opinion on the evolution of curly hair from split ends, for a perfect example). When those opinions are thinly disguised attacks based on (mis)interpretations of other editors' contributions they become unacceptable. Rockpocket 07:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right after you complained about speculation on my part, you engaged in the exact same thing you accuse me of, speculating that blond hair developed due to "sexual selection" with absolutely no basis for that statement. StuRat 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong once again. I have provided sources for that theory. (e.g. Peter Frost, European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behaviour, 2005: "hair colour became popular as a result of the pressures of sexual selection on early European women".)

Give it up lads, my resources are unlimited, and I always win the contest.

We have been here before, StuRat. You propose some naive theory based on high-school level genetics, and someone who actually knows what they are talking about comes along and points out, with reliable sources, that your suggestions are misleading and inaccurate. Instead of simply accepting your conclusions are wrong and - God forbid perhaps removing the misleading content - you go on the attack in an attempt to distract attention for your comments. I suggest in future you take your opinions to a discussion board and leave answering questions you clearly do not know the answers to to those who either can, or can at least accept their own limitations. Rockpocket 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on many of your obvious limitations back at the Ref Desk. I would have liked to keep such comments off the Ref Desk, but, since you chose to viciously attack me there, I needed to defend myself there, as well. In the future, if you will respond politely, with "I disagree, because..." instead of engaging in personal attacks, it will be far better for the Ref Desk. StuRat 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Sluzzelin. When faced with a pathetic "use a spell-checker" attack in response to providing sourced, expert, informative material, you know its time to get out. I normally hate arguments from authority and have never mentioned it before on Wikipedia ever until now, but consider this: I have a PhD in pigmentation genetics, published a significant number of scholarly articles, I have individually written a featured article on the subject and I provided sources from the world experts in the field (most of whom I know personally) and I get told "your evidence is weak" from someone who provided no evidence whatsoever to back up a theory so simplistic one one might expect it from a highschooler. Could some one tell me how a Reference Desk could be any more dysfunctional?

It is one thing to ask people to refrain from commenting when they don't know what they are talking about. But beyond that, I just can't understand why some individuals can't accept withdrawing an unsourced opinion when it is demonstrated to be patently and obviously misleading. Its not that big an ask, honestly, since opinion is not what should be provided in the first place. Its the third time this has happened in response to StuRat's wild "theories" (albeit with perfect spelling, apparently), leaving me wondering what the point of trying to be accurate with contributions when they are shouted down by those who believe their opinion is as important as a sourced expert's. This leaves me with no motivation to continue here.

I'll leave with a open request for ideas at how we can stop the ongoing slide of this desk into a discussion forum of idiots for idiots; where we all chime in with our personal opinion on everything and anything then defend it to absurdity. It appears in the eyes of some people thats already what the desk is: "If you are so incapable of engaging in civil debate that you need to lie about what your opponent says" [4]. So we are considered "opponents" when we provide factual, sourced information counter to another contibutor's (unsourced) theories, and then are expected to "debate" such nonsense?

I've had enough. If I wanted to listen to blowhards making a puplic display of their own ignorance I'd hang out at the Fox News forums. When this place starts to resemble a Reference Desk again, when fact is valued over opinion, someone do me a favour and drop me a line at my talkpage. I'll be there practising my spelling. Rockpocket 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had any actual proof that my theories were wrong that would be one thing, but all you had is a reference to somebody else's speculation, hardly what qualifies as "proof". But, more importantly, it's the argument from authority method you use that's just like saying "I'm right because I'm an expert and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot". It is actually possible to disagree with someone and provide proof that they are wrong (or disagree without proof) without insulting the person with whom you have the disagreement. See how I handled a claim that the average passenger vehicle in the US gets only 12 mpg: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#CO2_recovery_method. I didn't at any point imply that this person was an idiot, nor should I. He may be wrong, but he still deserves to be treated with respect, regardless of his academic qualifications. StuRat 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How about actually reading the sources I provided before telling me I provided no proof:

"Overall, these neutrality tests [Hudson/Kreitman/Aguade and McDonald-Kreitman's tests] support our conclusion that the atypically high ratio of nonsynonymous to silent polymorphism in Europe and northern Asia reflects relaxed functional constraint, not positive selection.... There is no evidence that MC1R diversity outside Africa has been enhanced by [Darwinian] selection.... [but] it is feasible that assortative mating [i.e. sexual selection] for skin and hair color contributes."

And

"There is a popular hypothesis that fair skin [and hence hair] in Europeans has been positively selected. However, we found no statistical evidence that diversity has been enhanced by [Darwinian] selection, either in its apparently high levels or in its haplotype frequency–distribution patterns.

Is that authoritative enough proof for you, or would you like to see the genomic sequencing? And if you would be a little more gracious in accepting your comments are misleading, rather than desperately attempting to justify them by attacking reliable sources, others may treat you with a level of respect. I'm sure you will find some flaw in their analysis, or conjure up some reason why it doesn't apply to your specific theories, but thats my last word on the subject. Rockpocket 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1) It only says your theory "is feasible". That's hardly proof that it is correct. It also doesn't say that is the only feasible theory, or even the most likely theory.

2) One of the bits of "evidence" quoted earlier for sexual selection of blond and red hair was that it was more common in paintings than in the general population. The most likely reason for this, however, is that painters prefer unusual subjects. Otherwise we must conclude that individuals like the elephant man, who were heavily photographed because they were unusual, must also be the ideal mate.

3) And even if it is correct, there seems to be a lack of understanding that sexual selection is itself a result of Darwinian evolutionary pressure. Those individuals which prefer mates which have features which better equip them for survival are likely to pass those genes on to their offspring and thus have more offspring survive to reproduce. As I've stated before, there is an exception for sexual selection of "health indicators", like a male peacock's tail.

4) The statement "...we found no statistical evidence..." is also rather weak. That could very well mean that the evidence is there, they just didn't find it. A strong statement would be "we've found statistical evidence proving this theory is impossible..." (followed by the presentation of the actual evidence, as the word of an expert without the actual evidence is no more valuable that the word of anyone else, since we don't rely on arguments from authority here).

5) If you have evidence to present, it's your responsibility to do so, not to send me to read several books to see if I can find evidence to support your POV somewhere in them. StuRat 16:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stu, you may want to take the time to read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, though many of the concepts expressed in those pages do not apply to your edits—some do. Especially the characteristic: "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people", arguments which are very much contrary to the spirit and accepted guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Please, pull back from the brink.—eric 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I would rather that this whole sorry mess is quickly forgotten, like so many similar episodes. I have become largely immune to the incoherent, irrational and ugly remarks directed against me, which is not to say that I will tolerate them, whenever and wherever they are lodged. But there is another dimension to this which has so far escaped comment. The user who posed the question about the Vienna picture in the first place assumed that the venom was directed against him. This makes the offense, in my estimation, considerably worse. Clio the Muse 08:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring it would be the best thing to do at this point, and many users already familiar with the accusatory dynamics in question (or should I say statics?) wont bother to react anymore. But others might get hooked at first - Nazi apologism is one of those killer accusations you normally don't just walk past - and they might waste a lot of time reading diffs and posts, until they see how unfounded these accusations are. Now they not only wasted their time here, but might also feel they've been had. This isn't about "stating opinions" - no matter whether the target user feels victimized or not, accusations and insinuations of this kind are offensive to the community of readers and editors. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT interested in wading into any interpersonal issues here, but did want to note that as long as actual answers are not lost in the process, I fully support action which is done in the name of clarity, streamlining, and comfort for those who are NOT "the usual crowd", but who come by to ask questions and get clear reference assistance. It was this, I remind the regulars, that was my primary concern about unsigned (and unbotted) posts earlier in this space -- that allowing folks to circumvent the bot challenged acessibility, as it undermined the availability and clarity of answers for ref desk querents. I appreciate that this "dimension" may not have been the motivating factor for removal here, but I strongly agree with it as a motivating principle, and support ANY "thinning" of a conversation which is able to accomplish this without removing actual information relevant to the original question, or to subsequent sub-questions. As Sluzzelin says: accusations and insinuations are anti-community. If there is concern that someone might feel uncomfortable or baited, and a "no loss of relevant content" standpoint is defensible (as it is here), then I fully support removal (and appreciate talk page notification). I only wish I had the guts to do the same, sometimes. Jfarber 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! People! You're losing focus! I'm the "intellectually-impoverished-misogynistic-stalker/predator-character-assasinating-witch-hunting-nerdy-wanker-who 'makes very few useful contributions and who should probably move on'"! Are any of these epithets ascribed to me "personal attacks"? Why of course not! Haven't you heard of WP:NPA except upon Loomis? No? Well apparently it's a newly articulated guideline whereby it's ok to personally attack Loomis to one's heart's content, just no one else. And of course it's based on the most astute of axioms: "Loomis can do no right, and folks like Clio, Friday and Eric can do no wrong". Please, by all means! Continue! I really don't mind! I'm actually eagerly anticipating the next personal attack upon me that will inevitably go unnoticed. Can I offer a few suggestions perhaps? I don't believe I've yet been referred to as a cannibal, so there's one you can keep in mind. I think Clio once referred to me as a Neanderthal...but maybe not, so might as well throw that one at me too! Oh, and by the way, I might as well admit that one of my favourite pastimes consists of the torturing of kittens and puppies.

Look people, I ain't going nowhere. You're stuck with me. Sure, I suppose I can be permablocked, but seriously, we all know there are ways around that. Besides, it won't happen. I've got way too many good people behind me who just wouldn't stand for it.

So what's my crime? Daring to object to a few of Clio's statements? How awful of me! Everybody knows Clio is infallible, right? I've certainly come to accept that fact!

Someone actually asked an interesting question on my talkpage about all this. He asked: "How do you explain just why the Third Reich came to power?" At first I told him that being no psychiatrist, I'm utterly incapable of delving into the minds of madmen. But giving the question a bit more thought, I finally came to realize what I've been finding so disturbing about Clio's remarks. I finally came to realize that the fact that the Third Reich was allowed to come to be wasn't the fault of the Nazis. Yes the Third Reich itself was their fault. But why it was allowed to come to be was our fault. We fucked up.

There will always be madmen. However through constant diligence, these madmen will at best be treated by psychiatrists and confined to padded cells, and at worst be completely ignored as raving lunatics.

Yet to say such things as "Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism", or to "explain" the Third Reich as being the result of some sort of "outburst of bitterness and resentment", are to me, truly disturbing. They're disturbing because these are precisely the same attitudes prevailing in the free world that ultimately allowed the Nazi Nightmare to come about the first time around. Hearing these attitudes repeated by an apparent intellectual, well, frankly, that scares the shit out of me. I really don't know why Clio keeps saying these things, and I've just about given up on trying to figure it out. Whether it's based on true Nazi Apologism or just the innocent yet misguided naivité of an extremely intelligent young woman, letting her intelligence overwhelm her humility, I really have no clue. Yet I will not tolerate these statements being made. These were the very attitudes that led us to the abyss once, and as God is my witness, I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure these attitudes never again gain widespread acceptance. I've apologized like a zillion times already for my clumsy, anti-social attempts at desperately trying to get my point accross, but to no avail. Yet another apology would surely only come across as another disingenuous attempt to "win" some sort of non-existant ego battle. I don't know how many times, or in how many ways I can try to say this, but I'll try once more:

This is not about ego to me. It's about doing what I truly, deeply believe is the right thing to do. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU CLIO. As I said, I truly believe, that despite your very unkind and hurtful words to me, ones that you don't seem to be willing to even recognize, that you're an extremely intelligent, gifted young woman, and I truly wish you the best. However, should you continue to refuse to exercise even the slightest possible degree of introspection, your gift will be all but wasted. I hope you receive these words kindly.

Loomis 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I imagine any casual user coming across this will be completely perplexed by the above outpourings. Let me clarify. This arises from a single sentence of mine in a question of 21 March, dealing with Nazi treatment of the Jewish population in Vienna after the Anschluss. Amongst other things this is what I wrote: Since 1933 the Jews of Germany had experienced a steady escalation of anti-semitic measures: in Austria they came all at once, a combination of official policy and an outburst of resentment and hatred by the local Nazi movement. That's all. But this elicited a quite astonishing spin by User Loomis, to the effect that it was intended as a justification, or rationalisation, of Nazism and the Holocaust, which left a number of other users completely bewildered, and the person who posed the question feeling that he himself was under attack. I imagine just about everyone with any knowledge of the subject had the wit and insight to understand what I was saying. But let me simplify it still further. Under Chancellors Engelbert Dollfuss and Kurt Schuschnigg the Austrian Nazi Party had been banned. The ban was lifted only on the eve of the Anschluss in March 1938. Now out in the open, the Nazis took revenge on the most obvious targets, their political enemies and the Jews of Vienna, in an 'outburst of resentment and hatred'. And for that I was accused of Nazi Apologism. The whole thing would have been quite laughable in its absurdity, if it had not reduced the Humanities Desk to the level of a grotesque farce. I've said all I want to on this: it is time to move on. Clio the Muse 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's move on. Loomis 12:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(double take) did that just... did they... what... ^_^ it's gonna be a lovely day. V-Man - ^T/_C 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is a good example of why we don't want to encourage debate here. It can easily turn into an ugly disagreement. We have enough unavoidable ugly disagreements come up when working on articles- we certainly don't want to encourage debate for debate's sake. Ned Wilbury 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

All debate doesn't degenerate into nasty personal attacks, this only happens when people don't treat others with respect, use ad hominem attacks, etc. StuRat 21:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are many questions to which there is no single right answer, and a certain amount of debate is necessary, and very healthy. If certain people get into personal attacks, they are not playing by the rules and they take the consequences, but it's no reason to severely limit appropriate debate between others. JackofOz 04:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there are also questions for which there is a single correct answer, but that answer is unknown, so speculation is welcome. For example, the recent question on what portion of solar systems have planets. StuRat 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion move from misc desk

Moved from Misc. desk.—eric 01:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be glad to start a huge discussion about this if I were on the Wikiforum. Unfortunately, based on what I´ve seen so far, people will call it soapboxing and things like that! I would also like to ask the person who asked the question if she/he will let me start a huge discussion on her/his post, but doing so would violate WP:POINT. Actually, this very edit is both soapboxing and violating WP:POINT, so it´s all just absurd.

As for the question, I think it is absurd as well. This person is actually asking whether something is fair or not. Any question about whether something is fair or not is just soapboxing! I guess the Canadian government and you have more important things to spend your time on than chatting about whether this law is fair or not. If you have already solved all Canadian major problems (which you didn´t), they should then try to end poverty. We should always keep in mind there are people in Africa who just died this last minute because they didn´t have anything to eat. A.Z. 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the questions on RD are actually asking for opinion. The mathematics desk is the only one which doesn´t have such a "problem". A.Z. 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

:::As someone who has worked on (and still occasionally staffs) a RL reference desk, I can assure you that, both there and online, a) discussing opinions makes the reference desk less effective as a reference desk for all sort of reasons, including that it makes it harder to FIND answers, that it makes reference desk workers less obviously presented as experts in searching and information locating, and that it is harder to see by example what a reference desk is for, so querents can learn how ask effective questions, and b) there are plenty of places where groups of smart people congregate who would be more than happy to bat around opinions until the proverbial cows come home. In other words: this IS a problem, and there is NO shortage of places to take the problem where it would be welcome. Because of that, it is important that we act to preserve the reference desk as a reference desk. Any questions? Jfarber 01:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I can´t figure out whether you´re being ironic. Are you? A.Z. 01:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that there is a shortage of places to take the problem and the Wikimedia Foundation can help solving it by creating the Wikiforum. The Reference Desks would be much more like what you´re saying if the Wikiforum existed, since you could always suggest people to take their opinion questions there and leave the more objective questions here. Whenever there would be a question that at the first sight would look objective but would later be found out to be quite subjective, it could be taken to the Wikiforum as well. Other already existent foruns on the Internet suck. A.Z. 01:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric, you missed one part of the discussion. Above my comment saying "most of the questions on RD are actually asking for opinion", there was another comment to which I was responding. Same thing with my post saying "with all due respect, I can´t figure out whether you´re being ironic". I didn´t just say that out of the blue, I was also responding to someone. A.Z. 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to move this myself. Thanks, eric! And, A.Z., just because you think there SHOULD be a wikiforum does not mean you can turn the reference desks into one. Doing so will make actual reference desk work impossible. Please keep this stuff here, or we'll keep moving it. Think of the children! Jfarber 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(and, after ec) A.Z., the content removed was in no way related to the actual question. I'm afraid I can't see why you think this means it needs to be either preserved accurately, or should somehow defend a blatant attempt to try to turn the reference desk into a de facto wikiforum just because you think we should have one, and someone else gave you an opening. Sorry to be harsh, but we both let that go on way too far. Take it like a...um...editor, and let it go. Jfarber 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not being harsh at all, Jfarber.

I never had the intention nor have I ever tried to turn the Reference Desks into the Wikiforum. The Wikiforum should exist on its own and the Reference Desks would only benefit from it.

I must remind you to not use threat as an argument anymore or I´ll...! A.Z. 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., the comments which i removed were from a banned user, see: WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. I would also second Jfarber's plea to keep discussion such as the above on this talk page, and try not to let it spill over onto the actual desks.—eric 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then. I was only worried that people reading it would think I´m crazy or something, talking to myself on the RD. A.Z. 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can´t find my post on the RD (because there's TWO March 23rds on the Hum desk!)

I made a comment right there under Jfarber´s comment on the Humanities Desk, but I can´t see it right now. Can someone check it, please? I think someone has deleted it. Here is the link with the diff [5] A.Z. 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment misteriously came back now and my other comment which I had put in the same place when I first saw the original was gone has been deleted now. To whoever added my comment back: I would like the second comment back on the Reference Desk as well, so everyone knows that, for a few hours, my original comment was missing. I´m intrigued by what happened. Does someone have a proper explanation? I can find none of the edits to my comments in the page history. A.Z. 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some kind of problem w/ the transclusion of Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_March_23, there are comments in the archive which don't appear on the desk, and vice versa.—eric 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought it was a conspiracy or something. A.Z. 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See changed title -- I think something much more significant may be wrong, as I get the run of March 23 questions TWICE, from start to finish; AZ's first answer is in the secodn set, while his second answer is in the first set, when one scrolls down the page. Jfarber 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

fixed (hope i didn't lose anything in the process). Looks like the 22nd was archived before the 23rd's date header was added.—eric 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite all this, it actually was a conspiracy. V-Man - ^T/_C 12:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would have corrected the headers before the bot got around to archiving them, but I wasn't online, so the problem went unnoticed until after the wrong date headers were already transcluded, so thanks for fixing it--VectorPotential^Talk 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC chat, PIN number

IRC stands for "Internet relay chat" so "IRC chat" is an error. Plain old "Internet relay chat" would be an improvement. --Yath 05:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, and "VIN number" would be another example, but does this relate to a specific issue on the Ref Desk ? StuRat 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"IRC chat" appears on the project page. It's protected, so I mentioned it here so someone else can fix it. --Yath 19:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. StuRat 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ATM machine! V-Man - ^T/_C 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make a change to the project page, this can be done through Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header which is not currently protected--VectorPotential^Talk 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Child porn

For better or worse, This post by Mac Davis qualifies as child porn in some jurisdictions (especially since he is still a minor himself). Removal/oversight? Anchoress 07:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed[6]. Both posts were merely relating personal experiences, not fulfilling the purpose of the Reference Desk and were likely to offend.—eric 08:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be a bit helpful, otherwise I would not have posted it, and anything regarding censorship was not to be worried about. Medical pictures of child genitalia are not regarded as illegal child pornography are they? I figured although it isn't the same thing, it isn't exactly child pornography, since it is used to educate. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The removal was only censorship in the sense that all editors act as censors, removing material that does not improve Wikipedia. If you would like to respond to a question, please make sure that you can provide references to support your answer, or link article content which covers the subject. Relating your personal experiences is not "a bit helpful", but rather the opposite.—eric 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Supporting as above for removal of posts that consist of personal anecdote of what some may consider a prurient nature (which I wouldn't equate with kiddie porn). Offering links to pertinent pages provides content-specific information, and queries to clarify that content might better be asked on a particular topic's Talk page. Subsequent failure to get an adequate (or any) response could be followed up by a Reference Desk posting that points to the query.-- Deborahjay 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, let's all ban kitty porn: [7]. StuRat 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome banner

Re Welcome to the XXX reference desk at the top of each page: I'd like to see the words Language, Mathematics, Miscellaneous, Science, etc spelled with initial capitals. JackofOz 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. StuRat 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it for you; If I caused anything to go wrong, this was the change[8], at Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/leftside. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 04:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work, Mac. JackofOz 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref Desk replies

Should we add to the "How to answer questions" section something about checking to see that your answer is helpful? Recently I replied (a tad bid uncivilly) to an answer that read "Wikipedia does not give medical advice. See the hemeroid article." The anon who asked this question wanted to know how many hemeroids one could have at a time, and this answer did not help anyone, because the article does not mention quantity at all. Somewhere between writing an essay and directing users to articles we need to find a happy balance that gives enough information. - AMP'd 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I do feel rather strongly about being so quick to answer medical questions with "Wikipedia does not give medical advice, see the article," but I decided not to say anything there. Of course we should direct them to the article, but I think "does not give medical advice," as an answer, should be used much more discriminately. I have a ton of medical questions I really just don't want to ask here anymore, (they aren't actually asking for medical advice, just random information) and I haven't asked any since the small crisis we had about medical questions around the time when the templates were developed. Perhaps we should have a Help: or a Wikipedia: namespace page on answering questions, or we should write a few wikiessays on it. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the community reaction to questions about health/medicine reveals a need to clarify what is AND WHAT IS not medical advice. My suggestion: the whitepaper/stylepaper suggested below should include clarification about what counts as "advice" and might even give examples of legitimate questions about medicine, bodies, and health issues. That said, I suspect that several issues addressed below -- including the "no speaking from authority" and the request that links or citation (referring people, as in REFERence), would help address where the line between advice and direction might be. Jfarber 12:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the sort of thing that needs doing. We need a bit more than:

• Be thorough. Provide as much of the answer as you are able to.

• Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.

• Provide links when available, such as wikilinks to related articles, or links to the information that you used to find your answer.

• Be polite and assume good faith, especially with users new to Wikipedia.

• The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

I will now start to use this space to collect ideas to place in a wikiessay that will be written by someone (hopefully me). Everyone who feels strongly about some sort of quasi-policy that we need implemented on the ref desks should add their thoughts below. - AMP'd 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No ad hominem arguments

• No ad hominem arguments. You may challenge statements made by the questioner or a responder (in a civil manner), but may not attack the person who made those statements. StuRat 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing several points here which deal with logical fallacies; perhaps, if this is to be a style-type page, we could look to a SECTION which addresses fallacies in general, with an "especially" listing for clarification? Jfarber 12:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There's really only one logical fallacy (with two manifestations) which is common on the Ref Desk, that's the "I'm right because I'm an expert and you're wrong because you're not" attitude. The "I'm right because I'm an expert" part is called an argument from authority and the "you're wrong because you're not" part is an ad hominem argument. StuRat 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; I see plenty of logical fallacies reoccur regularly on the desk. These would include the personal example that "disproves" the rule (also known as "to hell with the facts and evidence, my mother smoked all her life and never got cancer!"), et. al. One of the reasons I have trouble accepting the "all answers/evidence is equally valid" position which others are presenting here, in fact, is that I do not believe this to be true.

(sidenote moved below by request) Jfarber 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that "all answers/evidence is equally valid", either. I do, however, believe that all evidence should be weighed upon the facts which support it, not the alleged expertise of the person who makes the claim. StuRat 23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

responsibility to provide proof

• If you disagree with someone, it is your responsibility to provide proof that they are wrong. StuRat 04:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I find StuRat's proposed "responsible to prove" requirement unreasonable. It evokes some sort of "chronological imperative" - whereas the identical "requirement for proof" applies in providing any information, whether an initial or subsequent response. Furthermore, it would be liable to add to the contentious nature of Reference Desk reply dynamic. How about if respondents focus on providing either internal and/or external links to support their content? -- Deborahjay 10:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Deborahjay. The phrasing StuRat uses is too strong, both in relation to how reference works and in terms of this being a "requirement". Additionally, some legitimate reference questions may have multiple answers; we don't want answers to devolve into long, drawn-out fact-throwing contests. But if we're going to write policy/style whitepapers, we should indeed include some sort of language that encourages people to provide links to evidence. Perhaps phrasing like "avoid anecdotal evidence" and "the best answers are those which both answer the question and, wherever possible, link to corroborative resources". Jfarber 12:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate here to link to the logical fallacy of Negative proof. Suppose a questioner asks "Were there ever really any unicorns?" and somebody posts a reply saying "Yes, there were, but six thousand years ago they all relocated to the mirror earth on the other side of the sun." Is it now incumbent on subsequent responders to prove that the first response is false?--LarryMac 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

While it would be wrong to say "I can prove that unicorns never existed", it would be reasonable to say "there is no evidence that unicorns ever existed", "it is unlikely that unicorns ever existed", or "according to Occam's Razor it is most reasonable to believe that unicorns never existed". StuRat 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The other commenters on this have taken the words from my mouth. Such a policy would grant unwarranted protection to the first talking-out-of-the-ass fast-typing-with-no-time-to-think-cite-or-research answer. I'm pretty sure that's not what we want to encourage. It's always reasonable to ask where – or whom – an (uncited) answer comes from. If the only requirement for the first poster is for him to hold the belief that his opinion is correct, there's no reason why a second, disagreeing poster should have to clear a higher bar. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with others, especially Deborahjay who wrote: the identical "requirement for proof" applies in providing any information. David D. (Talk) 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to lowering it to somehow say there is an equal burden of proof on anyone who makes a claim and anyone who disagrees. What I really wanted to avoid is the attitude some have that they can disagree with a claim, without providing any proof that the claim is false, and demand that the claim be retracted (unless the author is willing and able to spend the time to find proof). StuRat 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to an astronomer the other day and he told me that there was a teapot orbiting the sun inside venus's orbit. I've provided a source, now it should stand as an authoritative answer to the question 'what orbits the sun inside venus's orbit'... There's a reason we ask for published, peer-reviewed sources where possible, and rate these higher than hearsay or what someone on the desk thinks might be true. For example, I posted a potential answer to the question on saponification on the science desk, however I made it clear that it was a guess based on what I knew. If someone who knows more about saponification, or soap, or industrial practices, comes along and disagrees, or if someone finds some reasonable source that even suggests that saponification experts think this might not be true, I would happily accept I was wrong. Skittle 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be supporting arguments from authority. If so, your comment is in the wrong section. StuRat 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is my attempt to make the statement more balanced:

• An equal burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim and anyone who disputes this claim. StuRat 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why the Ref Desk should differ from the basic premise of contributing to the project: that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. Note that the above quoted policy uses the word evidence, not proof. This is because in most if not all scientific disciplines, few things can be proved beyond all doubt, they can only be disproved. However, enough evidence can be provided and, if its convincing enough, it can be widely accepted by the scientific community. No one piece of evidence will provide "proof", but the overwhelming weight of evidence will mean the community is in consensus. We should be reflecting that in our answers, not debating the scientific process. The proposal here simply means that in any of these situations someone who holds fringe, or pseudoscientific, beliefs gets a chance to promote these views, then challenge others to "prove them wrong". Its also a license for individuals to opine without any basis in fact, then demand equal recognition because it cannot be disproved. That is not the purpose of a Ref Desk. We should instead be providing Sourced evidence for our all claims, or be willing to retract them when challenged unless. Rockpocket 00:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That policy is written for articles, not talk pages like the Ref Desk. It's obviously not a good idea to allow everyone to remove anything they don't agree with from a talk page, and neither is it a good idea to allow this on the Ref Desk. On talk pages, including the Ref Desk, you should instead state politely that you disagree, and offer any proof/evidence to support your position. Also, many statements are simply unprovable. For example, the recent Language Ref Desk discussion on the shades of meaning of "talk to"/"talk with"/"talk at", which apparently vary by location, would be difficult to answer with references. Thus, under your policy, anyone could make any of the responders take down their answers because "they lack authoritative sources". StuRat 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are working on the premise that the Ref Desk is a talk page then we should follow talk page guidelines: talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.. In other words, opinions should not be offered. I would only expect individuals to consider removing an answer without sources if it was shown to be misleading by another answer with authoritative sources. I would expect conscientious respondents to do their utmost to focus attention on a definative sourced answer - not fight to maintain an array of opinions to choose from. If a referenced answer cannot be offered, then either (strictly) no answers should be offered or (more realistically) people will offer their best guesses, but the issue of sourcing will not be a problem. I think the importance of us providing sources for all answers is kind of hinted at by the name of the desk. Rockpocket 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

argument from authority

• No argument from authority. StuRat 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure what to make of this. Since this is the reference desk, ideally we're not giving arguments of any kind, we're providing links to references. If citing a known expert in a reliable source is seen as argument from authority, then I disagree strongly. Friday (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• While mere speculation by experts is an "argument from authority", actual evidence is not. StuRat 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• You don't want sourced speculation by experts, but you do want unsourced speculation by any random editor who happens by?! Friday (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I should clarify my previous statement: Mere speculation by experts is not, in itself, an argument from authority, but accepting that speculation as fact because it comes from an expert is. Speculation by experts should be given the same weight as speculation by anyone else, and proof by experts should be given the same weight as proof by anyone else. In other words, we should believe things, or not, based on the facts, not based on who makes the claim. If we don't do this, we end up with experts making false claims that nobody bothers to verify, like Hwang Woo-suk, the South Korean scientist who claimed to have created clones when he did not [9], or Bush claiming to have evidence of WMD in Iraq when he did not. StuRat 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the details but wasn't Hwang Woo-suk's published work an example of people bothering to verify Hwang Woo-suk's work? It is not the job of reviewers, who can only review the data provided to them and explains why the work was published. There is not much a reviewer can do if the data is fake. Hwang Woo-suk's case appears to be more like an example of the system working, not others falling for his argument from authority.

Anyway these are bad examples for the ref desk. It seems to me that scenario you dislike, with regard to an argument from authority, is when people challenge, without proof, the statements and claims made by Joe Blow the conscientious but ignorant user who pulls answers out of a hat without a source. Neither Hwang Woo-suk nor Bush fit into that mold. An easy solution is for users not to pull answers out of a hat. David D. (Talk) 06:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientist did eventually try to verify Hwang Woo-suk's published work, but not until many years later. His first apparently fraudulent claims go back to February, 1999. When they were first made public, without any scientific proof, they should have been immediately investigated. They were not, since he was taken to be an "expert" who "knew what he was talking about". This allowed him to continue to pull in grant money that might have gone to legitimate research, and continue to publish nonsense, until he was eventually discovered and removed from his job in March, 2006. That's over 7 years, far too long for someone to be taken at their word "because they're an expert", in my opinion. StuRat 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of reviewers appealing to his argument from authority but an issue of trust. You don't seem to understand how science works. The whole point of this was that he did present proof but it was fake. A weakness of peer review is you can only review the data that is presented in the paper. If he presented fake data in his papers (I assume he did) it would never be caught by peer review. The peer reviewers job is to address whether the conclusions fit the data in the paper as well as other published results in the field. They also address the quality of the data but they do not address the authenticity of the data. That is done after publication when peers try to replicate the results or use the resources (stem cell lines in this case) for their own experiments. Even when people cannot replicate the results the work is not automatically considered fraudulent. Some proceedures are hard to replicate, maize transformation was a good example of this. David D. (Talk) 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I may agree with you, if Wikipedia were a chat board or a panel discussion. But, here on Wikipedia, we don't make our own original evaluations of what the sources are saying in an effort to find the truth. It's about verifiability, not truth. We should use sources. These are old issues- check out WP:NOR and the history for why this is central to what Wikipedia does. Friday (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So you would really take the position that, since Bush was "an expert" (a person in a position to have detailed intelligence info on Iraq), and claimed they had WMD, then we should accept this claim as fact, without proof ? StuRat 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. One of the most fundamental ideas that Wikipedia editors need to understand is that we don't need to say "Bush said it, therefore it's correct." We don't take sides. We just say "Bush said whatever" without asserting that it's true or false. This is what being neutral is all about. The minute we're trying to discover the "truth", what we're doing isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it sounds like we are in agreement on this issue. Unfortunately, there are many who would have said (prior to the Iraq War), that a claim I made that Iraq did not have WMD was less valid than a claim Bush made that there were WMD, solely because he was an alleged "expert". This is the type of thing I want to prevent. StuRat 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is easily solved. Bush's statements will be quoted in reliable sources. Your statements will not. Using sources makes many of our troubles go away. Friday (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so it is fine to state that "Bush claims Iraq has WMD", as that can be easily verified. However, going to the extra step of saying "...and he is an expert so whatever he says must be true" is what I, and I think just about everybody else, objects to. That's what an argument from authority is and why we should not allow it. StuRat 01:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any argument from authority ON THE REFERENCE DESK by Wikipedians themselves. I think this suggested guideline is pretty arbitrary, and we are sure to not fall to any argument from authority, and mention something so that a questioner does not. 05:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We all know about the following parody I presume? It can be found at Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur David D. (Talk) 07:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"WP:CHEESE" redirects here. For the WikiProject task force, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Cheeses task force.

The Astronomer and the Amateur meet on Wikipedia

WP:CHEESE

In homage to Professor Steve Ward of MIT, who wrote an incredibly funny parody of his experiences as an expert witness in a civil trial. Believe it or not, much of this dialogue is actually taken from real events here on Wikipedia; for example, check out this and then read this.

Amateur: The Moon is made of green cheese.

Astronomer: No it's not, it's made (after oxygen) of silicon, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, and iron.

Amateur: Find me a citation that says it's not made of green cheese.

Astronomer: Here's a chart I just found in my files and uploaded which gives the composition.

Amateur: How do you know that's what it is? I say it's a chart of the composition of Pluto.

Astronomer: It's from a conference which I attended, plus to which I work in this field, so I know darn well what it's a chart of.

Amateur: Your opinions are biased, irrelevant, and probably wrong. I still say it's Pluto.

<Wait.>

Astronomer: OK, here's an email from the person who created the table, which says that I have correctly captioned it.

Amateur: That says it's the composition of rocks at the Apollo 12 landing site. I say the rest of the Moon is made of green cheese. Find me a citation that says it's not made of green cheese.

Astronomer: OK, here's a paper by Alpha, Beta and Gamma that says what the lunar crust as a whole is made out of.

Amateur: That doesn't say that it's not made of green cheese. So I'm right, it is made of green cheese.

Astronomer: These guys are the principal experts on the Moon's composition, and they say it's made of something else.

Amateur: Who says they are the experts? It's made of green cheese.

Astronomer: I've worked with them on determining the Moon's composition, and I know they are the experts.

Amateur: Your opinions are irrelevant. Please provide a citation which shows it's not made of green cheese.

<Long wait.>

Astronomer: OK, after wasting a great deal of my time, time which could have been spent adding a great deal of content on other things, here's a paper by Aleph and Beth which happens to mention that the Moon is not made of green cheese.

Amateur: That paper's entitled "Everything you ever wanted to know about the Moon, but were afraid to ask". It's clearly a joke, and useless as a citation. Please provide a citation which shows it's not made of green cheese.

Astronomer: Look, the title's a joke, but the content is clearly serious; I was there when they gave the paper at a conference, and it's not a joke.

Amateur: I don't believe you. Please provide a citation which shows it's not made of green cheese.

<Even longer wait.>

Astronomer: OK, after wasting a great deal of my time dredging through documents to find a citation which shows something that everyone who has 1/128th of a clue already knows, here's an old paper by Aleph and Beth which clearly states that the Moon is not made of green cheese.

Amateur: OK, the Moon is actually made of Limburger cheese.

Astronomer: No it's not, like I said before, it's made (after oxygen) of silicon, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, and iron.

Amateur: Find me a citation that says it's not made of Limburger cheese.

<Repeat from the beginning. After that, repeat several more times, with a variety of different types of cheese.>

The scientist could make the following statements: "There is absolutely no evidence that the Moon is made of any type of cheese", "There is no known mechanism which could produce cheese on the Moon", "There is ample evidence of the composition of the surface of the Moon at certain sample points, and, while this doesn't conclusively prove that the surface composition is uniform, that is the most reasonable conclusion according to Occam's Razor". The scientist did appear to stretch his data a bit far in concluding that the entire Moon has a uniform composition. I'd think it quite likely the core would be composed of different materials, or the same materials in different ratios. Specifically, I'd expect the core to be composed of heavier materials than the surface, and to lack the contribution of meteors and space dust, which are present at the surface. StuRat 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Encyclopaedias are not and should not be written in convoluted legalese. Readers and questioners wish to know what answer to their question stated clearly. They want to know what the scientific community have spent years researching, debating, reviewing before reaching consensus. The comment above highlights perfectly the problems on this desk. The scientist should most certainly not have said that proposed above, he simply should have said that "The moon is not made of green cheese. The composition of the surface of the Moon is X, Y and X (ref)" Any further questioning along the same lines by the amateur is simply a WP:POINT and should be dealt with as such (removal and warning to stop). Finally, what an editor thinks is "quite likely" or what they would "expect" is not helpful to the questioner as it is the analysis of a random web person. According to your own proposed guidelines, since you disagree you should be providing sources that the materials vary, not giving your personal opinion. We don't critique reliable sources here, we report them. That is why reporting the opinion of an independent expert is appropriate, but stating the opinion of an editor is not. Doing so is not an argument from authority. Rockpocket 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

removal of posts

• No unilateral removal of the posts of others. This should only be done once a consensus is developed on the Ref Desk Talk Page. StuRat 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I seriously disagree with this as policy, though I like the idea of having a repository for some removed discourse, as has been done on this talk page recently. As we see here on the talk page, there are several types of information which can and should be removed unilaterally, including and most especially things like inappropriate materials (cf kitty porn on this same talk page), obvious policy breaches (unarguably dangerous medical advice, like, say, if someone suggested thsat it was okay to take eight aspirin at a time), question duplication on multiple desks, trolling, and clear examples of ad hominem attacks. For this and other (to be defined?) types of ref desk behavior and language, by the time consensus is reached, it would be far too late; the damage is done. Jfarber 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Jfarber. It is a sad fact that one person's personalised attack seems to be another person's 'fair comment'. I take this to be the case from personal experience. Sensible and intelligent editing is an essential part of the Reference Desk, and I am grateful to those who have cut with discretion. Clio the Muse 12:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Jfarber's reasoning. While the RefDesk isn't the firehose of crap that is Special:Newpages, there's certainly a substantial volume of trolling, spamming, and personal attacks—including from long-term editors who ought to know better. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jfarber, especially this bit: by the time consensus is reached, it would be far too late; the damage is done. David D. (Talk) 14:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jfarber too. This has been brought up a number of times, but demanding prior discussion of removal of content simply won't fly on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We went round and round and round this block 2-3 months ago. Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines is a pretty good compromise and as close to a consensus as we are ever going to get. Is there any point in re-opening this discussion ? Gandalf61 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The question may not need to be reOPENED, but it needs to be at least partially RESOLVED... and having a historical page that represents a lack of consensus is neither solution nor resolution for the ongoing problems which prompt this discussion. Without SOME resolution, or at least a clearer consensus on some of these issues, the reference desk's efficacy is limited, because recurring issues get in the way. Having a page that none of us knew about does help speed the way TOWARDS resolution, but leaving it out of sight and unresolved does not address issues that clearly need addressing in a better way. Jfarber 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's always going to be somewhat contentious. What is offensive to one person may be perfectly reasonable to another. Who gets to be the unilateral arbiter of this? I've had posts on this page simply removed because they were contained within a discussion that another person considered an inappropriate discussion. My posts, viewed in isolation, were utterly appropriate and inoffensive, yet they were just removed because someone had a bee in their bonnet. When someone says something offensive in an oral conversation, they may later "withdraw" their remarks, but the remarks remain having been said. They can't be unsaid. They're permanently on the record in the memories of the co-conversationists. Same here. Anyone who wants to go back over the history can find everything that's ever been written here. It cannot be removed, only hidden from current view. Wikipedia works by consensus, not arbitrary removal. JackofOz 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. StuRat 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Which gets to the core of the dilemma, actually. Can the Ref desk function effectively as a reference desk (i.e. for querents) if there is no consensus among volunteers about acting like they are volunteering at a reference desk? Jfarber 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean "...no consensus in how the Ref Desk should be run", then yes, it can, and has all along. StuRat 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right. I draw a distinction between having agreed guidelines about how we all should operate, and the removal of posts that are unilaterally deemed contrary to those guidelines. JackofOz 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree again. StuRat 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "unilateral" has become a bit of a boogieman here. Keep in mind, this is a wiki, and the vast majority of all edits are "unilateral". There's nothing wrong with that. One editor decides he could make an improvement, and he does it. If there's disagreement, we discuss it. Prior discussion is often a good idea with things that may be controversial, certainly. We can disagree on specific cases, but the notion that people should always bring it up first when removing inappropriate content just isn't going to fly on Wikipedia. We don't need bureaucratic paralysis. We just need responsible, reasonable editors who are well grounded in an understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, and we need to generally give them a fairly free hand. Friday (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral deletions are allowed on articles, yes, but not in talk pages like the Ref Desk, except for reverting rather extreme cases of vandalism, etc. Unilaterally deleting the comments of others from talk pages just because you don't like them is most definitely prohibited. StuRat 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, please put down the strawman. You've been using it for months, and it's actively harmful to productive resolution of this issue. No one is suggesting we ought to "delete the comments of others just because we don't like them". This is ridiculous. We're talking about what's appropriate for Wikipedia, not what we do or don't like. I don't like celery, but an article on celery is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I kinda agree with that, in principle, Friday. But how would you have reacted if your post had bothered me so much that I just deleted it without any further ado? The general rules for Wikipedia were created with articles in mind, not talk pages and not the ref desk. That's not to say we should ditch all the general rules (NPA, etc), but they don't all apply all the time to talk pages. Talk pages (including this one) are essentially conversations, not the well-polished pieces of prose we hope our articles are/become. Remove one person's contribution to a conversation, and whatever follows is at risk of being meaningless. Removing others' posts can be a valid option, but I would like to think it would hardly ever be the first option chosen. It should be a last resort. JackofOz 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In that kind of a case, I'd imagine that things would continue with Friday questioning your reason for removal, thus entering the consensus process. Of course, it will be a lot different in the case of really new editors who may be bewildered about having an edit removed without explanation, and may not know what to do about it. V-Man - ^T/_C 04:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unilateral removal of inappropriate questions or reponses by others is not prohibited but should not be done lightly and not without informing the author of the deleted post. There cannot be a rule prohibiting this. There can be a rule suggesting the author of the deleted post be informed of the deletion. The ref desk is not a protected free speech zone. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Informing the author should be an absolute minimum mandatory requirement. I've had posts removed without any communication with me whatsoever, and I just stumbled around for a while until I worked out by myself that what I had written was now no longer there. That is simply unacceptable. What ever happened to "assume good faith"? JackofOz 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

questions which ask for opinion

• Answer any question that isn't trolling. Even if someone is asking for an opinion on some problem, that is no reason to respond immediately with "no soapboxing". I know that many a good discussion has been ruined when someone came through and tried to make the ref desks pure factual response. I do realize that removal of obious trolling and soapboxing needs removal, but there is no reason to deny us some intelligent discussion. - AMP'd

• I agree. StuRat 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree with this. Intelligent discussion of the world in general is outside the scope of Wikipedia. We have enough work to do with things that are within our scope, so we should not go out of our way to encourage inappropriate content. This is the reference desk, not the chat desk or the opinion desk. Friday (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. The proposed style suggestion is too broad; as Friday notes, "good discussion" is not something the majority of us believe the reference desk is for. Though there are certainly ways to address questions which ask for opinion by providing links to articles which enumerate the debate on both sides -- see, for example, the recent responses to the question Abortion, pro or con -- there are just as certainly some types of questions which do not belong on reference desks. The ongoing debate here about what is and what is not legitimate "reference desk help" is relevant, but until we resolve it, I doubt we'll get consensus on an "answer any question" standard, nor would I support one. Jfarber 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Answer, not Discuss! The prime directive on a Reference Desk is providing information. And while I support swift removal of overtly bad faith queries, I'm an inclusivist: I believe that subverting trollish questions or those on "taboo" topics, for the sake of providing valid information so that countless knowledge-seeking lurkers might benefit from reading it, is A Good Thing. -- Deborahjay 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I note, for the sake of accuracy, that IMHO Deborahjay and I are actually answering the same way, here -- as our similar examples demonstrate. Clearly, there is a similar middle ground that both of us support; just as clearly, the way AMP'd's suggestion is currently phrased goes too far as a point of policy. Jfarber 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(sidenote, moved from above by request: I am MOSTLY an inclusivist as an encyclopedia builder, but NOT as a Ref Desk volunteer. The problem with PURE inclusivism (where Deborahjay and I seem to differ) as a strategy for a space in which each person has equal ability to add a separate answer, and most folks won't bother adding their voice if their answer would be identical, is that it creates an ILLUSION that, once several answers show up, each is supported equally by both evidence and by the total number of volunteers who have seen that question whether or not they answered it. In other words, in a space like THIS -- and NOT in an article built over time -- REFERENCE standards cannot and should not parallel wikipedia ENTRY standards exactly, because the media are different....and here, the short-term frame for answering makes too easily allows any fact and any answer equal weight. Jfarber 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC) moved here from above by Jfarber 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of my position: Inclusive of query topics; responses to be held accountable for complying with WP standards, e.g. those being promoted in this discussion. The OPs are often coming from outside, whereas respondents quite often are Wikipedians, meaning (a) they ought to know what they're doing, and (b) if not, are due for a comment on their User talk page (rather than cluttering up the query/response discourse with accusations, etc.). -- Deborahjay 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. I strongly feel that if we allow 'discussion' on the reference desks, they will not exist 6 months later. Skittle 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I don't know which arguments I'm going to insert here, but, for now, I have a question: may I ask how Jfarber's sentence "good discussion is not something the majority of us believe the reference desk is for" is not appeal to authority? Well, it was a rethorical question. The fact is it is appeal to the authority of the majority. I'm just pointing it, so everyone can know. I have nothing against you, Jfarber, only against your argument! I has previously wrote it was ad hominem argument because I thought this encompassed appeal to authority. Anyway, what I mean is that the argument does not say a thing about the subject of the discussion. Both Ad hominem and appeal to authority don't say a thing about the subject. They are just not worth anything. A.Z. 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think that's an appeal to the majority. StuRat 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Or, in Wikipedia terms, we call this consensus. Friday (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been hitting edit conflict after edit conflict while AZ goes back in and changes his answer. I believe my originally written response to an accusation of ad hominem attack STILL counts, though, because the later accusations demonstrate exactly the misunderstandings about what the Ref desk should be for in the first place. To wit: I believe an appeal to majority, to authority, and to community consensus when we are discussing what WE should BE is a perfectly legitimate, nay necessary, aspect of the discussion. The difference between what we're doing HERE and what the Reference Desk is FOR is the very issue at hand; not recognizing that the basic parameters for discussion MUST be different in talk pages and Ref desk pages is actually quite bothersome. See below for my orig. response to AZ; after that, I'm wiping my hands and out for a while. Jfarber 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No more monkeys jumping on the bed Reference Desk!
Hey, that monkey's writing Hamlet! Hard to see from this angle, though...

• Comment: There's nothing a troll hates more than to have its trolling turned into lovely flowers. Sometimes, ya just can't turn troll-scat into flowers, and you just have to flush it down the toilet. As far as opinions and speculation go, I'd say that kind of thing would be acceptable if it were backed up by well-cited reliable sources; otherwise answers could take on the form of infinite monkeys. V-Man - ^T/_C 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC) PS: preview is a nice feature...

Yes, indeed, Infinite Monkeys: very well put, V-Man! There was a discussion recently on the Humanities Desk, of all places, on breast fixations, if I remember rightly, and another on incest, which showed every sign of taking on this particular form. Clio the Muse 00:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

- - :: For what it's worth, original response to AZ's deleted public ridicule of me follows:

- - ::Certainly others would be better suited to decide if I accidentally attacked the person instead of the idea. But I think you may misunderstand what an ad hominem attack IS, A.Z. An ad hominem attack in debate is an attack on the person; I did not attack YOU. Instead, this is intended to be a discussion about what we think the reference desk is FOR, and as such, community consensus (what most people want) and factual definitions (what the/a ref desk IS, both in name and in framing text) both matter. (To be fair, I suppose it would be a logical fallacy of a different kind if I cited "the majority" without evidence, and it would be inappropriate to do so by my own standards on the ref desk pages. But this is not the ref desk, and I do indeed believe I could count opinions here after a month or three.) Nothing personal, A.Z.... :-) Jfarber 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Since people here have been granted the AUTHORITY of one vote each, I will use my AUTHORITY (my vote) in the following manner: I will not ever support any change whatsoever to the Reference Desk unless Jfarber and Friday and all other editors involved support the change. If at the end you see that a true consensus has not been reached, change my vote to do nothing. A.Z. 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jfarber + Friday = JFriday! ^_^ V-Man - ^T/_C 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't remember saying anything about voting in regards to authority. Did I miss something I said? Because I thought the "authority" in wikipedia STYLE discussions was collaborative, consensual, discursive, and ongoing. And I also could have sworn I said that appeals TO authority are necessary PARTS of a DISCUSSION. Not sure how declarative threats came out of that. And I can't figure out how voting came into it. Weird. See you all on the desk. Jfarber 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the opinion of the majority is not in any way related to the truth about what is best for us to do and therefore there should not be any appeal to it on this and any discussion. This is my argument. Please, explain to me how can authority an appeal to the opinion of the majority ever be necessary and ask for any clarifications if you did not understand this argument. A.Z. 00:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(Killer irony.) Consensus is a very comprehensive ideal in Wikipedia, and A.Z. is referring to it to show how difficult consensus may become at times, especially in hair-splitting situations like this. V-Man - ^T/_C 00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly agree - I am a strong supporter of answering every question that isn't trolling. Free distribution of information is what Wikipedia is about, and this includes opinions, especially of the very intelligent people that are normally the editors with the highest edit counts and are answering questions on the reference desk. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 05:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Are you really saying you think there is a correlation of intelligence with edit count? David D. (Talk) 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What we have so far

This section will be updated frequently as more useful suggestions are added. The guidelines expressed here are those that have "passed" (i.e. have very little to no opposition) - AMP'd 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No logical fallacies especially ad hominem attacks and use of argument from authority. - StuRat

Doesn't this go without saying if the point is not to debate, but to provide reference service? Jfarber 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not for everyone - AMP'd 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The paradox of policy. We create it because we think some people won't know how to behave without it. But in real life, all it means is we get people misbehaving and ruleslawyering about how the policy says they allowed to do what they're doing. Friday (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just an argument not to have any policy at all, and we don't want that, do we ? StuRat 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how this is different from being civil, and just not being an idiot and saying you're a professor and you know what you're talking about while everybody else is wrong. You must prove what you know other ways. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's mostly what it is. Unfortunately, that behavior appears to be widespread on the Ref Desk (and Wikipedia in general), so we need a specific rule to point to when people engage in such actions. StuRat 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless, no argument, no debate, fallacious or otherwise.—eric 14:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This item applies to citing sources. For example, can I site as proof of Iraq WMD that Bush made that claim ("argument from authority") ? Or should proof of WMD only include things like satellite photos showing Iraqi missile tests with gas clouds at the impact site ? Logic errors don't only occur in debates. StuRat 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The example you give is probably more an issue of NPOV and RS, though if your wording was "do not mis-represent your source" or some such i'd agree. That is already covered in the verifiability policy (or attribution or whatever it's called today) though isn't it?—eric 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it is, but, if so, many of the Ref Desk volunteers don't seem to be aware of this policy, or that it applies to the Ref Desk, because I continue to see arguments from authority and the reverse, ad hominem arguments, made there. Hence the need to make it clear that this is unacceptable. StuRat 17:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

An equal burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim and anyone who disputes this claim. Or, provide sources. - StuRat Not sure what you mean- the second statement very obviously has plenty of opposition. If you are trying to draft a guideline, you may wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines which had extensive input from many different editors. Friday (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nowhere that citing sources in the manner Stu describes is looked down upon. I belive that any opposition was to StuRat's previous statement which said that the burden of proof lies with those attempting to oppose a claim. - AMP'd 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See RockPocket's objection to this above, though. StuRat's attempt to restate what we had been discussing in that section has only been up a few hours; I don't think it's got the same consensus behind it as the "no logical fallacies" argument. My primary objection here is to the idea of "burden of proof", which sounds punitive; I prefer an encouragement to source our answers, which helps remind us that we are here to refer folks to extant, citable fact in the first place wherever possible. Jfarber 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh* And I had hoped the revolution would be quick and bloodless. - AMP'd 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Jfurby on this one. It is better to politely request a source and be okay with a refusal than to demand it and try to punish a refusal. In my own experience, sources flow more easily with a friendly reminder, especially from me. V-Man - ^T/_C 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly never meant to imply that either a responder or a person who challenges a response should "demand" a source, quite the opposite, a polite request is all that should be allowed. What in my phrasing gave this misimpression ? I'd like to change it, whatever it is. StuRat 02:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The demand is more an inference than an implication; (if nobody else sees it so, forgive my near-sightedness...) if giving sources for answers is a policy, there may be more "tsk-tsk"ing and finger-pointing on omission; as common sense, people will be more apt to request and provide sources, and then not raise alarms when a source is refused. It would make for a more friendly atmosphere, to be sure. V-Man - ^T/_C 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are those who think sources should be required only for replies, and not for challenges to those replies. The burden of proof (and disproof) should be shared equally. StuRat 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think references are handled fine now, but you can always have more. A person should definitely relook up something that is disputed, so we can be sure. If one is wrong, they are doomed to repeat the same mistake of providing incorrect information again later either on the Wikipedia or in their other life (what other life exactly?) It must be understood that the information supplied is dubious or disputed, or incorrect. If it is correct, then let that be known as well, and the challenger did a good job in making sure the facts were checked. Also, lack of evidence does not imply non-existence, and references can also be wrong. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 05:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is when people make baseless challenges. That is, they have absolutely no reason to doubt a claim, and certainly no evidence that it is false, but challenge it nonetheless, expecting the person who made the claim to spend the time finding evidence or retract the claim, when they themselves are unwilling to spend the time finding evidence to dispute the claim. This can often be used as a way to "get even" with people they dislike, and also appears to violate WP:AGF. See this thread for an example: [10]. StuRat 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agh! How could they think of that? That's absolutely evil. I don't think the challenger should be looking for only evidence to dispute the claim—it's not a debate where one side is absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong no matter what evidence or logic is put into play—the challenger should be willing to retract his challenge if his researching tells him he is wrong. But that could be too utopian. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Mac Davis. What about when people make baseless claims in the first place. A claim without evidence is as useless as a counter claim without evidence. A counterclaim with evidence - irrespective whether it proves another, unsourced claim is wrong - is useful however. I think its entirely reasonable to expect every claimant and counterclaimant to "spend the time finding evidence or retract the claim" since we are supposed to be providing reliable, sourced information for our readers. We need to get away from the idea of "challengers". This isn't a debating chamber or discussion forum, and defending your claim shouldn't be an issue. Its about providing the best sources of verifiable information to answer a question. If you don't provide any verification for your answer then it shouldn't get any protection whatsoever. Rockpocket 18:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

People will stop defending their claims only when others stop attacking those claims, which is to say, never. We don't even yet require proof of every statement in Wikipedia articles, much less on the Ref Desk, as such proof is often difficult, or even impossible, to find (especially online proof, in English, from a reliable source, which everyone can verify, without a subscription). And weak evidence, which relies on argument from authority (the speculation of "experts"), isn't really any better than no evidence at all. StuRat 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is that "attacking those claims" appears to be defined as "providing sourced evidence that counters an unsourced opinion". That is not an attack, it is an example of what we should be providing. Your argument that "proof is difficult to find" is a non-starter. We are not asking for "proof", we are asking for sourced evidence. When someone else has provided such sourced evidence, then there is no basis for that argument. Any reliable source, no matter how "weak" in your opinion, is more useful than than the opinion of some random web editor. If there are no sources in a claim, there is nothing of worth to "defend" for the sake of our readers.

Consider what you are proposing in the context of a library Reference Desk. A student comes to the librarians and asks them how to find some information on quantum physics. One librarian says, "Well, its difficult for me to try and find some references for you, but personally I think the answer is X". Another librarian takes the time to go into the library and finds a book that provides some evidence in support of a different answer. In presenting it, he notes that it isn't definitive, but its the best available. If the first librarian took her job description seriously, she would say one of two things. Either

"It looks like my colleague found an appropriate source that suggests I'm incorrect. You should take that information instead of my opinion. After all, I'm a mere librarian, my opinion is not a reliable information source".

Or

You know, I'm pretty sure there are sources that provide better support for my answer, let me take the time to find them for you and thereby legitimise my answer.

Instead - and this is what you are proposing as valid for this desk - the first librarian actually says, "That source doesn't prove me wrong, and its only the opinion of some expert anyway. Plus its pretty weak evidence, in my opinion. My answer, although unsubstantiated and only the opinion of a librarian, is equally valid and thus you should consider that as equally informative when writing your paper, instead of using the book provided". Do you think the first librarian would last long on any self respecting library? No. Indeed, one would be forgiven for thinking the first librarian is more interested in showing off their knowledge (or lack thereof) than simply doing their job on a reference desk. Rockpocket 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a slightly different view of where StuRat is coming from:

Some student walks into the library and ask how to find some information on quantum physics.

First Librarian: "Well, its difficult for me to try and find some references for you, but personally think the answer is X".

Second Librarian overhears this answer: "Actually that does not sound like a valid answer, do you have a source for it?"

First Librarian: "Well no, i don't have a source but its really your job to prove me wrong"

Second Librarian returning from stacks: "Well I had a look on the shelves and i can't find any source that corroborates your answer. Are you sure you didn't just make up the answer?" <-- There is the attack!

First Librarian: "Look, you really should not be challenging my answer if you cannot be bothered to find a source that proves me wrong."

Second Librarian: "Well I did look but there is no mention of your claims in the books. I don't have time to research a response to your claim right now. I think it would be better if you just point the students to the books we have on the shelves." <-- attack number two.

First Librarian: "But how do we know these books are any good? My answer is probably as good as any in the books we have here. Besides i am much more efficient at answering the students questions if I don't have direct each student to an actual book."

Second Librarian: " ... to be continued ... " David D. (Talk) 06:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of a personal attack, and mine, are somewhat different, David D. "Are you sure you didn't just make up the answer?" is a little impertinent, but there's no direct accusation there. It's a question. "I think it would be better if you just point the students to the books we have on the shelves" sounds like a constructive suggestion to me. How is that an attack? JackofOz 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. I was not calling it a personal attack. I was referring to StuRats comment of "attacking those claims". Certainly that is not a personal attack. I agree your latter approach of requesting the librarian to point the students to the books we have on the shelves is the way to go. David D. (Talk) 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be pretty difficult for assuming editors to take those as personal attacks indeed. Much of what causes strife around here is simply editors taking innocuous remarks or questions as attacks, as if they want the drama. The best way to keep this place peaceful is to shrug off our instincts of combat and just be chill with whatever others deign to contribute. V-Man - ^T/_C 09:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-assuming editors are ipso facto operating outside one of the basic guidelines of Wikipedia. They are the ones who are breaking the rules, and it is they to whom any sanctions should be directed, not the alleged perpetrators of other rules against whom they, the non-assuming editors, have taken unilateral action. JackofOz 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What eric thinks we really have so far

The wiki process to determine content, content must be written from a neutral point of view, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, avoid original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a social networking site, or a discussion forum, are "what we have so far". If someone would like to challenge any of these policies or guidelines then the appropriate place is at those talk pages, not here.—eric 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd only add that these notions are sufficient entrenched and well-accepted that there's really no point anyone challenging them. Oh, and don't bother arguing that the reference desk is "different"- check the URL, it's part of Wikipedia, whether you want it to be or not. Friday (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages, including the Ref Desk, have different standards than articles. Verifiability, while nice, is not required in talk pages. NPOV only applies to articles, although even they sometimes have "arguments for" and "arguments against" sections, which each give a single POV. Original research is allowed on talk pages. In the Language Ref Desk, especially, most of the questions on the shades of meaning of words must rely on OR. (What would be the alternative, exactly, a survey of 1100 people in each linguistic region, with proper statistical analysis on the exact shades of meaning of each word ?) Discussion is also fine on talk pages, that's what "talk" is, after all. If discussion wasn't allowed, they would be called "fact pages" or some such thing. While I agree that "soapboxing" is not allowed, there seems to be some confusion over what this is. A statement that "Communism is the ideal form of government" followed by their reasons, is, while the question "What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of communism versus other economic systems ?" followed by responses giving the advantages and disadvantages (and some debate over the correctness of each response), is not soapboxing, but an attempt to give a legit answer. And, while Wikipedia is not a social networking site, a certain amount of socialization, on talk pages, like the Ref Desk, is needed to foster a sense of "community", which is vital to any online site. For example, getting an occasional "thank you" from the OP is likely to encourage volunteers to continue to contribute. StuRat 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I have personally pointed out to you several times the stuff at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy. I'm not making this up. We really do need to observe core content policies, even on talk pages. I'm frankly amazed that you keep asserting otherwise, after the countless times you've been referred to the guidelines that explain all this. Friday (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just a "guideline", and also states "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation...". It also appears to be talking specifically about talk pages for an article, not talk pages like the Ref Desk or user talk pages. It would be absurd to say that those things are prohibited on user talk pages, for example. "No listing your location unless you have an authoritative source to prove it !". I'm frankly surprised that you continue to wikilawyer and misapply this guideline. StuRat 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a talk page. It's not within the the talk namespace, it's linked from the main page, we field a number of questions from those who are new to wikipedia, and the name "Reference Desk" itself should give everyone some idea of it's purpose. If the Wikipedia community had the impression that this was just a talk page, i think that main page link would go away fairly quickly and the reference desk would be listed on MfD soon after.—eric 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not within "mainspace", with the articles, either, as Ref Desk edits aren't considered to be "mainspace edits". StuRat 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the RDs are not talk pages then Friday's pointer to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines is irrelevant anyway. And if we can't even agree on what sort of page the RDs are, then I don't see how we can agree on anything. And I think the RDs were already listed on MfD a few weeks back (here), but the debate was speedily closed, IIRC. Gandalf61 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence my concern: the ref desks are NEITHER Talk pages NOR wikipedia entry pages, and as such, we need to figure out/come to consensus on what reference IS before we can take on style suggestions. Looking at the archived discussion from several months ago, I think it, too, sufferered from a similar lack of definition of the fundamental terms, and maybe that's why it never went anywhere. So I'll try to get the ball rolling... (Jfarber 16:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Figuring out what a reference desk is NOT will help us start figuring out what it IS...

I reject the false dichotomy, and encourage others to try to transcend the interpersonality that is endemic TO talk pages (and is therefore appropriate here), for just a moment, while I try to explain what I mean to say.

First: Friday and eric may not realize it, but it is both a dismissal and a straw man to suggest that we are challenging policies which apply to wikipedia entries, and that therefore we should address our concerns in those policy spaces.

Because although SOME of those policies apply to ALL spaces in wikipedia, some apply specifically to the writing of wikipedia ENTRIES. For example, the issue of consensus need not apply for a given paragraph; on the reference desks, multiple answers, or partial answers, get to stand on their own, while on article pages, these eventually evolve into a single entry, OR into two discrete entries. For another example, consensus does not exist on, say, the page about what barnstars are. Special pages are special pages; community standards apply; content-driving standards relate to what the page is for.

In other words: it is NOT true that the reference desk are a talk page. THIS is a talk page. But the reference desk is not an article space, either.

The wiki process to determine content which eric cites is specifically designed to maximize potential success for wikipedia ENTRY content -- which can be created over time, which can be slowly tweaked by a group consensus process, and which results in a single document which represents the current state of community agreement to the extent that such things can exist. Reference content shares few of these attributes. Therefore, rules designed to maximize potential for Wikipedia entry spaces may or may not be successful rules for the reference desks.

The question, then, becomes WHICH wikipedia-wide standards SHOULD apply, and which would not make sense given the different nature of the medium of "reference desk". It's too easy, and too wrong, to merely say "this is wikipedia; everything is the same". As the "reference desk is a talk page" proponents point to, the reference desks are not like encyclopedia entries; that they take this too far does not mean their fundamental instincts that this is NOT a wikipedia ENTRY space are faulty.

As such, though many wikipedia expectations (such as WP:NOT#SOAP) will apply, some (like the consensus standard, and the notability standard) will not always apply. Two answers are sometimes better than one here; such is not the case in wikipedia entries; how do we best make style sheets and policies which acknoledge the difference? I'd be happy to go more deeply into this, but I did want to at least mention that there IS a difference...and it's NOT the difference that makes this talk page different.

In sum, then: though I agree with eric and Friday that many Wikipedia standards should apply which are currently not being applied, I ALSO agree with those who are arguing that the space might need SOME parameters and style suggestions. And I invite us to consider, now, what a reference desk IS...because if we define the medium, I believe we can better define the style that would best drive it forward. Jfarber 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, but do consider the Ref Desk to be a talk page, just not an article talk page (where a specific article is discussed). I fully agree that almost nobody considers the Ref Desk, and whether the rules they made apply to the Ref Desk, when writing general guidelines and policies. There seems to be considerable sloppiness in the rules and guidelines in failing to say whether those rules apply throughout Wikipedia or only to specific areas. For example, almost none of the rules apply to what a user can put on their own user page, yet the policy and guideline pages rarely bother to make that distinction. StuRat 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We've been through all this before. Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines. My point was not to suggest that the ref desk is a talk page, but rather to point out that even on talk pages we should still observe the basic editorial policies that make Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than a forum. Personally I think the term "reference desk" tells us what we need to know about its purpose, but we still have no shortage of people who read this to mean "chat desk". I suppose we could start seeking community bans from the ref desk for whose who make a habit of misusing it. Friday (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Friday on this one. Its name makes it very clear what its purpose is, and thus it can't be considered a talkpage as its role is not to talk or discuss, but to act as a reference source. Any of the policies proposed here will only serve to indemnify the desk from our core policies. This will be ultimately harmful for the future of the desk, as it will legitimise (either explicitly or implicitly) the perception that debate and opinion serve its purpose. I also support seeking community opinion on taking action to stop those who misuse the desk, as it seems to be a constant battle to keep it from turning into a discussion forum. Rockpocket 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if and editor continues to cause problems then seeking community sanctions is the best solution. However, i don't think we need greater community involvement before making edits to improve the desk. For instance, a particularly useless series of additions were recently made, on the Misc. desk. These should be reverted and the editor warned. I don't think we should hold off trying to improve the desk until it reaches the point a community ban is necessary.—eric 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. If we're diligent about removing inappropriate content, hopefully those putting it in will realize we don't want it, and they'll probably stop. Unless they continue to press the issue, no sanctions will be necessary. Friday (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my stab at a three sentence Guideline- - - "The Wikipedia Reference Desk pages are neither articles nor talk pages. Regardless, any contributions and edits to the Ref Desk should abide by the standards and policies of Wikipedia as much as possible. These include, but are not limited to, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL." --LarryMac 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's reasonable. But the downside is, the people who are the problem either don't understand or don't accept our standards and policies to begin with. That's pretty much the entire problem. Friday (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday, you obviously have certain editors in mind when you refer to "the people who are the problem". Will you please name them ? Gandalf61 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen tons of editors on the ref desk and elsewhere who clearly don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. I deal with them any time I do new pages patrol. I certainly can't remember them all. I don't think it really matters to list them- if a particular editor becomes a recurring problem, it'll become apparent from the talk page, I would expect. Friday (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Friday, are you saying that you see new editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia as a "problem" that you have to "deal with" ? Gandalf61 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One thing: The Reference Desk is NOT a talk page, the Reference Desk is NOT a mainspace, and the Reference Desk is NOT actually a Wikipedia: page—it's not a guideline or policy page, it's not anything a Wikipedia namespace page is normally, because when it started it was intended (as it still says) for us to be "virtual librarians" guiding people to the right articles, but we don't do that anymore, the unofficial intention of the Reference Desk is to answer questions, over 90% of the time, directing people to articles in the process. The Reference Desk is somewhat independent. There are a handful of Deskers that do most of the answering, work on the layouts, templates, archives, etc.—Froth, StuRat, KSMsq, TenOfAllTrades, Clio, Friday, Kainaw, Alant, Root4one—it is hard to narrow them down but I could probably name them all; you know what I mean. What I'm saying is we have grown into a community here—we joke around together with our own in-jokes, several users have been blocked or banned due to strong feelings on the reference desk, and we help each other out. I think the Reference Desk is a bit more independent and different from most of the pages on Wikipedia. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. In that case, perhaps "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether" (as stated on WP:Policy) comes into play and we're all in the wrong place. --LarryMac 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One person asking a question and one or more people answering it is "talk" by any definition of the word. Therefore, any page on which this activity occurs is a talk page, plain and simple. StuRat 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A reference desk is, equally, by definition where references are sought and offered, not opinions. If we are looking for definitions on which to hang out policies, let start with that one, shall we? Rockpocket 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tooting my own horn

Just in case anyone missed it the first time, I put together a brief sketch of my Ref Desk philosophy the last time we went 'round this merry-go-round.

See User:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts.

Please bear in mind that my remarks aren't meant to be converted directly to policy instructions; they're intended more to provide a framework for our discussion: an idea of the purpose of the Desk, and how it fits into the Wikipedia project as a whole. Briefly, I believe that the Ref Desk must remain true to three major guiding principles:

1. The Reference Desk is here to provide information to people who need help answering their questions.
2. The Reference Desk should be a useful part of Wikipedia.
3. The Reference Desk must maintain a friendly, open, welcoming environment.

I've also indicated a few guidelines that I feel should flow logically from these principles. (The list of guidelines is not meant to be exhaustive; indeed, an exhaustive list is probably not achievable, and attempting to formulate a complete list would likely just least to ruleslawyering.)

If anyone finds my remarks useful, feel free to appropriate them, in whole or in part. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Humanities desk

I have removed a great chunk of unacceptable personal attacks from the Humanities Desk with this diff. ([11]). I hope that all contributors will refrain from this activity. --Dweller 08:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why I support removing any question that starts out with the dread phrase "I was wondering what my fellow Wikipedians' opinion might be " (emphasis added). Such question can only lead to no good. IMHO  ;-) --LarryMac 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that personal attacks do not belong on the Ref Desk, I don't see how these were precipitated by it being an opinion question. The source of the problem was Clio mistakenly calling "Britain" by the name "England", thus excluding Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland from the discussion. This could just as well have happened on a strictly factual question. StuRat 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "problem" was caused by someone getting their panties in a knot because someone said "England" instead of "Britain". It wasn't caused by Clio, but by someone else's emotional reaction to an error in diction. - Nunh-huh 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There was also Clio's refusal to correct her error, at first, and her ad hominem attack: "...even a graduate of Glasgow University will recognise...". But, again, none of this has anything to do with it being an opinion question. StuRat 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd characterize it as her refusing to perform on demand like a circus seal. The questioners don't get to dictate the responses, and they don't get to demand that they be changed. The initial questioner's emotional response caused the problem; there'd have been no escalation without repeated provocation. Clio's response was, admittedly, not optimal, but everyone occasionally falls for the sort of trollery the querant quickly descended into. - Nunh-huh 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that opinions inevitably lead to this sort of thing. But, opinion questions are irrelevant to the mission of Wikipedia- so any trouble they cause, no matter how small, is a net loss to the project. We have enough work to do with things that are relevant to the mission of Wikipedia- why should we borrow trouble by facilitating irrelevant things? By simple cost/benefit analysis, opinion questions are not desirable. Friday (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Totodog.jpg

"...redact remarks in toto..."

I do, in part, blame myself for causing this little storm. I should have recognised that there was a possible problem from the slightly hysterical tone taken by the questioner. I have to say, though, that I thought it legitimate to attempt comparisons between the two Prime Ministers under consideration. On a personal note, I am English (just as I am upper class!) and I do, from time to time, refer to my country as England, as have many others in the past, including Prime Ministers of Scottish origin. As I said, it is a cultural reflex on my part, one I expect that will continue to exert its power. I am sorry if this upsets people, but I will not change who I am. Finally, my reference to Glasgow University ( a fine institution) was not an 'ad hominen' attack, but a measured retort to a cringing remark about Cambridge. Clio the Muse 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(re Dweller) Better to use an ax than a scalpel i think. I'd much rather have my entire comment removed than just a part of it if someone objected. Removing whole comments and threads gives people a chance to rethink and restate, and reduces the chance that anyone is misrepresented by having their words taken out of context.—eric 20:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a 'me too' here; it's almost always best to avoid editing another editors' signed remarks; people can get very touchy when you alter (intentionally or not) what they say. Best, in future, to redact remarks in toto with appropriate explanation to the involved editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My sincere thanks to the user who added the picture of Toto to this thread. He's just so cute (Toto, I mean)! Clio the Muse 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanna know who added this page to the Wikipedia humor category... V-Man - ^T/_C 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So it has; I thought you were joking! Perhaps this is no great surprise, V-Man. I'm sure you must be familiar with the alleged Medieval theological debate over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? Are you not reminded of this by so much of the discussion this page generates? I certainly am. Ah well, the futility of all earthly things! Clio the Muse 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because I was curious, I checked some history and determined that the Essay and Humo(u)r tags got added as a result of the insertion of a link to the "Astronomer vs Amateur" essay above. --LarryMac 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I plead guilty. I forgot that transcluding the page would bring the category tags along for the ride. But the humour tag does seem appropriate. In the black farce sort of way.:evil grin: David D. (Talk) 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More like a talk page?

Does anyone here have an institutional memory that can point us back to where the idea of the ref desk being more like a talk page was first floated? People keep saying this but was it original intent? If not, which users were the first to nucleate this idea? And why? David D. (Talk) 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was in response to claims that all guidelines and policies written for articles should be applied to the Ref Desk. StuRat 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the impression I get is that what people really mean by this is "the ref desk doesn't need the same formal tone as an article". This is reasonable in my opinion. The guidelines and policies that StuRat describes as written for articles are more accurately seen as written for the entire project. The talk page guidelines even go out of their way to explain that verifiability and no original research are important, even on talk pages. What's good for articles and good for talk pages ought to be good for the ref desk- why would it be otherwise? Friday (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cowabunga, I might have contributed to this RD=Talk meme. The first I recall it coming up was in this discussion. Sorry? --LarryMac 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's too big a deal. It should be clear from the name that the reference desk is not an article, nor is it an article talk page. It's in project space, and it's a reference desk. There's really no room for dispute on these points. At the risk of getting beans in my nose.. if folks want a chat desk, go ahead and make Wikipedia:Chat desk and see where that gets you. Friday (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet this is exactly what I was trying to get at in my longer post above. Many of US know what a reference desk is, but a) some of "us" do not, and might be better able to serve as reference volunteers with some clarity, and b) more importantly, many visitors TO the desk who come in need of service do NOT know what a reference desk is, yet somehow manage to navigate the gamut of pages which TRY to say what it is, and nevertheless end up asking questions which cannot be served by reference desk service.

As such, it MAY not be enough to merely agree that the MACRO policies of wikipedia apply everywhere, and that the MICRO policies of talk pages do not apply. And it MAY not be enough to have this debate regularly (though I would suggest it is better than nothing, despite the frustration and dismissal some long-timers bring into this sort of discussion). Instead, it may be useful to define more clearly what a reference desk IS -- not JUST for US, but also in the way the pages are entered, so that we might be able to point to those style suggestions and parameters even more precisely and effectively, for querents AND volunteers, as ways to decide how to respond NOT to the stuff we (mostly) ALL agree is out of bounds, but to both a) questions which do not belong in reference desks, and b) answer SETS which are getting out of hand.

To say this is NOT to advocate for a chat space, an opinion space, NOR is it to suggest that reference desks are talk pages; it is instead to say that if SOME other regulars AND many querents continue to insist OR behave as if this WERE a chatspace, then isn't it time to admit that saying "the reference desk is not a talk page" is not a fully successful strategy to communicate that idea? And, if so, that "what is a reference desk" could benefit from clarification? Jfarber 20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are seeing is a reluctance to once again go over that same old ground, to expend more effort in tedious discussion that in the past has proven completely fruitless. We've talked about what a reference desk is, what it should look like within Wikipedia, discussed the benefits it can bring to the overall project, and explained how some types of responses are instead harmful.

We've already covered in detail core policies and talk page guidelines, explained that what we are looking for is a "common sense" application, not by any means some kind of strict interpretation. An attempt to live within the policies and at the same time provide the greatest benefit to our readers and the project in general. I think, if you look back over the older discussions, you will find that most editors have taken nuanced positions, attempted compromise, and tried to listen for and incorporate other viewpoints into their reasoning.

And the response to all that patient effort, all that time spent, has been obstinance, wiki-lawyering, divisive and disruptive actions, and a refusal to recognize any of the concerns which have been expressed. Some of the editors here have shown that they really don't give a fuck about the quality of the reference desk, couldn't care less about the overall project, and what they what to have here is a place they can continue to chat, joke, soapbox, and show off their knowledge (or lack thereof). Any terse arguments or dismissive tone are directed at those editors who, by now, deserve no more than that.—eric 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about, just wondering how the meme progressed to its current state. David D. (Talk) 17:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I personally think we are doing a much better job of answering the "what is a dog?" questions! Very friendly answers, not even "this is an encyclopedia you know?" [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 06:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(see above.) V-Man - ^T/_C 09:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia Reference Desks on BoingBoing

After a question on the Misc. desk this week led to some great and truly REFERENCE DESK fact-checking (a properly sourced study used a 1971 journal article to make a claim that adding Vitamin D to soy milk was not legal), the New York Times changed an article to reflect that fact-finding...without saying that they had changed it. Especially odd journalistic practice, given that the original article was a) the most emailed article on the NYT website for most of this week, and b) claimed that soy milk could not be fortified in ways that would make it a good idea to serve to, say, kids, and thus could have had a seriously negative impact on the public perception of appropriate use for soy alternatives for kids. (I'm biased, here -- I'm lactose intolerant, and have kids)

I must admit, I was disappointed in the NYT response; at best, it would have been nice to show that wikipedia can get some GOOD press once in a while, but at the least, I had hoped a public correction would help those who had seen the original article know that it was not after all illegal to add Vitamin D or calcium to soy milk (which would mitigate the blow the original article made to public perception of soy milk as a truly healthy alternative). Now, I suspect most folks will never know the correction was made; the article makes it look like the error was never there.

Given the dubious journalism involved, I submitted this to BoingBoing; it's up on their site today. See the original ref desk discussion for the issue and my letter which (I assume) prompted the change to the article; see here for the boingboing article. And nice work, all of us, for this and every effort to help the world see the power of reference! Jfarber 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(non-legal/medical) "Advice" on the Ref Desk

I have a problem with the "general advice" provided to the "Plea Bargain Gone Bad (3.7, March 29)" query by StuRat, upon whose User talk page I've written as follows:

• ...[this] would have been more appropriately worded had it not been couched as your personal opinion. There are other, more objective ways to present the possibility that serving time in prison may have a corrective effect (note links to pertinent pages), rather than "Prison time might be just what they need." On the other hand, your remark that "you should keep him away from that bad influence [i.e. his brother] in any way you can" is irresponsible and presumptuous, and writing that "it might be time to give up on him" [i.e. the OP's recidivist son], is that and worse. It's my belief that such remarks degrade the reputable nature of the Reference Desk as a source of information (and I will ask about this on its Discussion forum). The RD policy of not providing legal or medical advice is clear; exercising good judgment (and good taste) is the responsibility of all respondents, at their discretion. That response of yours, however well meant, is grossly lacking that latter quality. You might consider amending it yourself, if you see fit, besides the sort of disclaimer JackofOz subsequently added.
  

I have no objection per se if a response lacks citations or is based on personal knowledge, even the anecdotal (particularly on the Language RD, e.g. regional differences in usage or pronunciation). However, I feel the conjectural, subjective nature of this response on a sensitive matter, crossed some lines here. I'd appreciate clarification if my position is outside the consensus or RD guidelines. --Thanks, Deborahjay 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)