Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

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

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

yet another racialist question

I guess I should be used to the racialist questions, but I have closed this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Biracial_people as having no obvious purpose other than to solicit opinion and inflame debate. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)3

It didn't seem particularly inflammatory, and it's a legit question to ask, even if the premise is faulty. Where I live, most biracial people are "half-white". We don't need our OPs to give sources to their questions, and Matt Deres gave, as you noted, a very good answer to it. I won't undo your close, but I also won't agree with it. Mingmingla (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I guess we can't demand sources, but we can challenge silly, ignorant assumptions. Rather than my fairly polite "Are they?". I could have said "They're not. Your question is based on a silly, ignorant assumption." It would have been true, but would it have helped? HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the question reminds me of this one: "Why do flamingoes stand with one foot up in the air?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As a general point: μηδείς may want to let another user catch the next potentially controversial change. Just so that the potential controversy gets balanced out. Sazea (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume there's a joke in there somewhere. Speaking of which, the answer to the flamingo thing is, "Because if they lifted the other foot, they would fall down." In regard to bi-racial, "Why are they half-white? Because the other half isn't." Seems simple enough, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are people who are half-African and half-Asian; or half-Hispanic and half-American native; or any number of other combinations of multiple races that don't involve whiteness. It may have been a trollish question, but I don't see an open-and-shut case. In such cases, I'd prefer we just answer them with a straight bat, as Matt has done, mark it Resolved and leave it at that. If it was a troll, this very thread is giving them the oxygen they crave. So I'll shut up now. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic is considered to be of the Caucasoid race, Mediterranean sub-race. In any case, it might be interesting to see some stats, if there are any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with the closure. The user has asked two questions previously, neither of which smelled even a bit like trolling and were quite legitimate. While I think most regs here recognize that discrete races is a concept that has no merit, you can still talk broadly about how various societies have historically interacted with the world. It's not racist nor racialist to note that Europeans have historically been interested in expanding their influence over a wide area of the globe and that, because of that, there might seem to be a larger number of people that are "half-white" than there are people who are "half-Polynesian" or "half-Aborigine". It needn't have been like that; things could have been very different if a few chance occurrences had happened differently. But it did, and so there are a lot of people all over the world with some European heritage. But for some 14th century Chinese politics, it could have been the situation that there were more half-Chinese folks spread all over the world. Why not let the questioner know about this stuff? Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that User:Tango has now unhidden it. I endorse that move. It wasn't trolling. It was an odd question based on a false assumption, perhaps because of limited experience and knowledge on the part of the OP. How to respond is the tricky bit. Our article on Race (human classification) makes it pretty clear that there are no universally agreed definitions in this area, as some of the above posts and those in the thread in question make clear. Because of this, responses have to digress somewhat from the original question. Our challenge is to agree on when they have digressed enough. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I am suspicious of so many IP and new user questions that ask for the explanation of some sort of racial nonsense with no wikipedia venue such as the why "they" call the Italians the Chinamen of Europe question. The "denigrate" question is only the most recent. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You're forgiven :-) I'm pretty suspicious about a lot of those kinds of questions too. It's an ugly area. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Suspicion is a natural human reaction, but this is really about how we implement WP:AGF. Sometimes, a post is so blatantly racist, homophobic or sexist in its outright vilification that there's no possible doubt, and we're within our rights to delete it, box it, or whatever we think is appropriate. But where there could be a reasonable basis for asking a question - a basis that doesn't imply any of those sorts of attitudes, or any agenda to foment hatred - we are required to "assume good faith". That is, of all the possible motives that might lie behind a question, we are required to assume the least negative one, not the most negative one. It's called giving them the benefit of the doubt (and anyone who thinks these things are never in doubt, read below). That's our rule, and if anyone has an issue with it, they can take it up in the relevant forum.

Here and in other online places we generally have no idea what led the OP to ask their question in the first place, and there's no requirement for them to tell us. It's folly to assume in any given case we know what's in their minds. We have to get by without any of the non-verbals that in most human communications comprise, depending on who you read, somewhere between 70% and 95% of the meaning of an utterance. Out there, You're a bastard can be a total put-down or a compliment, depending on how it's said, and their voice tones and inflexions, their body language, and the context tell much more of the story than the mere words used. Here, there'd be a whole lot of misinterpretation going on, even amongst ourselves, if it were not for the LOLs and smileys that usually accompany jokes. Most of us have to be trained to do this, because it's quite unnatural to always have to give some overt signal that "This is a joke". So, when questions come out of left field, and pretty much ALL the questions we deal with come out of left field (not that they're all sinister :), we have to recognise we're dealing with far more unknowns than knowns, and our responses should be conditioned by this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"assume good faith" is usually a good policy throughout Wikipedia, but I personally believe, based on my occasional forays into the reference desk pages, that many questions about race and sexual practices (especially), that are apparently treated seriously, are actually trolling or baiting. I would not oppose a more sceptical policy on those. 86.160.221.207 (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we all think that about some posts. But how do we tell the real ones (the ones that arise from academic research or natural curiosity, with no sinister agenda) from the nefarious ones? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

request for advice on murder

this IP is requesting how to kill rats, with the side comment that he would be quite happy if it led to the death of his neighbor's children as well--I think it should be deleted entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Rat_poison μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The user removed the hatting. I removed the section entirely. We are not in a position to advise him on poisoning in any case. I have placed a warning on his user page. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Directly below a user wants advice on poisoning himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#iodine_reacting_with_titanium μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Dodger67 opined, and I agree, that this was not a request for medical advice, and the hide box was removed. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That was a severe overreaction. They are not asking for advice on murder, this is an intentional misrepresentation on your part. They made a joke, as obviously their neighbor's kids are not going to be eating rat poison in their roof. I reverted your deletion. Plasma Physics answered, and had no problem with the Q, and neither do I. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We should not be giving advice on the use of poison in any case, we are not professionals or privy to the circumstances. I believe the item should be deleted, regardless of how fun it might be for editors to give answers. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Half the stuff on the Science Desk is about poisonous chemicals. Please don't remove it again unless you first develop a consensus to do so. Threatening the user with a block on his talk page was also out of line. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, StuRat, having seen the tarbabies you've stuck your fingers in here, yours is the last advice I'd be comfortable taking on any matters of judgment, thank you. Advice on poisoning is simply beyond the pale. I think your action is quite irresponsible. The least you could do is err on the side of caution and wait to restore the thread. There is no hurry in answering this question. μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And seeing your actions here recently, you are the last person with sufficient judgement to act unilaterally, and then threaten to have the OP blocked if he reverts your unilateral deletion. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing about the kids was a joke. Strike it or delete it if you want. I seem to remember something about humor being permitted on the rd so long as it's not an inside joke (you know since if my neighbour's kids are in the roof then they're probably not wanted), but if you're offended, then I'm happy to have it redacted. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In case it is still not clear, we shouldn't be giving advice on the use of environmental poisons at all. This has nothing to do with being "offended"--its about not giving amateur advice on how to treat an infestation using deadly chemicals. μηδείς (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and we shouldn't give people car advice because they might screw it up and explode if we're wrong. We shouldn't help people identify pictures of berries because they might eat it and die if we're wrong. We shouldn't even identify flowers for them because they might think it's safe to take inside and their cat eats it and dies. Anyway, if it's clear the OP is already intending to go so far as to spray his roof with industrial chemicals, the only way we could make it worse is to recommend he take a flamethrower to the creepy crawlies. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but unless/until a consensus is reached and the guidelines are modified to add this sort of prohibition to the others, I don't agree that your opinion translates to a blanket "we shouldn't". —Steve Summit (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the RD has previously given advice on poisoning rats. 112.215.36.174 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate language?

There's a question on the Humanities desk asking about the sexual abuse of children using language that is somewhat unfortunate given the topic. Whilst I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, I wonder if it could be appropriate to moderate the language a little in this case. I was tempted to do it myself, but I haven't - a) because I think the question itself is valid, so doesn't need removing, and b) because it would be rude and presumptuous of me to edit someone else's post. Looking at the OP's talk page leads me to suspect that they would be inclined not to change it if asked. Am I being too squeamish here? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's a cutural thing, but it's not a problem to me. A comment I've added on that page is that while I can accept that the word "fuck" on its own is seen as profane by some people under any circumstances (not to me), the expression "fuck him up" should not be so regarded. We all know that the meaning of that expression has nothing to do with the sex act. It's just our amazing English language at work. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Substitute "rape", and it falls into place. There's physical rape, and there's also metaphorical rape of the mind. Often, the one is bound with the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. You've lost me there. Again, maybe it's a cultural thing, but I've never heard of "metaphorical rape of the mind". Want to expand on that? HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

More politely put, "messed up", is the same thing. In this case, psychological rape as well as physical rape. The victim is a torrent of emotions over this violation. The perp doesn't care, he just wants what he wants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the closing of this thread. No matter how high emotions run on the subject, it is an important area of academic inquiry. There have been a number of children subjected to recovered memory therapy who now are said to be subject to false memory syndrome, and it is said that by being deluded into thinking that they were sexually molested, that they suffer long-term psychological harm akin to - in some versions of the story, even equivalent to - that arising from actual rape. Which would mean that whatever appalling physical indignities are done to the child, that the child can heal, and it's really the part about having to talk about it, or having people know about it, or being psychoanalyzed about it, or something ... is really where the damage occurs. (some sources deny there's such a thing as false recovered memory syndrome [1]) That might seem absurd, but let's bear in mind that little kids endure various types of probing for medical purposes that can range from a rectal thermometer to genital reconstructive surgery for birth defects, and people assume that they don't have any psychological aftereffects! So there's every reason to look into this part of the intellectual map and put something there for our users besides a fanciful drawing and "Here There Be Monsters". And I am inclined to assume good faith and assume that the original poster asked a question honestly and legitimately. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Indef banned user socking?

Does anyone else feel Special:Contributions/DriveByWire who appears to have a good knowledge of how things work in Norway and appears to be inviting some sort of admin response over correcting others spellings of it's/its [2] and makes a big fuss over other such spelling and grammar things in general (and also appears to like a spherical cow response although they're hardly unique in this) bears strong similarities with another indefinitely blocked former RDer? Worth filing an SPI? Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm 12. What is this? DriveByWire (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you're 12 or 21 or "3", you are not allowed to mess with other editors' comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember another odd user -- I think it was "Bred Ivy" or something -- who came out of nowhere and started kvetching about grammer in a pretty characteristic way, and I wondered if he might be a sock. I also note that "Bred Ivy" is an anagram of "Drive By". —Steve Summit (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bred Ivy (talk · contribs) was a pure troll. DriveByWire (talk · contribs) might not be either a pure troll nor the same user. But Bred Ivy would have been indef'd if he hadn't disappeared on his own (under that ID, anyway), and if DriveBy is not careful, he could be driving down that path too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it very hard to accept that someone who wrote the following posts - [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] - is only 12 years old. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe unless he's reporting it in hexadecimal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

An anagram is no reason for the comparison, in my humble opinion. Bred Ivy (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, experience indicates otherwise. Regardless, it's odd how Bred Ivy magically turned up here, after over a 3-month abscence, just when he was being talked about. Must be psychic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's much simpler than that. Lots of people read Wikipedia and its various tentacles who choose not to get involved as editors. I'd warrant that most banned editors continue to read WP, at least for a while. Some so keenly feel the need to continue making their invaluable contributions to world knowledge that they arrange to be reincarnated.

Actually, on a more serious note, I wonder who will be the first WP editor who really is a reincarnation of a deceased editor. We're probably in the zone where that's possible now. Assuming reincarnation actually occurs. The ex-editor would have had to die very early on, like 2001, and the newby would only be 11 tops now, but still ... Hey, DriveByWire claims to be only 12, so maybe ... -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why says an extracorporeal time line has to have a certain slant? I'm not sure about the details of certain religions, but a person could be reincarnated before or during their previous incarnation; indeed, there's one Atman and the rest is done with mirrors. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I may have missed it but I don't think BredIvy complained much about grammar or spelling, instead randomly complaining about some post Tango made and other similar stuff. It is clear neither is new. Perhaps Steve Summit is thinking of Cerlomin, who we pretty much established was a sock of another editor who liked to complain about spelling/grammar but who was only temporarily blocked (and both of them disappeared anyway). Speaking of anagrams, [8] is somewhat revealing. Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

[9]. Yup, trolol. DMacks (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To DMacks and Nil's revelations, I can only say this:[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Joke policy

Do we need a joke policy? I've seen numerous threads over the past few months where the ratio of joke-to-content is unbalanced, where the jokes come well before the good answers to, and where OPs who complain about jokes getting in the way of their answers are told that they, not the jokester, have committed the faux pas, by complaining.

Hey, I'm not opposed to a little community. Joking does wonders and we're all volunteers. But I sort of thing some really basic courtesy is called for. Some thoughts:

1. Don't start with a joke. If the question hasn't gotten at least one or two serious answers to it, don't start off with the bad puns or small quips. (Possible exceptions are questions that have no possible serious answers, though even then, tread lightly, give it a few days. Just because you don't think a serious answer is possible doesn't mean it's impossible.)
2. Keep the jokes pretty inoffensive. The Ref Desk is used by people of all ages, genders, sexes, classes, races, nations, languages, religions, and what have you. Don't post something that you wouldn't say in a room full of diverse strangers. Don't let the relative anonymity of the Internet turn you into a jerk, inadvertently or not. We're not censored, but we don't have to be pointlessly offensive. If it's considered racy in your culture, it's probably worth just keeping under your hat. (We're not asking you to try and guess what's offensive in all cultures, but it's a healthy assumption that if it's racy in yours, it may be truly offensive in another's. There's really no need for that either way.)
3. If the OP complains about the joking, just apologize and/or cease and desist. Engaging in a long, drawn-out conversation about whether your joke was appropriate or not is not productive for the Ref Desk's overall goal of answering questions. A simple, "OK, sorry about that" will do, and nobody will think less of you for being big about it. It really doesn't matter if your joke was or was not appropriate or not. Part of being civil is recognizing when you're irritating the very person you're supposed to be helping and just backing off.

I'm not a fan of bureaucratic bloat, so I'm not really proposing that this go through some sort of long, drawn-out process of agreement and hemming and hawing, but I will just put it forward as a suggestion for best practices. Again, I'm not opposed to a bit of joking and whatnot — I do it myself. But I do think we should not let the chatty, community aspects overshadow the ultimate justification for the Reference Desk — because Wikipedia is not a chatroom.

To use the physical metaphor, I'd be pretty irritated if I went to a real-world library reference desk with an earnest question, and all the people behind the desk did was make little puns, trying to one-up each other, without actually answering the question. Just my two cents; not trying to single any one user out in particular, this is something I've seen coming from a lot of people. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. 98's proposal in general. I think this is really just a special-case restatement of WP:TONE. If it doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, it probably does not belong on the reference desk. We might do well to more aggressively remove unencyclopedic contributions, whether by regular or non-regular contributors. Nimur (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing goes a bit far, and should only be used in extreme cases. Hatting is sufficient in most cases. Otherwise, you could end up with people deleting any contribution which they feel doesn't have adequate sources, as "nonencyclopedic", leading to edit wars.

I also disagree with "If it doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, it probably does not belong on the reference desk". For example, if a user posts a homework problem he did and got marked wrong, and wants us to help find the error, that's not the type of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia, but it does belong here. There are many other examples. StuRat (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Helping with the homework question in the tone of an encyclopedia is fine; only the content need be different. Matt Deres (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The tone needs to be different, too. For example, you wouldn't use the first person when writing an article, but it's fine when answering a Ref Desk Q: "When doing such a problem, I first...". StuRat (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Content_and_tone. It doesn't cover Mr. 98's third point though. I agree with that one too, and it could be added to the guidelines. No need to lecture an OP for complaining about the jokes. Obviously, in these cases, the joke wasn't appreciated. Swallow it and move on. Don't berate the OP for not sharing your sense of humor or for having the cheek to insist on an answer rather than a joking post which doesn't include an answer). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/cx2) I agree with Mr.98. Matt Deres (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to 98's physical example, I'd be amused if a ref desk at a library was as lively and responsive as you describe, as long as my question did get answered. The Ref Desk is "staffed" by volunteers, so, Nimur, talk of "aggressive" action, however well intentioned, is completely inappropriate absent an "aggressive" cause. All that said, most of what is proposed is fine. You might consider putting it up for reference in the same way the we sometimes use Kainaw's parameters for "Is this medical advice?". I doubt you will get agreement for anything stronger than that. Bielle (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I Also agree, jokes should not interfere with answering the questions. A possible exception could be if a joke is actually to the point and would contribute to addressing the posted problem. Count Iblis (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the 3 points raised, but as noted, more appropriate as an essay. On #1, if all you are going to post is a joke as the first response, don't bother - though a combined joke and refutation ("this can't be answered as science does not address this question, but I would use a pink flying unicorn") is OK. The humour:content ratio ebbs and flows over time, it shouldn't be overwhelming in any thread or from any one user, and beyond just hatting bits of a thread, approaching individual editors on their own talk pages to calmly and politely discuss the level and appropriateness of their RefDesk humour quotient is always the best way to go. Even if they tell you to screw off, you can just say your piece and give them time to think about it. If there was going to be a "policy", that is what I would write up: the 3 principles above, discuss on user talk first. And my own thing too - use -small- notation and indent an extra level so that it's very very clear you are stepping out from the actual purpose of the desks and not taking yourself seriously when you make a joke. Franamax (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think worrying about jokes when we don't worry about editors wanting to poison themselves or others is itself a joke. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think bringing up one's own pet peeve in a completely unrelated thread is disruptive and narcissistic, but you don't see me banging on about it here there and everywhere. Franamax (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? My merely expressing the fact that your (pl) concern with jokes--but not the irresponsible giving of advice on deadly matters--is a huge inversion of priorities is hardly "disruptive". As for jokes as such, humor is often the only appropriate response to some of the absurd questions posted here, the outright trolling, and especially self-important moralizing. Something about the mote in your own eye, pal. μηδείς (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're referring to, sorry. Please feel free to start your own thread if you have a separate point to make. Please don't try and hijack this one, though, just because you think it is less important than other issues. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. There are many places on the internet for posting jokes, but the Reference Desk is not one of them. If someone absolutely must post a joke it should be after the OP of a question has gotten a good answer, and should not detract from the question or lower the tone of the thread AvrillirvA (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And if there is no "good answer"? Or if it's a really dumb question? Or trolling? Or completely unclear? The other day we had a post that said "uv". Nothing more. Please suggest a "good answer". HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I assumed they wanted to know about ultraviolet light, and gave them the link to our article. I could be wrong, but it's a reasonable guess. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! If the question has no good answer, the answer is "There is no good answer because _____." If the question is actually dumb, the answer should be easy. If it's trolling, ignore or hat etc. If it's completely unclear, say "This is not clear because _____." If it's funny, say, "This is funny because _____." or make a joke which explains the humor by being both another example of the same joke, and funny in a different way. If too many of the most recent questions are funny, treat them as trolling. If it's offensive, say, "This is offensive because _____." 75.166.192.187 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, if there is no reasonably good answer to give, it's pretty simple: don't answer at all. Leave it for someone else, or just let it lie fallow. Mingmingla (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mingmingla's response is generally mine on these sorts of things. If one absolutely does feel the need to engage the un-engaging, a simple, "What's your question?" might suffice. I still don't see humor (especially mocking humor) as the answer, here. I'm not sure who you imagine is on the other end, but it could easily be a child, a confused elderly person, someone with a disability, someone whose computer is acting up in strange ways, or whatever. There's no need to assume they're a troll or a jerk or an idiot. AGF. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mocking is not acceptable, whether done jokingly or in any other way. The whole thing whereby people decide, explain, pontificate or judge what is or is not funny, is completely beside the point of humour. When you hear something that makes you laugh or smile, your experience is joy, which you express by laughter or a smile. Transferring that onto the thing that caused it, and saying you "find" it funny, is just that, transference. But humour is far more complex and subtle and individual than that. One joke might make 10 people laugh, but cause distress to 10 others. The first lot would say it was funny, the second lot would disagree. And who would be right? Answer: None of them, because it's not about whether it is or is not funny. It's solely about whether a listener does or does not experience joy.

If someone makes a post here that was not intended as any sort of joke, but still had the effect of producing laughter in a number of editors, how would we deal with that? Would we say it was inappropriate because of the effect it had? The answer is obvious. So really, it comes down to the intent of a post. If the intent clearly is to make people laugh, that seems to be not-OK in the eyes of some people, but if there was no such intent (whether laughter was actually produced or not), that's perfectly all right (as long as it was appropriate in every other way). Is this a sane basis for assessing the appropriateness of posts? When did it become not-OK to actually want to spread joy?

Sure, sure, we have to remember the purpose of the ref desks, and keep them a welcoming place and not inadvertently drive people away, and keep things in perspective. But that can all be achieved in an atmosphere that is not as dry as dust and boring as batshit. Who would want to work in a workplace where no communications are ever permitted that are not strictly about the work, and nobody ever laughed? This isn't a Dickensian workhouse. I've never worked in a place where there was a formal policy about joke-telling, specifying what jokes are acceptable or not, and under what circumstances they may or may not be told, and I'd hate to see such a Stalinist policy instituted here. I have worked under policies that promote mutual respect and forbid racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise inappropriately discriminatory behaviour; and I've certainly worked in environments where the serious purpose of the team and the pressing nature of the work meant that people didn't have the time or inclination to be joking every 5 minutes - but there were still regular opportunities to have a break and let our hair down and let off a little steam and have a laugh.

Well, guess what, the Ref Desks are not even a workplace to begin with, and it's not like we're all working on some grand project that has a budget and a deadline and there are chains of command. People have their own reasons for being involved here, but in 100% of cases there is an absence of compulsion - other than their own inner drives. People often turn up at work every day because in a very real and practical sense they have to, and not necessarily because they particularly enjoy the work or the environment. These Ref Deks are the exact opposite of that. There is zero compulsion, and we keep on turning up only because we DO particularly enjoy the work and the environment. Having some rules is important, but it's so easy to overdo it. Zealots can do just as much harm in their way as vandals and trolls do in theirs. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What Jack said. Also, if this is to continue, shouldn't people be giving diffs? And funny '98 should mention computer acting up. If you see an edit summary by me that makes no sense it's because my computer decided to hit the RETURN key all by itself before I was finished typing. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We do need to be aware of medical implications. It's a well-documented fact that many people have died laughing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a few jokes and a bit of banter is OK once the thread has developed. What I find annoying, in my experience of using the ref. desk from time to time, is when the first person to answer does so with no real intention of being helpful but simply to show how witty or clever they are. That does occasionally happen. 86.160.221.207 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, Bugs did make me laugh. Most of us (myself certainly included) don't wish for a boring, dry workhouse. I don't think we need to dichotomize into "no joke is ever appropriate" vs "all jokes are always appropriate because no one gets to decide what's appropriate". I think the key reason these (and other) threads pop up occasionally has to do with how certain types of posts produce distraction. When a distraction from the question or topic is presented before a relevant reply has been posted, a number of askers may feel turned off and not taken seriously. We've received such feedback multiple times since the desks exist.

Of course I too keep turning up because I enjoy the work and the environment. Once again, I point to point three of "Steve Summit's take on the reference desk" :

"The purposes of the Reference Desks are [...] To have fun showing off our knowledge, expertise, and erudition."

"[...] I think it's just as important to acknowledge, because it explains why those of us who participate are actually here. It's all well and good to state highfalutin virtuous altruistic principles for these desks, but people aren't going to come here and volunteer their time and expertise to answer questions unless they enjoy doing it. So their enjoyment is important. In fact, to the extent that a certain amount of humor and friendly banter are enjoyable, those aspects are important, too. They certainly can't be denied and shouldn't be discouraged. But, again, they come at a lower priority: if (when) they come into conflict with the helping-the-project and helping-the-questioners goals, they've got to give way first."

I enjoy receiving a joking comment from the librarian most when it comes with the answer or service I'm looking for. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I go along with all that (while acknowledging that I do occasionally offend against the "answers first, jokes later" rule). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a need for any new/special policy here - it should be uncontroversial to say that the purpose of these pages is to answer questions, and humor is welcome as long as it helps rather than hinders this activity. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I find lengthy discussions conducted all in small font to be probably ultimately more annoying than jokes. The usefulness of small font tagging for even single asides or off-topic comments is dubious at best, and entire sub-threads in small font are ridiculous... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What if a template like this existed, and could be encouraged instead of small tags? [Edit: my code for a collapsing "joke" template was removed because I did a half-assed job of it and broke something. Sorry Tango.] Like a self-imposed collapse (but not in bold text on a green background). Subsequent jokes could go inside the same collapse, all tidy-like. Has the advantage of clearly labelling the content "joke" to reduce possible distress.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, offer editors the option of purchasing rose-tinted glasses which will make comments posted in joke-pink become invisible. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the small font convention is intended to make the off-topic joke less intrusive. The problem I have with this collapsing box convention is that it makes it more intrusive (when compared to small text). A collapsible box, even without bold text and bright background, draws attention to itself and cuts up the flow of thread. While such collapsible boxes do discourage contributing further to the off-topicness, I think it's outweighed by the disruptiveness of introducing such a box in the midst of a conversation. -- 71.35.99.136 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If the template was properly made, it could be only as high as a normal line of text (reduce the padding) and the box could be indented like any other text (not sure how to do this, but removing "indent|0px" seems like a good start). So it would fit into the flow. Could remove the border, too, and give it a fixed small width, so it just says "joke" in small text with a "show" link right beside it. (I guess all that would entail an inner div and ... but anyway.)  Card Zero  (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If this template existed it could be abused. It raises the reader's expectation of finding something funny. What they get in return for investing in an extra click on show may not fulfil expectation. There is also endless possibility for mischief in applying the template to posts by others. Some of the best humour is subtle humour that is not improved by painting a red nose on it. DriveByWire (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's already a rule against modifying other people's posts, e.g. by collapsing them with the ordinary collapse template. And we already make disappointingly lame jokes. You may be right that these are less disappointing when kept in plain view.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to any such uses of hidden text with a "show" button, for all the reasons mentioned. This device merely draws special attention to the content and tempts the reader with an almost irresistabe "read me!". "show" is fine for factual content that you know you may or may not be interested in. 86.181.206.183 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed racist comment

I've removed this comment because it looks racist to me. Do people agree? If so, do people think we should take any further action? --Tango (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think any further action is needed, other than to keep an eye on the question, which seems to be drifting a little off-topic. The two comments previous to the one you removed (not StuRat's, the other two) make some rather sweeping generalisations about Muslim women and their ability to join in university life, but I think the posters were misinformed rather than mal-intentioned. The later comment didn't allow any doubt, so it's well removed. I don't think we should worry about further action though - now it's gone there's no lasting harm done. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not "racist". There's no such thing as a Muslim race. However, it's xenophobic and religionist and obscenely rude to the questioner. So it's fair to zap it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment was more about the countries the poster assumes a Muslim must be from rather than the religion itself, which is why I said "racist". It doesn't really matter, though, "xenophobic" will do. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal. Other RD posts from Myles325a (talk · contribs) today include this (since removed) and this - some sort of user talk page warning about making more constructive contributions may be in order ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are more like crude jokes. I expected to hear a "rimshot" after each of them. The editor's been here 5 years, but I don't recall running across him before. Has he always been like this, or is this a recent change of behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at the editors talk page reveals that it is far from the first notice about inappropriate behaviour at the ref desk that this editor has received. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This does seem to be the first that was so clearly unacceptable, though. There is a trend we need to keep a very close eye one, definitely. I asked about further action because I thought people might feel we should take a zero-tolerance approach to this kind of thing. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no question it was correct to remove it, and also the user should be cautioned if that has not already been done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted to the user's talk page to inform them of this discussion. If they read this thread, they'll know we consider their actions unacceptable. Is that sufficient? --Tango (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)