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.

True friend/s or not (Miscellaneous Desk)

I really think this sort of question ought to be closed down. How does one even define "friend/ship", let alone "online friend/ship", let alone find references that could possibly answer this question in an appropriate way for this desk?

I see the first two three respondents so far have not provided references, but have just given their (no doubt well-intentioned) advice and opinions. Trouble is, this is not the Wikipedia Advice and Opinions Desk. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

By your command http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=508206285&oldid=508203956 μηδείς (talk) 00

02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You started your reply with a semicolon instead of a colon, but I know how you hate anyone to change your indents, so I'll leave it messed up. Also, the idea is to wait for a consensus, not to immediately hat it. StuRat (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There certainly are plenty of books on such things, so a reference librarian would refer people to those. Jack, it's looking like you just want to close down any Q without an exact scientific answer, which pretty much would be most of the Humanities, Language, and Entertainment desks, for a start. StuRat (talk)

We get quite a lot of these "agony aunt" style questions. I agree they aren't strictly speaking what the reference desk is for, but we can usually give answers that are useful to the person asking the question. What's the harm? --Tango (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool how that inadvertent semicolon worked out, huh? The motion was seconded and hence carried out. No one is preventing anyone from adding references or links after the hatting. The question was not deleted. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Seconding it is not the same as a consensus. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have tried to unhat the thread with a +1 Sword of Referencing but have been unable to do so? μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP has removed their own question now, so this one's null and void.

But no, Stu, I'm not wanting to be as hard line as you suggest. I do, however, want to see a little more rigour about what's in and what's out. It's one thing to say that there are plenty of books on such things and a reference librarian would refer clients to them. But if that's true, why did none of first 3 respondents track one such book down and give its name to the OP? You can't have it both ways. "Both ways" is when you argue in one place (above) that suitable references exist and hence it's a suitable Ref Desk question, but when it comes to actually answering the question, all we get is personal opinions, which, as I pointed out the other day up above, are meant to be “limited to what is absolutely necessary”.

And what's the harm, Tango? Potentially, lots. As I also pointed out the other day, we often advise our OPs NOT to accept personal advice from anonymous strangers on the internet. We Ref Desk people are not some special breed of human who are inherently trustworthy. As far as OPs are concerned, we are all "anonymous strangers on the internet", and our personal opinions have no more intrinsic merit than anyone else's. Telling OPs not to accept anonymous personal advice, but in the next breath providing ... anonymous personal advice, is the very definition of hypocrisy.

But that’s not even the core issue. There’s virtually an infinite number of questions that could conceivably be asked. A small subset of them are appropriate for the Ref Desk to be tackling. Questions about the mechanics of personal relationships are, in my mind, exquisitely inappropriate for us. There is no one size fits all answer to these types of things, and the few words an OP types here about their issue are just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Anyone genuinely able to help would need to sit down with the OP, or at least talk to them by phone, to get more important detail with which to help them find their own solution. It should not be about just giving people the answer; it’s about support. The way we’re set up is completely inimical to providing this type of support. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because the first couple answers don't provide links doesn't mean that the question is invalid. Plenty of hard fact questions don't get a useful link on the first couple of responses either. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think as a general rule we shouldn't judge a question by its answers. That is to say, just because poor answers have been given doesn't mean there are no well referenced ones, and the OP is entitled to ask for an answer if one conceivably exists. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the compromise is that we should hat the answers, not the question. Maybe someone could hack together a hatting template with text along the lines of "It is not within the scope of the Reference Desk to offer advice or personal opinion. Answers should be confined to those with objective references." - Two important points in the wording. First off, I think we should avoid "please ask elsewhere"-type wording, as it could be misinterpreted as a "piss off, loser"-type response (especially when coming from a formal template). After all, in this scheme it's not the question that's the problem, but the non-referenced personal opinion answers. The second point is the explicit encouragement for replies with good references, so people are clear that answering the question is still encouraged, as long as it's the right sort of answer - With such a template, we could then move answers that are too "opinionated" under it, allowing for the possibility that someone might be able to provide a later, scholarly response. -- 71.35.112.120 (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughtful thoughts, 71.35. But it seems we've been overtaken by events, and I feel a distinct lack of general support. The latest invitation to engage in speculation (Humanities: "If a disaster destroyed Mecca, what would Muslims do …") has been whole-heartedly taken up by 8 editors, mostly old hands. In light of this, I don't see any point in even bothering to try to bring some order into proceedings here. Why don't we just cut to the chase, remove all restrictions on speculation and opinion from our guidelines, and have open slather? I'm completely serious. I'd be much more comfortable with that set up, than the current one where we say we frown on speculation but in practice we speculate on command, just like Pavlov's dogs. The first respondent was even told off by the second, not for engaging in the banned practice of speculating, but for not speculating rationally. Apparently even when you're breaking the written rules, there are still unwritten ones to be mindful of. No offence, Andy, but what a joke! -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That also seems to be a Q with a reasonable reference-type answer, which was provided, that Moslems are only required to visit Mecca if physically possible. So, what's wrong with that question and answer ? StuRat (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that question was pretty much the same type as one about who would be president if Obama and Biden died, or who the next king or queen of England would be should the royal family all die. It's speculation, but there are references to what would happen under those circumstances. Mingmingla (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Mingmingla and StuRat, there was nothing wrong with answering that question about Mecca. I provided quite a few refs to wikipedia articles that the OP may have found helpful. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks all, you've enabled me to see it with different eyes.

I'm still keen to pursue the issue I raised earlier. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But apparently nobody else is. Maybe I'm the odd man out here. Most everybody else seems committed to reinventing the wheel as often as possible, to making it up as they go along, and to having a set of guidelines that are more honoured in the breach than the observance.

I think it's time I took a long break from the Ref Desk. It's suffering a malaise and I'm not enjoying it much lately. Spring arrrived here 20 minutes ago, and in the Spring a young man's fancy turns to ... other things. Have fun. I shall return, but I know not when. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, Jack, enjoy the fancy parts on your young man. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussing how people decide if online friends are true or not sounds like a really important, fundamental question in the humanities that could be pursued with considerable vigor by someone with the right training. Now, I don't have that training, I don't even know what you'd call someone who does, but it would be best to leave such questions up in the hope that they can be answered. They seem very important, not just in a philosophical or anthropological sense, but also in terms of organizing online communities and creating sites worth billions of dollars. Please, take these things seriously, assume good faith, respect people. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

RD stars again

I know this has been discussed recently, see here, but I missed that discussion and in any case it has now been archived. Medeis has now added another star, see here, and I think this is ridiculous. The only reason I haven't deleted it is because he refers to the star in his comment below it, which would not have made sense if I'd deleted the star. But honestly, Medeis, I think you need to stop doing this. You are not in a position to say what is and is not a good answer. --Viennese Waltz 07:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If they want to put small images in their own comments I don't really see an issue (although equally I don't see the point either) but the problem here is that the image has been put on the same line as the other persons comment and almost looks like it is part of their signature, which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Sig#Images. This is confusing and annoying, and I agree it needs to stop. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is getting better. The original objections were because the stars were being attached to someones answer and not being signed, implying some sort of officialness. Putting a star inside of one's own comment makes it clear that it's just the commenter liking the answer. I often leave comments thanking people for good answers, this is just a form of that. I think the star should be embedded in the star givers comment, just to avoid ambiguity. This is better than it was, however, in that Medeis is making it clear who is leaving the star and why. But starring the answer shouldn't be done. --Jayron32 11:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If a good answer receives one star, then what kind of answer receives five stars?

—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A good answer to a five-part question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to Medeis' actions in relation to my comment contained in the diff above. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, do you wish to explicitly opt in to a list of editors who grant Medeis the right to modify their posts? If so, please indicate here. The editor has an active final warning on this, so it would be best if you be very very clear on this. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fooling around with other editors' posts is not good, although I've seen much worse than this gold-star thingy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Franamax, when other editors irritate me they do hear about it. I love you all so much that I am regularly silent. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't hat things

Can people please stop hatting things? If it doesn't belong on the desk, delete it. Hatting things just draws attention to them and makes people click on them to see what is going on. --Tango (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to fix anything you need fixing. If this is a reference to something I hatted, you are free to remove it. Be aware that I would be happy to remove anything I have hatted. The problem is, I get tired of hearing the incessant bitching of people who demand that every trolling question or request that we cure someone's disease must not be deleted. Hatting is a compromise to avoid that mess. If you want to remove what I have recently hatted, please, do so, but then you can defend it when people complain. --Jayron32 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That describes the problem exactly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

To expand a bit on Jayron's reply (with respect to Bugs' opinion it is perfect already :), one of the dilemmas of removal is that a group of commentators insists that each and every editor must be informed when a thread they contributed to gets removed. IMO this puts an unreasonable burden on the remover, thus the rational strategy is to hat threads (or portions thereof) as an alternative. Also Tango, you may be correct that hatting draws attention, but the real question is whether or not it shuts down the actual disruption - which IMO it does, since it is vanishingly rare to see editors adding into a hatted thread. Franamax (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point, though it wasn't my actual intent, I do agree with that side of things. The main problem is that there are a few people who treat WP:AGF as a suicide pact: they appear as though they cannot conceive that a person would do anything to merit a thread being removed. All posts, no matter how patently rediculous, must be treated with the utmost care. I tend to err on the side of good faith; I answer many questions in earnest many people would ignore or be suspect of, but even I have my limits. Some people, howver, do not apparently. --Jayron32 04:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well there is the rub: "a few people", "Some people" - who are those people? Can we progress without naming those people and entering into substantive discussion? Or are we confined to shadow-boxing? I've recently not been shy about identifying the problems (i.e. editors) I see but that is not a general trend. So should we have an honest and open discussion? For some reason I have the impression that RD disagreements have been leaking out into the encyclopedia-werkz lately, and as always, this is a very good candidate for MFD - so can we right the ship here in this venue? Franamax (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not here to make people feel bad. They all mean well. And the RD still continues to work very well. Things have been going pretty good, there's lots of good, informative, and well referenced answers to people's questions. Yeah, sometimes theres' a fight, but there's no need to overreact. I'm not really sure why you'd threaten MFD, it seems kinda petulant, if you ask me "You kids straighten out, or we'll delete the whole thing". Seriously, can't we have good-faith disagreements over a few issues once in a while without threatening to shut the whole thing down every time that happens? --Jayron32 05:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "threatening" anything and my roots are right here at the desks, so please don't make me into a monster. If you want, I could go back into AN/I history to dig up the threads, outside observers look at what happens here and question how it meets the encyclopedic mission - and I can also link a recent AN or AN/I thread discussing RefDesk editing. I will not be proposing deletion of anything, but the en:wiki project does have a history of pruning off unproductive offshoots, a fact which I believe all those who think the RefDesks have an existence of their own should keep well in mind. We exist at the sufferance of the encyclopedia.

So put up or shut up then Jayron, if you want to get petulant. Who are those "a few people" you don't want to make feel bad? Why did you mention them in the first place, whoever they are? Were you trying to encourage them? Who are they? Let's celebrate their accomplishments! Or perhaps have a rational discussion with minimal input of emotion. Franamax (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for what I said. I meant no harm against you. This thread is going off the deep end, and I apologize to you Franamax, against whom I hold no ill will, and to anyone else who had to read through this. I'm not sure where we got off track, but it's gone past the point of a productive discussion. I would love to have a meaningful discussion over ways I can improve my performance at the reference desk, I am always seeking personal improvement. But this discussion isn't going anywhere fast, so I consider my part in it done. Again, I am sorry to you Franamax for insulting you, it was wrong of me to do so. I also apologize to anyone reading for my comments in what was otherwise an important discussion to have about how to properly handle inappropriate threads. Please carry on with that discussion. --Jayron32 06:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

test1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
test

No small part of the problem is that the hat dealie is colored. If it were the same as the background color, it wouldn't be nearly as attention-getting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, (though you can specify a bgcolor: I'm pretty sure) I do wish there was a less obtrusive way of hatting, more like a sub-section heading so it didn't cross the whole screen. (After e/c, that 2nd test suxxorz! :) Franamax (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

??? I might have messed up the box a bit. But it doesn't look like there's a parameter to change the color. I also noticed that the background color is not precisely white. But it definitely seems much more subdued this way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I can change the background-color: white in your example if you really want to see it turn to Burnt Sierra, but my main thing is that the hat spans the screen, even in your white example the "show" box is at the right side - so it's calling attention by being there at all, what normal editor puts clicky-links off to the right? (Oh yes, I think I put some red in your example, revert as you wish :) Franamax (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the red, but the point is that it's less attention-grabbing than being colored. If flat-out deletion is preferable, that will inevitably lead to yet another discussion here, nearly every time, with the usual suspects griping about the deletion. Hatting gets the point across without anyone's precious pearls of wisdom disappearing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c, replying only to the above) Srs, when you click on "show" over from your test2 hat it doesn't expand to a red outline box? Strange that. I do agree with you on the value of hatting, and I do agree it should be as unobtrusive as possible - my beef is with the "span:100%" nature of the banner, which spreads the collapse/hat banner across my browser screen, whether it's white or eggplant background. I think that is what Tango was talking about too, calling attention to the hatting. So if you can find a way to compact the hat so it looks like something a (Latin alphabet-based) normal editor would do, I'm all for that. Franamax (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It does. I was somehow expecting the narrow strip to have a red band around it. In any case, I think white calls less attention than color does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The problems with full deletions are many:

1) One person makes the decision to delete, without consensus, and frequently without notifying the OP and answering editors, or even leaving a note here. This leaves the OP baffled as to what happened to their Q, and they may repost. There may be no reason listed for the deletion, or it may be vague, like "trolling".

2) Such deletions quite often have turned out to be wrong, as a consensus develops to restore them. That is, of course, when anybody spots the deletion and brings it up here.

3) There is that Assume Good Faith policy, which means that anything which could be a serious Q should stay.

4) There's the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" problem, where a valid Q and valid answers are deleted because of some bad answers. Since deleting just some of the answers is a bad idea (people could do this to delete anything which disagrees with their answer), hatting is a better alternative.

There are also problems with hatting, though:

A) Overuse. This is similar to non-lethal weapons in the hands of police. If only used as an alternative to deletion (shooting somebody), this is good. However, you can get cops tasering anyone who argues, and editors (particularly Medeis) hatting every other Q.

B) Can disrupt the flow, if part is hatted and the follow-on answers refer to the hatted bits.

Still these problems are far less severe than all those deletion problems. I'm not saying no Q should ever be deleted, but this should be limited to those which nobody could possibly argue to keep, like say "Kill all fags !". I look to the distinction, in article space, between speedy deletion (which is appropriate for things like this) and listing it under "articles for deletion", waiting until a consensus develops, and then taking action. Unlike that method, the hatting does take place before a consensus, but those who disagree are free to unhat (versus undoing a deletion you don't even know about). StuRat (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite frequently delete sections that others have hatted (as I did just before I started this thread, although I didn't link to it because I don't want to draw attention to what was obvious trolling), and I don't think I've ever been reverted or even had any serious disagreement. I've had people disagree with unilateral deletions, though. That suggests a policy of allowing any two people to delete a question would work quite well. Perhaps a PROD-like system of adding a template to the top of a section (could hat it as well, but I don't see much benefit) and then anyone else that agrees can delete it. Can someone create a bot to notify anyone that has a signed comment in the section? That should pretty much resolve your first three points. I do agree that hatting can sometimes be appropriate for a few responses to a question, rather than the whole section, although I'd actually prefer a non-collapsing archive box. It makes it clear people shouldn't add more to that discussion, but doesn't have the same "ooo, what's the big secret?!" reaction that hatting does. --Tango (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh that reminds me I hatted the whole digression from StuRat's bizarre answers about the Middle Ages the other day. I've never done that before so I didn't know I was supposed to inform everyone. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't a bizarre answer when I stated that the decline of the Ottoman Empire was due, at least in part, to the influence of religion: [1]. Some may disagree, but this doesn't make the answer bizarre.

Also, you don't necessarily need to bring up a hatting here, but should explain your reason somewhere, like in the text of the hat, and sign it. StuRat (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured you were just being a ridiculous troll. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think practical use of the Refdesk involves occasional digressions into inappropriate material - this is essentially unavoidable, in the sense that if you want to prohibit it you end up inflicting much longer digressions of inappropriate material, i.e. Wikilawyering, which is far less pleasant to read. But inevitably digressions will on occasion get too long and distracting, and there a hat can be handy. Titling hats with descriptive, rather than judgmental summaries does much to reduce their obtrusiveness. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

personal attack removed

I don't recall the last time someone has posted as insulting a response to a good faith question requesting sourced answers as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=510515192&oldid=510515003 I have deleted it as a personal attack. Asking for sourced answers is hardly trollingf on anyone's part. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe the question is in good faith, it's asking for a journal reference to a discussion of a rotting cat from a quantum thought experiment; what's more, the insistence that responses lacking such citations will not be suitable makes the whole thing look even more absurd. Seriously, it's hard to take this as an honest question, I've seen the asker on here before, I have trouble believing they genuinely expect articles discussing this matter to exist. The only way I can see this as serious is if they are trying to ask about how quantum superpositions evolve in time, if that is the case, then they are doing so in an unnecessarily colourful way; and, again, I doubt that's their intent. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe a question is inane or based on misguided assumptions, insulting the person asking the question is disruptive. -- Scray (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have been insulting, especially not on the main page, that was uncalled for. However, my point is not that I think the question inane or misguided, it seemed like it was purposefully inane, as in the poster was not sincerely asking a question, but being goofy. If they had simply asked the question, I would have no problems, it is the insistence (and the way it has been insisted) on a reference for something that obviously isn't going to be in a journal as well as the later reference to a biologist. It's just really really hard to imagine that the poster legitimately had this question and came here looking for real responses. It'd be like somebody asking whether, or not, the trains in Einstein's thought experiment ended up being on time since they underwent relativistic effects; I can't imagine that you guys would be okay with such a question, especially if the person demanded published articles discussing the matter, there is little difference here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You started this apology well (about attacking the editor who asked the question), but then unwound it. You seem perplexed that others did not pile on with the criticism, but I approach answering refdesk questions in a manner that is mindful of the audience, to whom I feel greater duty than to the person who asked the question. Consider the people reading silently, both in real time and in the archive, what is better - to provide a thoughtful and verifiable answer to the question (however silly), or to disparage the question? The former approach dilutes silliness with facts and references. The latter response amplifies the silliness, may discourage others who contemplate asking a question, and encourages a troll who's just hoping to be disruptive. It's like the kid in class who asks about some titillating topic, to which a mature reply from the teacher is the best antidote. -- Scray (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This silly disparagement of the OP's question is in itself absurd. With relativity, the concept requires discarding the invariance of simultaneous events, but we point to the article about the trains running on time. As for a smelly cat, its a tad colorful, but hardly surprising considering the original analogy is about a dead or dying cat. If one wants to understand the difference between physical states that are superimposed and concurrent, verses those that are not, its natural to want to know to what extent the dead cat thought experiment is either useful or useless. In short, the request for possible references on this version was fine. Modocc (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP is making the point that the premise, of the cat being both alive and dead, is preposterous. And if that is the OP's point, then I agree with it. The red-link user was out of line in verbally smacking the OP around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

All good points, and I feel the same way to be honest and would say the same to myself, I have no idea why this one question rubs me so wrong; I also don't get why it's making be such an ass. At any rate, I made my point and am being more trollish than whatever I was accusing the original poster of being, so I apologize to everyone and will just move along.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I've realized why this aggravates me. About six years ago I was tutoring someone one Laplace Transforms for a class they were taking and they just kept objecting to things with really inane analogies and digressions because the material wasn't making sense to them (it eventually did:-)) At any rate, this question reminds me a lot of something they would say, and so I assumed it was said for similar reasons, and it got under my skin. Obviously, as I can see from all your responses, that isn't the case and I read my own bad experience into the question, so my fault, please excuse me, I'm usually not this rude- I saw a very different motivation behind what I read than what was there, I'm sorry.71.195.84.120 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we drop this. I did not start this thread looking for an apology, or excoriation of the OP, just explaining my actions, since i did think the offered trichotomy: "ass, troll or idiot", was unfair. Having studied historical linguistics in quite some detail, I can imagine being very irked if someone came along and offered the Sun Language Theory as an hypothesis worth discussion. But I did and do offer my cat question in good faith. If this were a topic I were versed in, perhaps I might know where to look. As it is, I know biology, and I know that dead verus not dead is a very temporally false alternative. I am quite happy to accept links and refs at the question itself. I am old enough and have had enough friends, relatives and lovers die on me that I hold no grudge and find no importance in any dispute here. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you obviously do not fit the offered trichotomy.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed trolling

I removed trolling by 76.16.47.115 (talk · contribs) and given him a warning. --Jayron32 03:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

well done! The Masked Booby (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Drink this?

I am sorry, but what part of advising an individual that drinking small amounts of deadly poisons like glycerol and isopropyl alcohol is safe doesn't fall under the ban on medical advice? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=510822568&oldid=510822335 μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Bogus. The question does not ask about what not water-based drinks are safe to drink, it asks about what water-based drinks are drunk. Isopropyl alcohol is drunk as a non-water based beverage, as is diethyl ether, and glycerol, as is attested to in each of those articles. Buddy431 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the worst closes I've ever seen you do, Medeis. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Buddy claiming that there's some "safe" level to ingesting a known poison is absolutely wrong-headed. It's fair to state that some folks drink poison, but to imply that it's just fine is a violation of the no-medical-advice rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There are very many other fluids that can be safely drunk in reasonable quantities (and note that pure water is also toxic). Please refrain from unilaterally closing or removing topics. This is about spreading knowledge. It's not hypnotically forcing people to do stupid things. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"deadly poisons like glycerol" - but it isn't. "Glycerol is used as a multiple purpose GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) food additive in food for human consumption"[2] Rmhermen (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My bottle of Isopropyl Alcohol has a strong warning not to ingest and advises what horrible things will happen. Saying that it's safe to drink is ABSOLUTELY WRONG-HEADED. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As always, the dosage makes the poison. Our article gives 15 g as a dose that can have a toxic effect - this is probably a bit less than for ethanol, but not dramatically so. But either way, the proper way to handle wrong information is not to delete it, but to correct it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "safe dosage" of poison. The only "correction" possible is either deletion OR direct contradiction of an editor who would post such a bone-headed claim, thus "showing him up" in front of the questioner. Which approach is better? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is completely wrong. Water is a poison at high doses, but necessary at low doses. The same is true for vitamin A or selenium or any number of other "poisons". --Stephan Schulz (talk)

Yeh, yeh, the old "water can be poisonous" schtick. So, tell me, what dosage of rubbing alcohol is "necessary" to your health? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, but ordinary grain alcohol will kill you, too, and I'd wager it's killed far more people than has isopropanol. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) LD50 is about what will kill you, whereas I believe what the government counts on for isopropanol is that the unpleasant gastrointestinal ramifications are enough to deter most people from drinking it to get drunk. Our isopropanol article doesn't seem to mention those, which makes me wonder whether the revenooers have somehow managed to make people think this is what will happen. But I doubt it — it's too easy to test, and there are too many potential testers out there. --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What size and weight of person would that be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What size and weight of person would what be? --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You said a certain amount is a lethal dose. But if you're a newborn, it would take a lot less to kill. That's why you can't ever say any dose of a poison is "safe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I never specified any amount as a lethal dose. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Lethal doses are given in mg/kg, which applies to newborns unless otherwise specified, with the assumption they can tolerate less than adults.

Why the EFF is it so important that we be free to give quack advice? μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We're NOT free to do so. Advising someone that it's safe to drink a poison is a gross defiance of the rule against giving medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not advice - information. No one is saying "you should go get drunk on isopropanol". But in terms of understanding it is useful. Once one realizes that ethanol, isopropanol, and gamma-hydroxybutyrate are examples of a general rule - that more or less all alcohols are intoxicating, and toxic (and taste bad, I assume...) - then one can use this insight to make more reasonable decisions in life (like "hell no, I'm not trying this GHB shit, there's no reason to use some weird illegal chemical when I can drink nice tasty champagne for the same effect"). It also makes it clearer to the person who does try GHB anyway that combining it with alcohol is an extra bad idea. The reference desk is about expanding knowledge, and knowledge fights on behalf of our users in countless subtle ways that we can never fully predict, but must take on faith. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A detailed search of the internet provides Pdf's that indicate that both substances are generally several (three or four) times as lethal as ethanol. The bottom line here is that we do not need to be advising readers that certain poisons are okay if you don't drink too much. It opens us up to liability, (is based on WP itself as a source,) and serves no encyclopedic purpose. Some of the prior answers were fine, one can drink all the honey or corn oil one likes till one vomits--except that even those can kill people with allergies and other conditions. We just don't need to be doing this, folks, and "I am entitled to use WP to give whatever crackpot advice I like" is way beyond the pale. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is an lethal dose for most if not all substances we can consume and regularly do consume. Indeed, many substances that are vital for our health are toxic at higher dosages. And many "poisons" like ethanol or nicotine have traditionally been used in lowish doses with minimal health implications (and most of those result from chronic overuse, not acute poisoning). "Poison" is a relative term. And the question was not even about poisons to begin with. It was a perfectly legitimate question - compare "what non-protein based substances are eaten" or "what kinds of music not based on major scale is consumed". And most of the answers were factually correct, too. This reference desk is for sharing knowledge. If you disagree with something, feel free to disagree. Don't censor. And I'd really like to see you "Pdfs" that claim that glycerol is several times as lethal as ethanol. It is, after all, a common food additive and used as a sweetener. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And once again, Medeis, we come back to your demand that a question be removed because particular answers give terrible advice. True or false, the solution to that problem is not to wipe out the entire thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, the irresponsible answers should have been deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, as this will result in you and Medeis deleting every other answer as "irresponsible". This is why we don't do this. StuRat (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The question was not about what substances are safe to drink. It was about substances that are drunk. Isopropyl alcohol, and glycerol, and diethyl ether, and 95% ethanol, are drunk/consumed on a pretty regular basis. Those facts are adequately sourced. I didn't know that it was wrong to provide references that answer the question on the reference desk. Buddy431 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It was wrong because you indicated that there is some "safe" level of drinking rubbing alcohol. That was totally irresponsible on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "safe" drinking level in the same way that there is no "safe" amount of ethanol to drink. I did not intend to indicate any specific level that may be drunk without any ill effects, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I did. Buddy431 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Glycerol is safe enough for humans or animals to drink. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 5:40 pm, Today (UTC−4)" ?!?! That's absolute bee ess with no authority, reference or sense of responsibility. Sorry, this is unacceptable, as is other material in response to this question as mentioned by others above. I see no point in further argument, although I am curious why so many usually uninvolved accounts are coming out in favor of the right to give vague and possibly deadly advice. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The more outrageous your deletions, the more editors will feel the need to object. Let me add myself to the list, for the reasons listed above. The question didn't ask about poisons, a question should never be deleted because of bad answers, just about everything we eat or drink is poisonous at some dosage, etc. And let me add that it isn't a request for medical advice, as it didn't ask what they should drink. StuRat (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No one said the question itself was a problem. The most recent answers and their restorals were. Feel free to argue that some should be restored, or whatever. Two suggestions that lethal poisons are safe to drink strikes me as good enough to close the discussion, at the Wikipedia Ref Desk--not the anythinggoes chatroom--and two restorals by previously uninvolved flesh/sockpuppets for no encyclopedic reason strike me as a good reason to involve ANI. There is obviously no consensus that the entire thread should be restored. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't understand why you keep insisting on glycerine being a "deadly poison". That's really a little odd. I did find a reference to pure (I assume meaning anhydrous) glycerine being capable of blistering the skin through dehydration, but that's because it's anhydrous, not because it's glycerine. My dad told me that the stuff can cause diarrhea, which I suppose could kill you in extreme cases, but that's really sort of reaching.

Do you have any case in mind where someone died from glycerine toxicity? --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you agree that the question itself was not a problem, then why did you delete it ? You should have stuck with hatting parts you think are dangerous. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely an overreaction. These poisons are not "lethal", this question and its answers did not need deleting, and the controversery certainly did not need escalating to AN/I.

Why are you so worried about glycerol? Are you getting it mixed up with ethylene glycol? Did you read the Food industry and Pharmaceutical and personal care applications sections of our article?

I wouldn't drink isopropanol, but the simple fact is that, as a poison, it is intermediate in toxicity between ethanol (which is sufficiently non-toxic that people get away with consuming it in limited quantities all the time) and methanol (which is the stuff that will make you go blind).

Now: is there any consensus for restoring the discussion? I for one found it interesting and informative, not dangerous or irresponsible. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC), tweaked 05:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that removing the whole thread was an over-reaction, and most or all of the thread should be restored. At most, the final opinion response from Graeme Bartlett could be removed, but it would be even better to counter it with a sourced response about the toxicity of glycerol, to show that "safe enough" is not a reasonable description here (if that is indeed the case). Gandalf61 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok a reference for gycerol is generally safe to handle.[3]. If too much is consumed it may lead to dehydration and kidney damage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of these data sheets are really kind of hilarious. I found one for isopropanol that said if it got on the skin, to flush it for 15 minutes with water. God forbid that rubbing alcohol should get on your skin. Admittedly it could have been talking about anhydrous isopropanol, but you know, after two seconds of running water, it's way way far from anhydrous. The dilemma is that there is probably some useful information in these things, but when it's hidden among this sort of lawsuit-induced crap, how do you find it? --Trovatore (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a strange notion -- expressed more than once in this discussion -- that substances such as glycerol and isopropanol are "lethal poisons", and that to describe them as anything else is wildly irresponsible. And, I'm sorry, but that's irresponsible, too. It's as wrong to overstate the dangers of something as to understate them, and if you want to get paranoid, overstating the risks could have tragic consequences, too. So let's try to regain a sense of reasonable balance, here. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on some chemistry work I've done concerning alternative fuels, isopropanol is an acceptable denaturant in the United States due to its adverse effects. Advice stating that it is at all safe to drink should never be found on the help desk. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've chatted with Russians who did drink it during the Gorbachev era... Wnt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed a Clearly Trolling Question

Hi, I removed a question from the science desk that was definitely trolling/asking for medical advice. I've never done this before and simply deleted the entry, is that the correct method?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well first, you should provide a link to the removal, like so. ;) Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That said, I think it was a good removal. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you:-) How do you provide a link? Sorry if that sounds like a stupid question, I've never done more than provide answers on the desk, I am entirely unaware of how to do anything else (is there a useful help page?) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I figured out where to get the link, should've just looked first before asking. Nonetheless, is there a useful help page- I know there are a lot of pages about rules and how to's and such, any that is especially pertinent? Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Help:Diff 92.233.64.26 (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you should notify possible non-trolls on their talk pages when deleting their possibly good faith questions.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Would this case count as that? It was an IP that was asking for blatant medical advice and a subject that seems exceedingly unlikely to be real, or is at least rare. Or do you mean in general? If so, what would distinguish the two cases? Thanks:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus distinguishes the two cases. :) Yes, I mean in general. My evaluation, if you want it, is that this guy way probably trolling but might have honestly had some unfortunate condition, so I'd have left him a message, if it was me doing it (except I think I've only deleted trolling on the ref desks about once). Leaving a standard message on a talk page serves several purposes: it lets innocent but confused posters know what's going on, it prevents them from trying again in confusion, it's a record for other visitors to the talk page (assuming the borderline troll is lazy and doesn't delete the messages), and it avoids aggravating posters' paranoias which might be fuelled when their messages silently vanish. Oh, and it's a courtesy.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.235.206 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

deskhelp about

so if you search and need help for <math> format why does wp not return any reference you can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.106.110 (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Or (interpreting the question a third way) it could be that you needed to search from the search box at WP:HELP instead of using the normal article space search box.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

right,no one can look for help for %3c;math&gt3e using this dialog; what is its purpose ifnot to infor about wikiepedia itself

The less-than sign (as the article says), and several other characters, can't appear in titles, because there is lameness. It seems that they can't be searched for, either, and are just removed from the text of searches: a search for <3 brings up the article 3 (number) as the first result, not the article less than three. I expect it's difficult to fix due to clashes with the symbols used around tags in markup languages. Please don't delete bits of my posts, by the way, even if they aren't much use. From a pragmatic point of view, that is to say, putting aside anger at the technical limitations of Wikipedia, I think that WP:MATH ought to be very useful to you if you're trying to search for help with <math>; but you deleted this link when I gave it just now, so what information did you want, if not that guide to displaying formulae?  Card Zero  (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone remember?

There was once a drive to mark or collate articles created or improved as a result of a Ref Desk question. Sorry that's rather hazy. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration. The project is mostly inactive, but I still use the templates from time to time when something at the ref desks inspires me to fix, create, or update an article. See Talk:V. Everit Macy for one of the times when I used it. --Jayron32 20:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Posting that to ANI. --Dweller (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

the archiving bot, and RD date headers

I have finally fixed the bug that caused the bot to occasionally insert date headers in the wrong order (as reported in several threads [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] on my and the bot's talk pages). It's a straightforward fix and I'm decently confident in it, but I haven't tested it at all exhaustively, so if you notice any glitches, please let me know. —02:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, whoever you are. :-) StuRat (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! This is evidently some new variant of Skitt's law.

(And the very first run of the new version had another problem, so there's more work to do...) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Remaining bug(s) fixed, I think. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again ! StuRat (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

As mentioned above. I'm interested in reviving this WikiProject. Anyone else? --Dweller (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this one. Will add my name on the project page. I enjoy writing new articles and developing stubs, but every time I go looking for inspiration at WP:RA I just come away depressed. This is better :) - Karenjc 09:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That sort of thing just comes up organically, it's not really meant as a project to intentionally create articles from RD questions. (Why it is a WikiProject at all, I don't know.) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject or no, I'm pretty sure the impetus for revitalising it has come from recent ANI discussions, such as this one. I'd be interested regardless, but I appreciate the idea of being able to quantify the impact of the RD via the improvements it generates to the encyclopaedia. I have some sympathy with those who dislike the way the RD runs and want to abolish or exile it, but my own view is that we serve a purpose and, overall, the help we provide outweighs the dross. If Dweller's suggestion can help improve the evidence in support of the latter pov, then I like it. - Karenjc 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I support a revival of WP:RDAC, if it is actually inactive. I do not know what or who determines when a project is inactive. I recently added a related template to "Talk:Bribery".

—Wavelength (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Adam, the idea absolutely was to have a project to intentionally create articles from RD questions: see the original discussion on this page, five and a half years ago. --Dweller (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Well I've certainly created articles based on Desk questions, but it seems rare. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the idea of the project is to encourage it and to celebrate it when it happens. --Dweller (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Pre-criticised replies

Here's an idea: non-trivial replies to questions go into a kind of holding area, instead of being posted straight to the desk. They are honed by several editors into a consensually acceptable form, like an article, for, say, six hours. Then the result is posted to the desk as a single reply, with everybody's sigs at the bottom. (This is supposed to solve the problems of bickering, rambling on, and guideline-breaking, and to make us less trollable.)  Card Zero  (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I could be interested in the general concept. But the 6-hour thing won't work. In case people weren't generally aware, we come from the USA/Canada, the UK, Europe, Australia/NZ, and other places. I sometimes log on, to find a question has been asked, been given 6 or more answers, and a resolved tag stuck on - all while I was sleeping. So, if you want to be as inclusive as possible, you're gonna have to give everyone a chance to be involved. That means a a minimum of 24 hours. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds overly bureaucratic to me. I think the best RD responses are short, succinct answers with pointers to Wikipedia articles or external sources. This approach sounds likely to produce TLDR essays instead. If you want to trial this on an optional basis, by all means go ahead, but I doubt I will personally make much use of it. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree, except in principle. The principle is that the RefDesk is the holding area. It is true - we let the answers to the question scroll off into the archives, without even good indexing by title let alone topic, and we don't edit them down into single concise answers. All that should be done, but I think that if you want to do it, you should do so by adding the more edited final versions at new pages on Wikiversity. Except by historical accident, probably the Refdesk belongs at Wikiversity (which has its own Help Desk that largely duplicates the Refdesk's role). Starting a Wikiversity project to index, sort, merge, and condense all the answers in the WP Refdesk and its own Help Desk into a brand-new resource should indeed be a worthy enterprise. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care. I'm reacting to other people's complaints, which may be inadvisable. On the recent ANI thread, one old regular expressed vicarious embarrassment at our "wrong answers, petty bickering, rule crazy censoring of questions"; another user mentioned how one-to-one discussion in the silence/privacy of a library "eliminates trolling, arguing, competing advice"; another said we contribute to Wikipedia's "reputation as a haven for garrulous dilettantes". What they all seem to want is for us to make our mistakes somewhere behind the scenes, instead of on the desks.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I'm kind of wondering if I'm one of the garrulous dilettantes but am afraid to ask. But seriously, if we had a professional Refdesk with two or three full time employees, they'd have to be experts on many more different things to cover the position. To me, the desks are as "behind the scenes" as you can get - there is, or should be, no distinction between "employee" and "customer" in Wikipedia; we're all just editors and everyone is welcome behind the counter. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I know, any visitor can answer questions, and we are just some of the more regular visitors, distinguished only by greater familiarity with Wikipedia and a tendency to answer questions more often than we ask them. There is a behind the scenes, though: it's this page, we're behind the scenes right now. It's not a secret, it's just sort of demarcated as a place for less pretty things to happen. I'm thinking that if we made more effective use of the talk page, like posting here instead of to the desks whenever we're feeling uncertain or garrulous, the desks might become more charming. I'm gonna try doing this unilaterally and see how it works out.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link to the AN/I discussion, Card Zero. I'm sort of stunned that that occurred without this page being alerted. Not everybody here regularly visits that place. It was a matter of obvious interest and concern to many editors here, but we weren't told it was happening. Pity, that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I saw it announced here, but I guess it was just Medeis's edit summary here. The thread was then alluded to here and here. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. Allusions to things are very easily missed, and even if they're not, they don't necessarily tell the uninvolved (but not disinterested) reader what they need to hear. Reading edit summaries is the exception rather than the rule for me, and I missed Medeis's.

I think it ought to be standard practice that when anyone refers any issue about this Ref Desk to AN/I or any other dispute resolution forum, they give an unambiguous notice to that effect here, with an appropriate link. An edit summary is good in itself, but is an inadequate form of notice. If the referring editor fails to provide this notice, anyone else will do. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we please stop being grossly inconsistent?

There's a very widespread schizoid grossly inconsistent element of this ref desk. We get all righteously severe about certain rules ("no homework" and "no legal/medical advice" are the biggies), but others are broken every minute of the day, every day of the week.

I refer particularly to the rules that say (all these are direct quotes from the rules on the Ref Desk page itself or the Guidelines):

• If you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere.
• The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events.
• Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
• We expect responses … to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork.
• We … work to find information relevant to questions posted by others.
• The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions.
• The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate.
• Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate.

The truth is most people here welcome opportunities for debate, speculation, opinionising, prognostication, philosophisation, oneupmanship, and what have you.

For example, the first response when the question headed "Can't the U.S. send drones to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities?" was asked was:
not:

• "We don't engage in debate here on the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Please find a suitable online forum",

but

• to take the baton and run with it as far and as fast as possible. After that, it was a free-for-all.

Why not cut to the chase and remove the prohibition on such things from the guidelines? It is a constant source of frustration and tension and irritation and confusion for me to live or work in any system or environment where the rules about what is and is not OK vary so markedly from what is actually practised on a daily basis. I'm no paragon of virtue, but this sort of thing really offends my sense of integrity. It finally got to me last week, and I spat the dummy. OK, that wasn't very successful, and I didn't stay away as long as I expected. Now that I'm back, can we not please address this issue?

Seems to me that when a policy and a practice are in conflict, either or both of them has to change. Realistically, we're never going to stop anyone from engaging in the debates we officially frown on, particularly when the guardians of the rules are doing the debating, so let's just stop officially frowning. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Case in point, Can runners prevent knee pain by injecting motor oil in their knees? I like debate as much as the next guy, but I do try to aim it towards answering an academic question, not telling people how to get themselves killt. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Since, as you, Jack, say, the guardians of the rules are the ones breaking them, they should not be offended when their responses are hatted or deleted or whatever since they should know the name of the game here. The rule is not well adhered to, but at least it's there when we need it. Mingmingla (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This came out angry or snippy. I didn't mean it that way... Mingmingla (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The rules then won't do much more than provide the sticks to fight disputes with. In such disputes, the people who are the most serous about sticking to discussing the relevant scientific topic end up losing out, because they will tend to not engage in any political dispute about the rules. Count Iblis (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand Jack's point, and I LOVE a debate, but I think we must hold back. Many here are not great debaters, tending to come at it from ideological positions (please don't debate that), so inevitably we would have some quite illogical discussions. We seem to have a just OK balance right now, but should probably remind ourselves of the rules more often. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It might help a little if we copyedited all those rules, some of which overlap. A shorter list of rules would be better. --93.96.36.99 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• To begin with, I think that "predictions of future events" should be thrown out. There's very little difference between asking for a prediction of a future event and asking what the probability of an event is now, and we should answer probability questions. For example, "what are the odds of the Earth being hit by an asteroid?" is core Refdesk content; saying, "more likely than not, the Earth will be hit by an asteroid that size within X years" should be also. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of those rules do seem overly strict:

• If you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere.

• How about advice on how to eliminate interference on their TV ? This seems perfectly fine to me. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events.

• What's wrong with predicting, say, when (apparent) sunrise will be tomorrow at a certain location ? StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.

• Of course here the problem is that responses not intended to start a debate often do. What seem to be simple statements of fact can even do so. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• We expect responses … to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork.

• A certain amount of guesswork is often required, since the Q is not specific as to the details. Like the recent Q of what a croquet ball would weight if it was a singe atom. There we have to guess at which atom they might have meant and if the subatomic particles will scale up, as well. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• We … work to find information relevant to questions posted by others.

• This can always lead to our own Q's. I try to either add those as a sublevel on that Q or as a separate Q. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions.

• But, of course, if you post a factual response, and somebody challenges it, it's entirely reasonable to defend it with links and such. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate.

• However, none of this means we should avoid controversial Q's. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing about "advice or opinions" could be clearer, but it is appropriate. We should give factual information about how to improve the reception on a TV. We can tell the OP, say, that a different location for his antenna or a better digital converter or buying cable or browsing YouTube and such "pirate" sites on the Internet are things that people do in this situation, but should we tell him what he should do? No. The Refdesk is about giving information, not advice. But banning advice does not mean banning information. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction. For example, with many computer problems, the first bit of advice I give is "try a reboot first". I suppose I could provide a link on the potential values of reboots, but this seems silly. It would take less time to try it than it would to read the info at the link. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No no no NO! The last thing you want to do is try a reboot first, because you might never see your system running again! The first thing to do is you get your flash drives and DVDs and CDs and anything else that can store a byte and you back up your e-mail and browser bookmarks and the newest versions of your short stories and your saved games and whatever else you ever want to see again, THEN you reboot. -- You see why providing advice is dubious? We can provide information, but that's all. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, for a few problems that may be true, like "my hard disk is making strange sounds", but more common problems like "my fonts are all messed up" can always do with a reboot. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A big problem is with questions of the form "Why is Lilliput so mean to Brobdingnag?" The question includes a very arguable opinion to start with. To answer such a question either involves ignoring the included assumption, which effectively means agreeing with it, or arguing with it. Either way, it breaks the rules. Should we ban all questions based on opinion? HiLo48 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is far better, for the readers and those that ask questions at this desk, to explain exactly why the question is so hard to answer. That is, explain the inadequacies in the question itself. People are asking questions in good faith, and we do them no service if we ignore them, or worse, if we put a foot in their ass and kick them out or delete their question. To answer this question, I might say something like "Actually, it is hard to answer the question easily because it assumes that Lilliput is being mean to Brobdingnag. I'm not sure we could give you any links to reasonable answers to that question. Could you rephrase the question so we can provide factual answers and references? Because as it stands right now, it isn't answerable." Short, easy to say, and most of all it respects the person who asked the question in good faith. It explains why we can't answer the question, and it isn't unnecessarily rude and also doesn't require a heavy-handed policy-based and sanctions-enforced solution, which I don't think would be a good idea at all. It only takes us to answer the questions in the right manner. --Jayron32 19:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although some assumptions are easy enough to verify or refute, like "Why does Bangladesh have more Olympic gold medals than the US ?". In that case, we should simply provide a link showing that the assumption on which the Q is based is incorrect. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

True. That's easy, but we get lots of questions that call for a value judgement. In those cases, it is best to explain why we cannot give a satisfactory answer, and do our best to still link to sources related to the topic at hand. There's no reason not to direct the person to Lilliput-Brobdingnag relations in giving our response, even if we can't definitively answer the question. Regardless, however, it doesn't mean that "sanctions" are an appropriate response. --Jayron32 20:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't tell a question is unanswerable until we've all had a shot at answering it - and even then, the next person could change that. Gulliver's Travels had all kinds of allegorical meanings which I'm too lazy to look up - I should not be surprised if someone can say, "oh, that's easy, Lilliput represents so and so and Brobdingnag stands for so and so and everyone knew they were in the middle of a bitter dispute..." and pull out good sources to back it up. Wnt (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you've mistaken the general point by getting lost in the details here. Ignore the Swift example if it doesn't work for you. If there are questions that lack definitive answers, do your best to provide links, but make it clear why the question lacks definitive answers. Capice? --Jayron32 02:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's an example of my point that you don't know if a question is unanswerable until everybody tries. We should be ruled by the most imaginative responder, not the least. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Wnt, "most imaginative" is not a trait the Ref Desk should be cultivating. We need those who have knowledge and citations. We are not writing novels or creative essays (notwithstanding some of the answers that appear); we are supposed to be providing information with sources. We do know when questions are unanswerable in terms of the Ref Desks' mandate; we (including me) just leap in to the abyss anyway. Go to Answers.com if imagination is what you want. Bring clarity and facts here. Bielle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It takes imagination, not just knowledge, to answer questions. History is full of experts who have said that no one would ever travel faster than XXXX, who have been proved wrong. If someone asks that question or its equivalent, the best answerer is not the person who says "no it's impossible", but rather the person who says, "we don't know how to do it, this is the reason why our current approaches don't seem to work, these are some highly speculative ideas that have been presented and what they're about". Maybe the best Genuine Expert in a precise, narrow field can truly give all such ideas simply by remembering what he's read - but I don't think so - but for everyone else, the people who are searching for answers even as they give them, finding them requires first imagining what they might be. Wnt (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All well and good for the junior-common-room debates, Wnt, but not for Ref Desk answers. Our mandate is not about "highly speculative ideas". We tend not to answer with absolutes about the future, or about "impossibles" except as qualified by, "with our current knowledge", or some such phrase. I don't, in fact, imagine what the answer might be; I just have to have some certainty that there is an answer. I disagree with you about what makes a good answer, even while knowing I have flitted down some of the speculative trails myself. I will leave this subject to others as I feel you are just fishing for a debate and I have said what I need to say. Bielle (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Imagination might be helpful for some types of questions, like "What could be causing my computer to do X ?", but not for others, like "What treaty ended the US Revolutionary War ?". StuRat (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge gives us the answer that it was the Treaty of Paris (1783). But imagination suggests it was the Treaty of Greenville, as not all combatants agreed to the Treaty of Paris. Wnt (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Imagination is most certainly useful, though not in the sense of making up answers so much as puzzling out solutions. Sometimes the best or most complete answer isn't in the most obvious places. This is usually where we find the most obscure articles are dug up, the Wikipedia Has an Article on Everything ones. Mingmingla (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this out

I'm going to voluntarily post a reply to a question here, for review, before actually posting it to the desk. This is a reply to WP:Reference_desk/Humanities#Sumerian_burial. Here's what I was going to write:

I found a pdf discussing this very question: WAS DUST THEIR FOOD AND CLAY THEIR BREAD? [13] ... I'm not sure of its provenance, but it seems scholarly. It's also very long, so I can't give you the executive summary as I've only got to page 20 (out of 59).

Seems innocent enough, right? It wouldn't cause any fuss. I'm aware of committing a couple of sins here, though. For one thing, is that really a reliable source? What's the "Coroplastic Studies Interest Group" that hosts it, and who is CAITLÍN E. BARRETT, and where was it published? For another thing, it has a copyright notice on the first page, for Brill Publishers, and it says "also available online" with a link to their site. I can't find where it's available online - searching the site returns no results - so I can't establish whether it's a free download (they do have some) or whether they want money for it. Maybe I shouldn't link to it, because supplying links to copyrighted works on ancient Mesopotamia is theft?

Please improve my reply to KAVEBEAR a bit before I post it. This seems fussy, I know, but it might be a good tradition to establish.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's published by Brill so it's certainly relevant and scholarly and useful. JANER is the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Brill says things are available online but they're hard to find, and in any case you'd need a subscription. I don't know what CoroPlastic Studies is but apparently they have simply taken the PDF from the Brill website - in fact just from glancing at the article, I can see it has Brill's distinctive typeface and that it was published in one of their books or journals. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Coroplast (artisan). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So what's my recommended course of action?  Card Zero  (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've now located a profile page for the author [14] and, on the same site, a link to the pdf [15] (it's the small "view on coroplasticstudies.org" which is the link). I think that might amount to a tacit statement that the pdf article is free. Not sure, though. On the author's home page at Cornell [16], it says it was published in the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Can I link to this thing or not?  Card Zero  (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend it to Kavebear...maybe it's a little sketchy to link to the PDF, but I don't know if he would have another way of obtaining it. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh OK, I know what to do. I'll tell him the name of the article and the journal, and if he should happen to google for it and discover the pdf (or click the "papers" link in the sidebar of the author's profile page that I linked to), that would merely be a happy coincidence.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The version of the article hosted on the publisher's website says "© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007", so a direct link from here would be inappropriate; but I agree there would be no harm in telling the reader they may find it with a Google search. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that we can know whether a document posted anywhere (even on an official corporate or university site) is a copyright violation or not. It is certainly possible that any given academic paper appearing on an author's web site is a legitimate use, either as an exercise of his personal right to publish his own material or under license from an understanding journal. People answering questions should not be responsible for such legal legwork before mentioning an online resource. The only time that links to a copyvio should be prohibited is when an editor has reason to know that something is a copyvio, either because it says so in a place which he happened to see, or because the site has a strong reputation which the editor knows about, or because the site looks so dodgy that any reasonable person would conclude this. Even then, this legalistic prohibition on posting links is actually nonsensical - posting a link, posting a Google search that gives the link, or saying "<document name> can easily be found pirated online" all have the same effect of contributory infringement; it's just that the last of these is so clearly an intrusion into freedom of speech that even the courts can't ignore it. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Just on that point, linking to free versions of paywall articles hosted on websites other than the copyright-holder's: The publisher Brill's website says "Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article." The version of the article on the publisher's website (behind the paywall) says "© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007" and "Buy & download fulltext article: Price: $35.00 plus tax." The free version on the other site doesn't mention copyright. I've asked User:Moonriddengirl, who does a fair bit of work in the copyright area, for her view on our responsibility here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You could say the same thing about practically any article on ArXiv. But they are legitimate and we use them. We are here to answer questions, not do legal research on third party web sites. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl has given a detailed response here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How'd you find the article on the Brill website, by the way? When I put the article title into the search box there, it returned no results.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

By logging in via my university library site. The Ingenta Connect portal is here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

KEW EEH DEE, ELL OH ELL. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we supposed to know what that means here? Q.E.D. has its place, but I can't see its relevance here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The objection was made in the above this thread that people who stick to the topic lose out. This question quickly segued into a discussion of copyright, even to the point of getting the original poster off topic with a "BTW". QED. μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're referring to a point made in an earlier thread. What was that you were saying about not sticking to the topic? Just because you're thinking of something as you're writing, does not mean the rest of us have any clue about what's in your mind. I appreciate you answering my question, but seriously, communications that are not even slightly self-explanatory miss the boat. Totally. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it, either. If the off-topic stuff can happen here instead of on the desks, that's great. (See the thread above the thread above this one.)  Card Zero  (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, if I expected you to be psychic I would have told you to figure it out yourselves rather than explaining, as if you were interested. But now that I have explained myself, am I the boogity man for getting this off topic? It was already off topic before I pointed out it was off topic, and before you blamed me for off topicking it further by having mentioned it was already off topic. Once again, QED, and I laugh. To be back on topic briefly, the only solutions are for people to WP:BOLD in enforcing the rules, and to refrain from answering every darn question that gets asked. Some questions shouldn't be asked. Some questions shouldn't be answered. And most of the time many of us should let someone else give a serious answer before we try a joke or a criticism. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I endorse all of that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What? This is the talk page. It doesn't matter about going off topic. We can have rambling conversations (pertinent to the reference desks) here. Quid tibi est (since you said all those QEDs)?  Card Zero  (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mission statement

This board needs a mission statement. And a vision statement. And strategies in the form of policies and guidelines for the achievement of the mission and fulfillment of the vision. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we at least have some Guidelines. It's the constant breaching of these guidelines that I'm trying ro resolve two threads above. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Going forward, we will have to effectuate our paradigms. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. We need to ensure we're all singing from the same hymn sheet before we push forward with this. Let's start by operationalising the strategic infrastructure. Then we can lace some Nikes on this hippo and see if she hits the tape faster. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If we all sing from the same hymn sheet, we will end up sitting in each other's pews. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor nit, but: this is not a board. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. OK. ok. ok. Sorry for commenting before reading the talk page or the guideline. I know how absurd that is. I've always thought mission statements were just a marketing, feel-good thing but I'm learning a little about them and now have the evangelical zeal of a recent convert. I'll read some background before embarrassing myself further here, and possibly a little more about mission statements. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You wrote the whole of that recommendation without having read either the talk page or the guidelines? What are you -a management consultant? You realize your whole credibility on this matter is now shot, don't you? Bielle (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone has trouble finding them, here are the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines - which are of course community-created and could be changed to meet consensus. However, time and experience has shown that the most fundamental parts of the guidelines are well-founded. Provide references to encyclopedia-worthy content. Be civil. Help people understand whatever they're stuck on by providing links to our encyclopedia and elsewhere. Redirect non-reference-requests elsewhere: either to an appropriate page on Wikipedia, or to a meritous discussion forum off-site. Remember that the reference desk is part of Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, and so we should abide by the standards of content and tone that generally apply elsewhere in the project. Nimur (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Mission statements are often very concise, such as

to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information. – UNESCO

to publish and disseminate scientifically rigorous public health information of international significance that enables policy-makers, researchers and practitioners to be more effective; it aims to improve health, particularly among disadvantaged populations. – Bulletin of the World Health Organization

to encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks. – Project Gutenberg

So, would your line in italics be a good summary of this page's mission, do you think?

to provide references to encyclopedia-worthy content.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I happen to think it's a nice idea; certainly well-meant, and potentially quite effective. I don't see that a lack of knowledge of the guidelines needs to be a disadvantage - many great ideas come from people leaping in head first, eyes closed. I say go for it and see what you can come up with. I'm happy to help if you think I can. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Cucumber Mike, that's very kind of you to say so. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Leap head first, eyes closed, into an area where you don't know the basic layout and you may end up a quadraplegic, which is not, by any definition, a "great idea". Bielle (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Bielle, I've now finished the talk page (I had read some of it before my initial post) and read the guideline (which I'd never heard of before, and it's not mentioned on the project page). Is my credibility on this matter still shot? If so, what other steps must I take? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the Refdesk has more than enough guidelines already; if there's one existing point I'd suggest promoting more, it's the notion that bringing references (or at least Wikilinks) to the table is a good thing; just talking without references is often unsatisfying. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If there's one new point I'd add to our (implicit or explicit) guidelines, it would be: We do not need to answer every question.

What if, instead of deleting or hatting so much, or arguing about it here, we just let some of the poor questions fade away? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but refs aren't always needed, like when someone posts their homework problem with their solution, and we find a basic math error. (Presumably a link showing how you need to carry when you add would just be insulting.) Also, the civility req means insulting others who don't include refs, or who you disagree with, is not OK. Unfortunately, I've seen some of that recently. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions that do not request references probably don't belong on the Reference Desk. Nimur (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Q's like us finding the error in their math seem fine to me. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Remember though that the "reference" can simply be the relevant Wikipedia article, and telling someone how to apply an equation there is a valid use of the Refdesk. (Actually, virtually any article on Wikipedia that provides an equation could use a massive rewrite for clarity...) Wnt (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If you mean that they are written for mathematicians only, I agree. This then requires us to write a more accessible answer each time we answer a Ref Desk Q. Of course, it would make sense to change the article accordingly, but any change would quickly be reverted by mathematicians. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that's the truth. Hence the refdesk... Wnt (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that should be our mission statement: "To present material from our articles in a form which is actually human-readable". :-) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For programming questions, the reference can be the documentation to the language ... which the questioner probably already has, but probably didn't know which part of it to look at. So the reference isn't usually needed, even though it's there. Weird, huh.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(Response to Anthonyhcole's question above addressed to me.) What you have demonstrated is that you do your research after you make a proposal, and only when pushed to it, all fuelled by the self-confessed enthusiasm of the newly converted. For someone like me, 20 years' of business experience after this trend first became the "word of the day", it is old and worn cant. It looks good on an annual report, but I have only ever heard it quoted to put a damper on change. It is corporate "busy work" and of no use to those who provide the services or make the products. It is also the private language of "management consultants". (To my enduring embarrassment, I was once one such.) Enthusiasm is a fine tool, but a poor master. There is a reason that "look before you leap" is still considered sound advice. YMMV Bielle (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The first mission statements I read were for various commercial enterprises, and they were basically "to dominate our market sector" in more euphemistic terms. Most were just embarrassing. The purpose of an actual mission statement for an enterprise is to have something against which you can measure policy and behaviour. If the mission is clear, such as "to encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks", it can keep things focussed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm reminded of the Dilbert strip where they composed a mission statement, by committee, which was a long, run-on mess, at which point Dilbert commented sarcastically that "We should jam 'efficiency' in there somewhere". The pointy-haired boss greeted this suggestion with enthusiasm. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose We don't even enforce our guidelines. Why add a mission statement on top? μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what my opinion is worth since I'm not here that much, but I'm against any type of mission statement, or any related such. I think such things will, ultimately, repel new people from answering; given that we are volunteers with a busy life, strategies, vision statements, strict guidelines, etc. will only serve to make answering appear, and become, stressful, which is a major turn off. A small pool of major contributors left to enforce a relaxed set of guidelines among themselves is more likely to converge to the desired goals here than anything else; the only reason I can see for anything more would be if the number of regular contributors drastically increased, but I doubt that will happen. [By the way, this is a response to the original post not the one above, the indent makes it seem ambiguous to me.]Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Phoenixia, little enclaves like this do become owned by a bunch of regulars who feel they fit the niche. That's fine so long as a culture doesn't develop among that clique that is antithetical to the Wikipedia's aims. That's why we have guidelines and policies, so the rest of us can tell the clique how they're meant to behave, while we get on with our interests. The guidelines are fairly clear on what you're meant to be doing here, and a number of the regulars seem to think they're above that. A community-wide RfC is the next step if that culture can't be corrected from within. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to be an ass, but didn't you read those guidelines after you started this whole discussion? Also, your language seems to paint the people here as if they were some virulent subculture destroying Wikipedia from within; or, perhaps more apt, like this is the Wild West of Wikipedia and the people here need reigned in. I don't really see anything that horrible going on here that it requires a community wide intervention to remedy.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We regulars wrote the Ref Desk guidelines. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If, Phoenix, you are not responding to the post above yours, and it is not indented, either indent to the one you are responding to, say @ (OP's username), or put an asterisk in front of yours. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Medeis/μηδείς doesn't seem to be able to locate the colon key. Must have been dropped on their head as a child. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If i respond to a specific post, I indent. Like this. If my response has nothing to do with the ones above it, I don't. That doesn't take not having been tossed upwards into a ceiling lamp to understand. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Your double negative makes your last sentence mean "That takes having been tossed upwards into a ceiling lamp to understand", which is just about right. You are responding to the OP, so indent from it. Otherwise, as Phoenix said, his indent of one tab from the OP looks like he is responding to you, since you didn't indent. If you really want to add something which isn't a response to any previous comment, then create a new section or subsection. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Even your "logic" is wrong, Sturat. A negation of two separate verbs is not a double negation, and your paraphrase is an invalid one of my original. μηδείς (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. See anthonyhcole's and nimur's posts above. Pester them on their talk pages. Start a five-day discussion of it. Over three separate threads. Here and elsewhere. Insult a few other people. Then get back to me after the RfC. Never even mind the point of this thread. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole is the OP, so presumably isn't responding to himself. Only the OP should add comments without tabs. And yes, Nimur should know better. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Bielle, I did shoot my mouth off before reading the most recent posts on this page, and I'd never heard of the guideline until it was mentioned in this thread. I don't think I've demonstrated this is an habitual behaviour. The only way to demonstrate that would be to do that kind of thing repeatedly; and I don't. What I have demonstrated is an ability to acknowledge, apologise, and quickly take advice when my shortcomings are pointed out.

I look at this project page and think, what a farce. You need a mission statement for what you're up to here. Presently you're an unfocussed bunch of amateurs, all with startlingly different ideas about what the mission is, dispensing safety and efficacy claims with little grasp of the seriousness of that. Many of the threads I've read here have been useful or at least harmless, but your propensity to dispense health-related information, and not even realise you're doing it, or, if you realise you're doing it, not even think there's a problem with that, is scary. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia as a whole is "an unfocussed bunch of amateurs". The same logic applies. Just like the stock market, where each individual investor may be an idiot, but the net valuation of each corporation is nonetheless usually reasonable, so many of our edits may be bad, but the totality of all the edits tends to be reasonable. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@Anthonycole. Do you mean to say that, in general, the people here don't conduct themselves appropriately? You seem to be saying a good bit of what is posted here is risky advice from people who don't even know they are giving it to people who require professional help (of some kind) Is that accurate, or are you saying something else? Whatever the case, I certainly don't think the reference desk is a farce nor do I think anything here could be characterized as "scary". That said, since you are proposing all of this, what would your vision/mission statement be and how would all of this remove all the danger and amateurism that you see here?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not fair to ask him to go further out on a limb and write the mission statement for us. Since Anthonyhcole is strange and new, we'd all automatically hate it. (I guess then at least it would be doing its job, to create focus and solidarity.)  Card Zero  (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, not a mission statement. Not a vision statement. From my long working life those things sit in my memory as the creations of wankers contributing nothing productive to the large corporations and government bodies I've been part of. Very productive smaller organisations I've belonged to didn't need them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You too, eh? Here's my rule of thumb on mission/vision statements. If you read one and turn away from it and can't recite it, then it's worthless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Mission statements are created by people who don't deserve their jobs so that they can justify their existence by creating mission statements. People who actually have a reason to be employed, and who are competant at what they do, don't have the need to create, read, or care about such bullshit. --Jayron32 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My "amateur" comment was echoing this comment by First Light (talk · contribs):

A "Library Reference Desk" is staffed by "professional librarians." It's pretty obvious the Wikipedia "Reference Desk" (I'll refrain from using bigger scare quotes) is anything but professional. It seems that many people like it, since it's a good place to hang out and discuss interesting questions. But "reference" and "professional" it ain't.

which is my view too. By all means change the name to "chat room" or similar, but if you're going to call this the reference desk, you'll need to change the way you operate. When I walk up to the reference desk at my local medical library, the librarian never answers my question, ever. She/he asks enough questions, and then points me to a database or a selection of textbooks. That's it. My big concern is with the casual dispensation of health advice here. Wikipedia medical articles are patrolled by a tireless bunch of volunteers who take great pains to ensure this project does not mislead its readers on health questions. But here...

When I posted my previous comment, nine of the 41 threads on the science desk were directly related to health. Some others related to biology and psychology but didn't have obvious immediate health implications.

• Dental question:Toothbrush vs. Toothpaste Contains unsourced dental hygiene claims.
• Calorie-equivalent exercise compared to wading in a pool Handled well, with a link to a Mayo Clinic article.
• Can runners prevent knee pain by injecting motor oil in their knees? Contains advice on the efficacy of snake oil, chicken fat, Synvisc and other compounds in the treatment of joint pain.
• hearing loss - age Contains unsourced assertions regarding age-related hearing loss.
• Psychosocial development Handled well with little speculation, and links to our articles on Erikson's stages of psychosocial development, Piaget's theory of cognitive development, and Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
• increament in Amino Acids Handled well with just enough speculation to clarify the meaning of the question, and links to two journal articles, a textbook and our article on Congenital disorders of amino acid metabolism.
• Hormonal contraception and pregnancy Handled well with a link to a Mayo Clinic article.
• One Severe Pain - Self-Applying Pain elsewhere - Less Pain Overall Contains unsourced claims that cold can gate pain (the last I saw, this is contested in pain medicine), that the more recent pain masks the earlier pain, and that the effect of pain on pain is caused by distraction. Ultimately resolved with a link to a journal article on pain-induced analgesia and our article on diffuse noxious inhibitory control but the false claims stand.
• Feces and STDs The medical advice given was not clearly supported by the subsequent discussion or links provided.

Here Medeis (μηδείς) deleted advice including statements by Buddy431 about the safety of ethyl alcohol and diethyl ether consumption. The advice was restored by administrator Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs), deleted again by Medeis, restored by administrator Someguy1221 (talk · contribs), and deleted again by Medeis who opened a thread at ANI.

As for a mission statement, it's up to you of course but it seems to me you don't actually know what you're doing, or should be doing, here. I can see that a lot of you have had bad experiences with silly or disingenuous use of "mission statements" in the past. By all means reject the notion of a mission statement, but consider deciding what you're up to here. Particularly, what do you mean by "reference desk"? Clearly you don't mean what most of us understand that term to mean. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you have unrealistic expectations for what an all-volunteer Ref Desk can achieve. Do you know of any other that does a better job than ours ? StuRat (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also bit offensive to suggest we don't know what we're doing. We are all different people with varying levels of expertise and experience. You're making a rather broad statement there. Plus there is a big difference between advice and information, and you yourself noted that the health questions you've listed in many cases are referenced and linked. If you're looking for professional librarians, go to the library. Everyone else can only do their best. Mingmingla (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As a group you don't appear to know what you're doing. Individually each of you seems to have a pretty clear idea of what he's/she's up to. Five of the nine threads I pointed to contain false or unsourced and dubious health, efficacy or safety claims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mission statement arbitrary break 1

Actual published analysis of the ref-desk concludes that answer quality is comparable to a library reference service (which includes "accuracy, completeness, verifiability" as one of three key sets of criteria).[17] Not bad for a bunch of unfocused amateurs who just hang out and like to chat about stuff. DMacks (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What kind of library reference desk was that study comparing this discussion forum to? Honestly, I'm not really concerned if you're giving out bad advice about upholstery cleaning. How does this "reference desk" compare with reference desk advice at medical libraries? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My goodness man, first you're asserting that we're amateurs giving poor advice with no basis, and now I'm citing a reference as my basis (rather than giving my own opinion, i.e., I'm acting like a real reference service not a chat-site) and you're not bothering to read it to see if it answers your question? Sounds like the problem you had when this thread started is back again. DMacks (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A search for the article title failed on my university library site. But I've just browsed to the journal and found it. I'll comment soon. But I notice, "A little over half (55 per cent) of the answers were accurate, 26 per cent were not accurate..." which I suppose is acceptable if you're recommending turtle wax for mahogany. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The study is comparing the Wikipedia reference desk with the results reported and discussed by Hernon, P. and McClure, C.R. (1986, “Unobtrusive reference testing: the 55 percent rule”, Library Journal, Vol. 111, pp. 37-41), who say about earlier studies of reference desk queries at academic and public libraries, "Collectively, these studies have shown that staff generally answer 50-60 percent of the questions correctly; make infrequent referral, either internal or external, to the library; fail to negotiate reference questions; and conduct ineffective search strategies," and about their own study, "Participants in the study answered 62 percent of the questions correctly and 38 percent of the questions incorrectly." They conclude that "The collective findings from unobtrusive testing suggest that the profession should reexamine its priorities and the degree of commitment to the provision of information services and meeting patrons' information needs. Without such priorities and commitments, clearly stated and evidenced on a daily basis, many libraries will not offer information services that effectively meet patrons' information needs."

Hernon and McClure were unimpressed with the quality of service provided by library reference desks, and recommended the profession take a good look at itself. I haven't read the 2002 studies Shachaf cites, but it seems the 55% rule still prevails in U.S. academic and public libraries. That your record here is equal to that is nothing to be proud of. As I said above, I don't really care on questions of turtle wax, but, given the level of accuracy Shachaf found here, and the results of my little survey above, I beg you to stay away from health-related questions, or at least limit yourselves to direct links to and quotes from either Wikipedia articles (which have a fair bit of oversight) or authoritative reviews, graduate-level textbooks or national or international government or professional guidelines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I told User:First Light that I had quoted them and this is their response. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an example of what I mean about how imagination is needed to answer questions. I never imagined that someone actually did a study on the Refdesk and compared it to library reference desks! Now as for whether these statistics are good or bad, it depends on your null hypothesis. When we don't take the risk of answering a medical question, what happens? In the eyes of some people, they run straight to their doctor to ask whether their vaccination will protect them against hepatitis during their date tomorrow, or whether that little black mole looks like a melanoma or not. I suppose that is true for the very wealthy, the people in this world who "matter", but for the ones I care about, I don't think so. I see people asking for (and getting) interpretations of their spinal X-rays on 4chan, getting laughably bad advice (much worse than 4chan!) on Yahoo Answers. And as bad as those are, it's still better than people sitting home and having no idea. If it's wrong for them to ask for help here, is it then also wrong to go to equally unreliable reference librarians at the local public library and ask for books about their condition? Wnt (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me, Wnt. We agree on the aim. I want a doctor or patient in Somalia to be able to ask for help online and get it. I just believe that when Wikipedia offers that, it must be evidence based. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking the "medical advice" that people here keep complaining about is evidence based - usually it's out and out obvious. Certainly expanding the freedom to give evidence-based information is most important. True, I don't actually think it would be a bad thing to allow some non "evidence based" medical discussion either, because all evidence has to start somewhere. If an herb has a traditional or folk medicine usage for a specific disease, I don't think it does any harm to mention it, even if it is probably ineffective; the patient might benefit from the herb, or might suffer from it, probably not either in any great degree, but having the additional knowledge and power over their own condition to make their own decisions, at least in some small part, is generally a good thing even when the treatment itself is not. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not "wrong" of them, it's just stupid of them, to expect a non-professional to be able to help them from a distance. It is not our place to manage other reference desks. It is also not our place to play doctor. They need to go to a doctor. Whether we think they can "afford" to go to a doctor, is also not our place. What country do you live in, pray tell? When people fail to go to the doctor, it's not usually that they can't afford it - it's that they're in denial, and they think by seeking advice elsewhere that they can somehow make whatever they have go away. It is irresponsible and unethical to give medical advice to an anonymous person on the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming dangerously off-topic, but I feel it is necessary to dispel a misconception. According to the World Health Organization of the United Nations, health care in Somalia is both free and government-sponsored, in addition to many privatized health care provider alternatives and NGO agencies. Affordability is not the primary issue in Somalia, which though formerly a regional leader, has had some of the worst health statistics in Africa since 1991. (One might make a cynical observation about the evident quality of free medical advice...) Nimur (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a place for free online medical advice; and that place may be occupied by Wikipedia. But the policies and guidelines governing it need work. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, the majority of other contributors on Wikipedia's reference desk respectfully disagree. The consensus is that medical advice should not be doled out on the reference desk. We will perpetually debate whether a specific question or answer falls under this guideline, but it is unlikely that we will change the guideline, because there has been so little compelling evidence that medical advice belongs on Wikipedia. Nimur (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying the science reference desk should be dispensing medical advice. I think I've argued well against that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you saying? This went from mission statements to medical advice, and now I'm not sure what your point was from the beginning. Someone referred to an article that claimed we are as effective as a real ref desk, and no you want us to do better then that? If professionals can't get that success rate you want, what do you expect from volunteers? Mingmingla (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I can imagine Wikipedia hosting free medical advice online, but not on the reference desk; and it may be taken on by UNESCO or WHO, rather than us. The mission statements of each of those organisations cover that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested what a real library's policy on medical advice is look at the bottom here. This is Duke University's medical library and they are clear with this sentence: "We are pleased to help you find health information resources. However, we cannot answer questions about your medical case or give you specific medical advice. Please contact your health care provider for specific information about your case." It's the same as ours. Mingmingla (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. That's not what's happening here, though, is it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As I linked early in this discussion, I have given "evidence-based" medical information (not advice), and have been wrong. As the topic was STIs, it is possible, had I not been corrected by someone both knowledgeable and with access to better sources, a reader could have gone away dangerously misinformed about transmission. Am I alone in finding this statement by Wnt to be frightening:

If an herb has a traditional or folk medicine usage for a specific disease, I don't think it does any harm to mention it, even if it is probably ineffective; the patient might benefit from the herb, or might suffer from it, probably not either in any great degree, but having the additional knowledge and power over their own condition to make their own decisions, at least in some small part, is generally a good thing even when the treatment itself is not.?

It is not "additional power and knowledge" nor is it "a good thing" when the information is dispensed without consequence to the dispenser, who is neither qualified nor responsible, and is almost as likely to be wrong as right. Whether we are speaking of allopathy or naturopathy, or of herbs or pharmaceuticals, it is completely inappropriate, and possibly dangerous, that we should permit anonymous individuals to pontificate in areas where they have no known training or credentials and where the subject matter may have devastating consequences. What's the point of being able to "make decisions" if the decision is based upon strangers babbling about things they know not what of? No, no, no! Bielle (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Per that study mentioned earlier, the odds on being wrong are one in four - still potentially devastating, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that otherwise known as "Wikipedia"? Seriously, what's the difference between giving information here and giving it in an article? What's the difference between a reader finding a link to a traditional herbal on Google and finding it because someone mentioned it here? The reader shouldn't be trusting the word of someone on the Refdesk - not when we've disclaimered that we don't give advice - but the reader should be looking at a citation to some other reference. Being right thoroughly outweighs being wrong, even when we've strayed from evidence based medicine, because if you're wrong then the reader, at worst, goes out and obtains some supplement off the store shelf that doesn't work, which happens to millions of people every year anyway, but if you're right, then you've given him some genuine relief. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a thought: the prohibition on medical advice could be seen as a form of disclaimer, taken to an extreme. Visitors don't always pay much attention to words written at the top of the page (sometimes not even the words "Wikipedia" and "reference desk"), and the subject matter is more dangerous than most. In any conversation, one should make a reasonable effort to communicate any information necessary to keep the other person safe from harm. "Reasonable" in statements like those always covers a huge amount of ground and could mean almost anything, depending on context. It's interesting to argue that an outright ban on giving medical advice at all is, in the context of the reference desks, the correct amount of "reasonable effort" to inform visitors of danger. (Probably not true, but interesting.)  Card Zero  (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, hehe, but the fact that a client ignores a disclaimer does not legally indemnify a service provider from ignoring his own disclaimer. He'll get sued and lose every time. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of the "we don't give medical advice" disclaimer. (Is that even a disclaimer?) ... I was thinking of a disclaimer along the lines of "our statements may be wrong, think for yourself, seek your own sources, draw your own conclusions". If a disclaimer like that has been taken on board by the audience, we can follow it up with a moderate amount of misleading crap and guesswork, without having done anything bad, because the audience know to be sceptical. The problem is, there's no way to ensure it's taken on board. In reality they'd ignore the disclaimer, and would consider the random gibberings of ref desk inmates as the Holy Wisdom of Wikipedia.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Cochrane's law dictionary, a disclaimer is simply a disavowal. The issue, as far as I can see, and I am not a lawyer, is that simply saying "I warned you" does not indemnify a party from further civil complaint against advice given. I.e., one can't say "I am an idiot, so don't listen to me" and give advice nonetheless, and expect the court to ignore the fact that you continued to give advice. My non-expert advice is simply to refrain from giving non-expert advice, even if you've advised people you're not an expert. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that coherent with morality, do you think? In past discussions we've established that ethics are what's at stake for the medical guideline - it's not there to cover Wikipedia's ass. Maybe I shouldn't have linked to a legal concept, but I find that particular concept useful for many moral dilemmas. It's great because it's so vague.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mission statement arbitrary break 2

Looking back at this thread, it strikes me as a rigged game. We're being evaluated solely on the quality of our medical advice, after being forced not to give medical advice! The knee thread, given as a bad example, was anything but - it led to the realization that knees work at least ten times better than mechanical joints with oil, clarified that the idea of injecting substitute synovial fluid (Synvisc) does occur, and even mentions some other wide-ranging ideas. As science, it's great. As "OMG you mentioned something that is not sane medicine", you can bash it. But we're not giving medical advice, remember? Wnt (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to comment above arbitrary break. NO! We need to worry about legal principles, which are, if not objective, based in precedent. Ethics is not formalized, and if I think something is unethical, rather than illegal, I ignore it. If it's illegal or actionable, I delete it. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the medical guideline (WP:Reference_desk/guidelines/Medical_advice) is a bit of formalized ethics. (And therefore a kind of law?)  Card Zero  (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My assumption is that the policy's weight has always been based on the principle of legal liability, not on mere moral consensus. μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Morality is not the issue. I'd go further than Medeis. In my view - and I know I've expressed this a few times lately, but it bears repeating until there's a clear consensus supporting it, or a clear consensus the other way - the purpose of the Ref Desk is to provide information. Its purpose is not to provide advice, and that includes expert and non-expert advice; medical and legal advice; or any other kind of advice. It doesn't matter how knowledgeable we are about a certain subject, our role is not to answer questions via a display of our personal knowledge except as supporting material to or commentary on the reference source/s we're offering the OP. They come here for references, first and foremost, which might have something to do with why it's called a Reference Desk. They don't come to discover how knowledgeable I am or anybody else is. We are no different from the anonymous jerks on the internet we often warn OPs to steer clear of. They have no reason to trust any of us individually, any more than they should trust someone they interact with on Dr Crazy's Flat Earth Society website. So we have to practise what we preach and stick to our primary purpose, of providing information, not advice, and trusting that they have the capacity to use it to good purpose, or they can ask further questions if they need to. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(Quibble: that's a principled position, so it's a moral position. But anyway.) The medical guidelines page mentions "the real possibility of doing harm to readers" under the "Why?" section. It doesn't say anything about the danger of being sued. TenOfAllTrades indicates here that both concerns matter.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that only the thread about amino acids was asking for medical advice. the others were about medical information, and few comments could be considered advice. The guidelines say: The reference desk is not a place to seek professional advice on medical or legal matters, nor analyses, diagnoses or solutions to questioners' health or legal problems, and responses that could be construed as such must not be given. However, general medical and legal questions ("What treatments are used for diabetes?", "Which countries recognize common law marriages?") are fine.

Hearing loss and age: hearing loss is not a disease, and there's not a hint of advice in the answers.

Calorie-equivalent exercise: not exactly professional medical advice, if I asked my doctor he'd probably tell me to google it. Same for Psychosocial development.

Contraception and pregnancy: that one contains specific advice, yet it's considered "handled well".

Severe pain and pain elsewhere: does not ask for advice but for the mechanism. If professional medical advice is often based on randomized comparative trials without knowing how a drug works or assuming a mechanism that later turns out to be incorrect, a "false claim" (according to current understanding) doesn't seem that big a deal to me. Again, no potential advice can be gained from it.

And about the ANI thread: there seem to be a lot of editors who don't like the reference desk and see it as a source of dangerous misinformation. Considering the amount of inappropriate comments, false information, personal experiences, medical histories etc. posted daily on the talk pages of articles, one mouse click away for people interested in the topic (in contrast to the refdesk where you'd be very lucky to find your fav topic discussed in the last seven days), the recurrent concern about and criticism of the (science) refdesk and the apparent lack thereof regarding talk pages would suggest a serious cognitive bias or impairment. Ssscienccce (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Further thoughts about guidelines

Would it be advisable to have some sort of guideline that people who contribute to the Reference Desk should stick to answering questions that they can actually helpfully answer? When someone goes to a real-world reference desk, they don't expect to get an answer from a bunch of random people who don't know anything. A reference desk in a library is not staffed by people who offer the first thought that pops into their heads and then argue with each other about how much sense it makes. If someone gives a wrong answer here we should not have to debate them to prove it. That person should just not answer those kinds of questions.

To be completely honest, I am of course specifically referring to StuRat, but it's just a coincidence that he has a particular hate for a subject he doesn't understand and which happens to be one I know well, and it's frustrating to point out that he's wrong all the time when this has absolutely no impact on which questions he chooses to answer (and I'm not the only one who has been pointing this out to him). Maybe we're all guilty of this sometimes. Certainly I also sometimes offer an answer where I have no business doing so. But as I was saying to him earlier, I don't go try to answer questions on the math and computers and science desks because I don't know anything about those things.

It's already enough of a problem that so many questions are actually just invitations for debate, as mentioned above, and this is definitely related to that. I know this can't actually lead to a real guideline, but maybe we can just stop and think before we answer: "would anyone ask for my expertise on this subject in the real world?" or "would anyone in the real world care about my uninformed opinion on this subject?" Otherwise this isn't a reference desk and we shouldn't call it one. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of helpful answers from StuRat; you should provide diffs to point us in the right direction. Honestly, I don't think genuine brick and mortar reference librarians know a whole lot about the things they're asked about - I've seen them spin their wheels more often than not the few times I've asked one about something (though as you can imagine, perhaps my requests were uncommon). Definitely they are in the "try this that and the other thing and see if you have any luck" school of thinking where their suggestions are concerned. I think this sort of incisiveness here is usually worse than actual error and debate regarding the questions. Wnt (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link: [18]. Adam thinks it's appropriate to label anything he disagrees with as trolling and delete it, despite this being against every policy we have. I certainly was not trolling (intentionally trying to cause disruption). A subsequent post even agreed with me regarding the role of the Protestant Reformation, while Adam agreed that Christianity took hold later in the Netherlands than Southern Europe. It is, of course, always possible I may make a mistake, as might anyone else, but that's not what trolling means, and it would soon be corrected, in any case. I brought this up at his talk page, but he seems rather unrepentant: User_talk:Adam_Bishop#Do_not_delete_my_contributions_to_the_Ref_Desk. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not everything...just you. I just can't make sense of what you're writing unless you are purposely giving misinformation. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated on your home page, your contributions list shows your regularly delete large sections from articles, by various editors, without explanation. This shows the same arrogance that "anything I don't understand or disagree with or don't like must be trolling, so I'll just delete it". StuRat (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@AdamBishop. Provided that the wrong answers get corrected and there is debate, I don't think it's such a horrible thing. Then again, I find it far more informative reading the talk pages of articles than the pages, in general. Of course, this all assumes that the people debating are at least somewhat informed. I think, as a community, we should gently, and informally, discuss the issue with posters who frequently answer questions they are entirely uninformed about; and that we should encourage, again as a community and informally, people who provide good answers or points in areas they are informed about. Sadly, I'm not really sure how one would actually go about this encouraging/discouraging unless they are talking with the person in some other context, or some attempt at trying to give barn stars, or some such, to people who did a good job.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(I am trying to get rid of a picture in my mind of a librarian made of bricks and mortar.) I believe Wnt is right about the reference-desk librarian not necessarily knowing anything about the subject matter of the question. What he/she will know (we hope) is where to start looking for an answer. Obviously, you get a better quality of method from a librarian in a specialist library than you will from the temp in August in my local branch. That is true here. I have the luxury (it not being my job) to skip over everything on the Math and Computing Desks because (a) I wouldn't know how to look up the answer and (b) I wouldn't know when I found the right one. In Language, Science and Miscellaneous, I sometimes have a enough of a clue (or think I do) that I can start the ball rolling, always hoping that those with more and better will come along. Sometimes I am wrong. Usually when I am wrong, someone will let me know firmly and with sources. (I have had a recent example of that, where Scray discovered that I was wrong because my source, the WP article, was wrong. Everyone learned something from that exchange and -though I haven't checked to confirm- the article may now be the more accurate because of it.) As for whether or not someone would ask for my expertise in such subjects in the real world world, well, it depends. It depends on who else is around, on how much more (or less) in general the seeker knows than I do about looking for answers. Grandchildren ask me an astonishing array of questions and, together, we go and look for the answers. And, just like here, some of them I skip over and wait for a better informed person to come along.

I do believe that it is important to correct wrong answers -politely, and with sources. Sometimes the difference is a matter of opinion; sometimes it is a matter of fact. I wouldn't worry that a mistake exists, only that it not go unremarked. Of course, if someone is repeatedly making errors of fact about a subject, that may call for greater scrutiny or even the removal of the incorrect text. Bielle (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I was with you up until that last line. Factual errors should be corrected in a follow-on post, not removed. For things which aren't strictly factual, like many Humanities Q's, the case against removal is even stronger. Instead, we should present all sides. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as they are not simply us expressing our personal opinions. Opinions are ten a penny, yet often that's what's offered to questioners here in the guise of an appropriate answer to a Reference Desk question. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Even then removal of individual responses should be avoided, since there will be disagreements on what constitutes opinion. Therefore, hatting is a better option. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If a post expresses an opinion, it should always be clear that it is the opinion of the external person who's written or been mentioned in the link the editor provided. It may also happen to match the editor's own opinion, but that should be neither here nor there. That's if we're doing our work properly. Unless we want to relax our guidelines about such matters. I raised this prospect above but I don't see any support for it. That means people generally think we should not be giving our own opinions as answers. If they think that, one might expect them to practise that philosophy. Otherwise they wouldn't really be thinking that way after all. Unless it's a case of "We need to have these rules for other people, but they don't apply to me because I'm special". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I do think there are places where personal opinions should be allowed, like "How do I stop my table from wobbling ?". There are only so many possible answers, and you can research what the experts say, if you want, but it hardly seems necessary in a case like this. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like special pleading. Can you define clearly what makes these questions different?  Card Zero  (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If a table is wobbly, it usually means the legs have an uneven length, so the solution is to lengthen the short ones or shorten the long ones. Do we really need an expert source to figure this out ? StuRat (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds absurd, when you put it like that. So, what type of questions are these, in your view? What are their defining qualities, what is the relevant category?  Card Zero  (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Questions with obvious answers" ? StuRat (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought my "or even the removal of the incorrect text" made clear that this would not be a pro forma choice. The error being removed would have to be dangerous in its implications. The guidelines are clear that we do not remove a response just because it is wrong. There would have to be another complication factor. Bielle (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, such a guideline would not stop people who don't know anything about the topic from answering - they don't even know that they don't know the topic (and sometimes they do vaguely recall the simplified Boy Scout version, mix in some ingrained ideology, and think that makes them experts). Thus, the guideline would only be used by others to attack well-meaning but clueless editors for something that is not desired behaviour, but that they can't help. I think the drama vs. success ratio will not be worth it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That this thread has not devolved into a bunch of name calling, bickering and other nonsense proves that we are capable of handling difficult conversations. If we can keep this level of discourse, I think we might be okay. If we bring this tone to the actual questions, I don't think further guidelines are needed.

As for being experts, I am a brick and mortar librarian; we don't know everything by a long shot. For example, my specialty is trivia: I have a broad awareness of a lot of topics, but next to no depth. It's useful for casual questions, but useless for academic research. We just have an idea on where to look, usually. And professionally, I do give opinions: I have to decide which resource is most appropriate (or reliable), and that is informed by my opinion, especially for cookbooks, design books, and other subjective topics. And in terms of reader's advisory (suggesting new books to read) that is entirely opinion. The important thing is that the opinion is relevant and referenced insofar as that's even possible relative to the question.

In the library, a question that we don't agree with politically, morally or religiously doesn't mean it's our business to express such disagreement. If the premise is incorrect, sure, we can show referenced objections, but beyond that, we can't chime in every time we disagree. We'd be fired for that. Those are the opinions that we don't need to see on the desks. As far as I can tell, all of this is already covered in our guidelines. We just need to follow them a little more closely. Mingmingla (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think that in cases like the given example, personal opinion needs to be allowed. As some have pointed out, the Refdesk isn't exactly like Wikipedia. People come from a particular perspective, and the way that they answer a question depends on their perspective - that is true whether we are speaking of politics, herbal medicine, or programming style. I do see that it would be highly beneficial for StuRat and the rest of us to label our perspective in advance if we're going to expound on it, especially if we start to digress a little. A labelled perspective is useful data and a starting point for navigating an issue, whereas an unlabelled perspective might be confusing to readers, especially if it is a very uncommon one or the reader is sufficiently unfamiliar with the background to recognize it. Wnt (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with StS and others that such a guideline is unlikely to be beneficial. As for the specific issue, StuRat does have an apparent tendency to try and answer questions without any apparent research, even when their knowledge of the subject is apparently minimal, something which they've been criticised by multiple different people for. I don't think there's much we can do to change that short of threatening action which is IMO a step too far. The best thing is to continue to point out when they say things which are either wrong or unsupported. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with pointing out when things are wrong (and not just in my posts), but not when they are unsupported. If they are right and unsupported, there is no need to criticize, and if they are wrong and unsupported, criticize it for being wrong, not for being unsupported. We seem to have some people here who are more concerned with an answer be supported than it being right. In that you can find support out there for just about any crackpot theory you want, this is easy to accomplish. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If an unpopular opinion has support, that's annoying, but fair. Just find more support for your side to refute it. If it's really so crackpot, there's usually no point continuing the argument anyway since crackpot theories are generally entrenched. Those are the kind that of arguments that end up creating these huge debates anyway. Voice your objection and move on. In the library, these are the cases where we just smile and nod. The OP can read the refs and decide for themselves. The Mingmingla (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we have to point out when other contributors have given an incorrect answer is really the heart of my problem. When giving proper answers, should it also be our job to point out the wrong ones? Why should the reference desk work like that? Why should that be an extra burden? There is a much easier solution. Stop giving wrong answers. It is totally irresponsible to think that you (or anyone) can just give any random answer you want and expect the rest of us to clean up the mess. Especially, as in the case that set me off yesterday, when the answer doesn't even have anything to do with the question, and having to correct it is a pointless and unhelpful digression. And if you don't even know when you are giving wrong answers...then what are you doing here? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But what do you do with wrong answers? Do you delete them? If yes, then anyone who thinks they are right is going to remove answers they find wrong (or at least some people will) Since anyone can come here and answer questions at will, do you eventually block people who are frequently wrong? How would you even determine this? There are already a lot of debates, if people are sanctioned for being wrong, or answers removed, then you're going to move them to the talk page; the difference is that the asker doesn't get to see multiple view points and confuses the situation. I don't see any clear way to tighten guidelines that will actually do anything given the open nature of who can answer and what gets asked here; not that I necessarily think we should anyways. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is without support or knowledge or the topic, we have no way of knowing if an answer is right. It's unresonable to expect someone to have to provide evidence an answer is wrong if they have doubts of it. In other words, they shouldn't need to know or have evidence it's wrong to challenge it. It's you responsibility to be able to provide references when challenged. Part of that means often you do have to know what you're talking about, otherwise you have no way of knowing whether such references exist. Remember, this is the Reference Desk, not Yahoo Answers. At the very least, when you have no real evidence or knowledge that your claim is correct, but just want to say something for whatever reason, it's best to mention this at the outset.

Of course it's not simply a matter of providing references, on the whole people here usually accept answers if the person appears to know what they're talking about even without references. The problem which you perhaps still don't seem to understand is me and from what I've seen others say they to simply often do not trust your answers because history has shown you are often at least partially wrong (most likely because of the reasons I outlined in my initial post). When Nimur or Jayron32 (two random examples I could think of off the top of my head) provide answers without references, they usually aren't challenged simply because they usually only do it when they do know what they are talking about. And to be honest for them or a few others (e.g. AnonMoos who I often don't agree with), even when they are challenged it's often clear it's a case of legitimate disagreement by differing sources rather then just being wrong because they didn't really know what they're talking about.

It's also not just a matter of the historic quality of the answers but the type of answers. Particularly in humanities and related areas, it's often much more of a grey area. This doesn't mean it's a good idea to provide random ideas you read at 5 am on a website with funk backgrounds and garish text. While our standards don't have to be as high as articles, ultimately we should generally aim for something near there. In other words, if what you're presenting is so weakly supported so as to have no chance in hell of being in an article, it's quite questionable if it belongs on the RD, at the very least it should be presented as such. It's not that we want people to provide references to any crackpot theory, we'd rather they not mention them at all (but if they do want to mention them, references will help people to realise it's just a crackpot theory, as I said mentioning it at the outset also helps).

Of course there are some cases when references discussing the particular issue at hand barely exist or perhaps to exist but only in the form of an entire book in the subject. Even in such cases, if what you're presenting is sort of your own thesis it still helps that your basic claims to support the thesis are supportable by mainstream sources. To some extent, it helps to do some critical evaluation, if you're making a claim you know is likely to be challenged rather then waiting for challenges to roll in, it's best to get ahead of them by providing some references.

Again, all this does require you to have some idea of what you're talking about, or alternatively do some research before answering. To be clear, I'm not talking about wobbly legs, I don't think anyone here really is. Also you aren't the only one who is perhaps a little too quick to rush in and provide answers, but it does seem you're a common perpetrator. And since you were already mentioned by name and the subject of discussion here, it seemed okay to mention you further. Nor am I claiming I'm great in this regard, although I do usually attempt to provide references when I'm not sure.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Educated and informed guesses or speculation that may eventually lead to the correct answer should be welcome on the RD. Indeed, I recall being at a real-life RD in a library, and of course the desk person does not have personal knowledge about everything. In that case, her attitude was, "Let's see if we can figure that out," providing options that could be checked out, and eliminating obvious incorrect options. It was a give-and-take process, not always a definitive "this is the answer".    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The key term here is "educated and informed." A minimum standard for that ought to be something like, "have read a serious book-length monograph on this specific subject in the last 5 years." It cannot be, "I sometimes watch the History Channel and thus have vague notions about how history works." --Mr.98 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a little excessive. One shouldn't need a professional academic's level of expertise to direct people to a Wikipedia article, website, or book to help them through their question. The key is not restricting people from answering questions because they don't have complete, perfect knowledge of the answer. Instead, we should be encouraging people to answer questions based on providing references to Wikipedia articles or external sources. It's fine to answer a question that you only have a passing knowledge of, so long as a) you make it clear that you only have a passing knowledge of and b) you clearly direct the person to places where they can read more details. --Jayron32 19:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider having read a book on a subject in the last half-decade to be a "professional academic's level of expertise." That's the definition of "informed." OK, maybe you've read a few long-form serious magazine articles on a topic. That counts for me. But for questions that are of serious intellectual import (which is to say, nothing that is on the Entertainment desk or is just about folks in the news), I think being informed is a rather higher bar than you're making it out to be. If someone asks (to pick a recent example) why the Middle East has been on decline in the 20th century, I don't think you can make a truly informed and educated guess just by Googling around for five minutes, much less just making something up based on a bad memory of things, unless you actually are someone with substantial historical expertise. An historian can quickly suss out historical answers even in different fields pretty quickly, in the same way that an engineer can quickly figure out what the right questions to ask are relating to engineering problems; it looks easy but it's really just falling back on patterns of thought and competency that were hard-earned. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Michael J here. We frequently get these type of collaborative solutions at the Computer Ref Desk. The first responder might suggest one thing to try to fix a problem, then the OP reports back the results from that attempt, which gives us more info, and maybe another editor than suggests something else to try, etc., until we get the correct solution. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Diagnostic computing is its own thing — that's a process by which you are trying to fix something you can't directly access (someone else's computer). Such an approach should not be applied to questions of history, for example. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It could apply to history, too. In response to "What were the causes of the Cuban Missile crisis ?", you might get several answers tossed out there (some by people who actually witnessed the event firsthand). Later responders might have their memory triggered by some of those early answers and expand on them, etc., until eventually you get a comprehensive list of causes. Collaboration has the power to yield answers better than any one person can give, regardless of the field. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nimur's take, as usual. Here's the thing: if answers decay into people regurgitating things that they half-remembered from a television program years ago, then it's no better than Yahoo Answers. That means that everybody who actually knows something will move on somewhere else. And then you won't get to actually learn new things! So do yourself a favor and shut up when you are really out of your depth. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling rather singled out and then piled upon in this post, so let me point out some examples of those of you who are attacking me doing the very same things you accuse me of:

Here's Jack commenting in Wikipedia policy only 18 minutes after the Q was posted, without any link provided to said policy: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Question_about_the_Columbine_massacre [19].

Attacking you? Methinks thou doth protest too much. My criticisms are of your behaviour, not of you personally. Please don't compound the issue by hyperbolising.

Where would one find a policy that says "Unless a person actually does X, and doesn't just talk about it, it's not appropriate to categorise them as X"? That decision is simple common sense, not a matter for reference to policy or rules. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's Mr. 98 speculating about the likelihood of a future event without quoting a source (there are sources in that post, but none related to the chance of that future event): Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Could_a_former_two-term_President_run_for_election_if_a_repealing_of_terms_limits_was_also_on_the_ballot.3F [20].

Here's Adam Bishop responding within 12 minutes, without references: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Why_are_so_many_actors_from_Canada_in_the_Final_Destination_films.3F [21].

Here's Nil responding without sources: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Keeping_external_hard_drive_in_case_of_a_fire.3F [22].

And all these happened just today (or 28 hours ago, in Jack's case). I'm sure if I went through your histories further back, I could find far more, and worse, examples. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I knew I spoke too soon when I said this was a reasonably civil discussion. I will say it now: I don't always ref. We each as individual editors should recognize that there is an issue with frequent answers with not enough refs. That is demonstrably true, as indicated by Sturat with his examples and with Sturat's own answers. Refs aren't always required by our guidelines, but can we at least agree to make some extra effort to try and provide more refs? I can't imagine this is too much to ask, is it? I'm probably being naive... Mingmingla (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I nearly always provide a reference or have one at hand, is my criticism allowed?—eric 16:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, Mingmingla, that this discussion is no longer civil. Sturat was called out for specific behaviors. Many posts later, in polite words and without undue commentary, he gives diffs for those who have called him out that he feels show them doing at least one of the same things. As long as it goes no further here, we are still quite civil. I haven't checked the diffs because I already knew that almost all of the regulars -if not all of us- put up answers that appear to be "guesses" or WP:OR because we don't always show sources. Some are more scrupulous that others about sourcing; some are more careful than others about restricting their responses to areas where they have personal expertise if they are not showing sources. My best advice would be to qualify everything for which you don't have or show a source so that the OP is not taking an opinion as the definitive answer. Then, if we are challenging the response someone else has given, do so politely and certainly with a reference. On the other side, we could each take time to note how often our responses are challenged in particular subject areas. In those areas we might be best advised to just skip those questions at least until others have responded, and only add comment later by way of sourced views. As for me, I am taking my own advice: I am no longer going to answer in areas requiring knowledge of human body processes. I've made two mistakes in the past year, both of which were corrected, but my errors were, if nothing else, an unnecessary distraction. Bielle (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well said, Bielle. I agree almost completely. I would just change one bit: "...we could each take time to note how often our responses are challenged proven wrong in particular subject areas. In those areas we might be best advised to just skip those questions...". Otherwise, you can get somebody out to cause mischief who just challenges everything you say, for no apparent reason. We should ignore such people. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I said what I said very carefully, Sturat, and I meant "challenged". (While there are a couple of regulars that I might put into the category of "setting out to cause mischief", from time to time, most of us are trying to do a good job.) In my suggestion, it is the provider of the response who is doing the judging of what constitutes a valid challenge to it. "Proven wrong" is too high a standard for assessing one's own work, I think. It is a rare person who admits to wrong, even in the face of clear evidence. At most it's a waffle -"well, that may not have been exactly right, but this part was fine and you did . . ." The Ref Desk would be a calmer and more useful place if we were each to recognize that our views in certain areas end up in drama. All that I am suggesting is that, having seen that happen, to wait until others have responded and then to comment with references. It's just a matter of self control, isn't it? Bielle (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for medical advice removed

I removed a question here: [23] where a person asks us to interpet the results of a blood test they got. That seems like a clear request for medical advice. The initial question was borderline, but the follow-on question makes a direct request to interpret specific test results as it pertains to them. This is a doctor's role, not Wikipedia's role. --Jayron32 11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with the policy, but I can't deny the second question ran afoul of it. Wnt (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The first part of your sentence is what I was talking about at ANI the other day.[24] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that in a culture of free expression, which Wikipedia tries to be as much as feasible, that a person is quite allowed to disagree with established policy. They may not act on their disagreement as long as the policy is in force, but expressing dissatisfaction with established policy is a core democratic value, and Wnt is well within his rights to complain every time he sees something he disagrees with. Since he's done nothing here more than that, he's done nothing wrong. --Jayron32 22:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)\

Agreed, I was going to say the laws of Florida do not violate the Bill of Rights. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

When he tells people to use herbs instead of seeing a doctor, he crosses the line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Very true. So when he does, call him on it in an appropriate thread and delete it as being medical advice. This thread isn't about Wnt. Mingmingla (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And then he'll come here and argue about why he should be allowed to give quack medical advice. It may not be "about" Wnt, but he's on the short list of those who gripe most anytime we try to enforce the rules against giving professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The first question was fine; it was just seeking info: he was just asking about the effectiveness of vaccines baed on learnign that they were not in fact %100 effective. The second question was decidedly not, and we should never answer something like that. Mingmingla (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Textbook example of a correct removal. Question A sought clarification of an existing statement. Question B asked whether he, personally, could go ahead and do X without risking contracting a serious illness. Policy says we shouldn't touch the latter with a ten-foot spiked bargepole, and quite right too. - Karenjc 18:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research that cannot be sourced

Hello. I know the RD Guidelines say, "Our standards on verifiability, neutral point of view, or no original research should be kept in mind on the Reference Desk." However, are there ever times when exceptions are permitted? To give a very narrow example, if someone were to ask why some sources list Olympic athlete Walter Tewksbury with the first name "John," I could give an answer from a personal conversation I had with Tewksbury's daughter, but that information can't be used in the article because it was never published anywhere. (I should have done so, but that was a long time ago.) Granted, that is a question that no one would realistically ask, but there may come other times when a RD respondent happens to have some expertise in the questioner's topic. Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A more common example might be where somebody can just go and look, like "Is this website inaccessible for everyone else, too ?". I think it's fine to answer in such cases. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Should be kept in mind" means should be kept in mind. If you really have the answer and it's worth providing, but don't have a ref, identify it as needing a reference. Someone else may provide the reference. Collaboration is allowed. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sturat: your answer in that particular example would be better if accompanied by a link to http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ (teach a man to fish...). -NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. StuRat (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is "seek medical/legal advice" not medical/legal advice?

The Help Desk folks evaded the logical pulp of this question, so I put it here (hopefully, this is the place it cannot be passed off to another). Is "Ask a doctor/lawyer; seek professional medical/legal advice" not itself medical/legal advice? It seems equivalent to the statement "On the medical/legal topic you just mentioned, I advise you to speak to a professional." Though you didn't touch the technical content, you directed them in the direction of someone who would, and for all practical purposes, cannot deny that if said person did go to a professional and get content advice, you were a part of their getting there. If somebody asked me what's going on with their transmission, and I told them to go to a mechanic, I wouldn't say that in no way whatsoever did I give them auto care advice. Not very specific auto care advice, but nonetheless advice definitely on the subject of auto care. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't, except in the most pedantic sense. That is, our guidelines tell us the only advice we can give is to ask a doctor or lawyer. So, yes, I suppose if you want to consider it to be advice (because, I guess, strictly speaking, we are advising people to do something). But so what? Recognizing that it does has no functional or practical bearing on the policy. If someone asks us a question that they should be asking a doctor or lawyer instead, we tell them to ask a doctor or a lawyer. If you want to call that "medical or legal advice", then feel free to think that. But nothing is going to change because of that little bit of pedantry. --Jayron32 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Medical advice" in the Ref Desk sense means a number of specific things about offering information that would only be responsibly given by a professional in close communication with the question asker. Under no sensible interpretation can "go seek a doctor" be construed as being synonymous with that kind of information. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Until some poster says "I have acute iatrophobia, what should I do?" And someone tells them to go see a doctor. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll burn that bridge when we get to it. Until that happens, we'll just keep removing such questions and recommend that people talk to doctors instead of us. --Jayron32 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We'll send 'em to a shrink instead. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "We don't give medical/legal advice" is just shorthand for what otherwise would be a long explanation about exactly what categories of answers we considered prohibited. The policy is only self-contradictory if you misunderstand the policy, or if you don't recognize that the policy itself was created with the idea of prohibiting certain kinds of answers to those questions, not all answers. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I actually agree with this, and have said so before. Medical or legal advice can be very expensive, and advising people to seek it may be advising them to waste their money. It is better, I believe, just to say that we can't give medical or legal advice. Looie496 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I very much like the non-committal response along the lines of: "if you need medical assistance, seek a medical professional..." It allows the user to decide for themselves whether they need medical advice. And it allows the user to define "medical professional" for themselves. It absolves me of culpability. Have I mentioned that I used to live in a building full of attorneys? Every word they ever say is meant to reduce their exposure to liability. Nimur (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I always knew it was CYA and not do no harm. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Telling someone to go to a doctor is not medical advice. Telling them NOT to go to a doctor IS medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not telling them to is not telling them not to. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Would that it were that simple. Even on this page, you've got folks arguing for explicitly telling people NOT to see a doctor. That's irresponsible and unethical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with you on that, which is why I'd say say nothing of doctors at all. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with suggesting someone seek professional medical advice, worst case, they get a bill they didn't need. Telling them they don't need to see a doctor is quite different, and could result in serious injury or death depending on the circumstances. Certainly it is reasonable to say "we don't offer medical advice" and leave it at that, but suggesting someone seek it from a professional is usually acceptable as well. Monty₈₄₅ 00:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Telling someone to see a doctor is NOT medical advice. It's telling them who to seek medical advice from. That seems like plain common sense, but since only someone lacking in common sense would ask for medical advice from strangers on the internet, they need a little nudge in the right direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the wide variety of health treatments now generally available, it's not even up to us to decide that what they need is medical treatment/advice from a doctor per se. Maybe they need dietary advice from a dietitian, or chiropractic treatment from a chiropractor, or Bowen therapy, or acupuncture, or hypnotherapy, or physiotherapy, or podiatric treatment, or lots of other possibilities that are not "medical" treatment. If we're going to go beyond the "we can't help you" disclaimer, maybe we should suggest they see "an appropriate healthcare professional", and leave it up to them to work out what's the most appropriate for their own circumstances. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That would certainly be a reasonable alternative. For both medical and legal, to simply say, "See a professional." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c, should have saved first! :) It's not medical advice, but it is still advice, aka opinion - which, ummm. I agree somewhat that a blanket response to see a doctor could result in someone spending unnecessary money (not in my country, but still). Instead, the message should be in neutral terms as mentioned above, on the lines of "we are unable to offer medical advice, if you have a personal health concern contact a medical professional in your area", which leaves open the possibility of calling nursing lines (province-wide in parts of Canada, I think it's 3-1-1) or whatever other health resources may be open to the respondent. "See a doctor" may be an insuperable obstacle for many of our readers. Franamax (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In what part of the world? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of your question? Do you wish to judge some parts of the world as more worthy of wiki-consideration than others, or do you deny that the cost of seeking out an M.D. can be significant for some people? Franamax (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether we might happen to imagine that an editor "can't afford" to go to a doctor does not give us the excuse to not tell him to, nor to try to diagnose him over the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we seriously discussing this as a serious issue? In what way is asking people to see a doctor rather than asking us a bad thing? It neither a legal liability or an ethical one. Yes, as Jack noted, there are many types of medical and health professionals, but that's not our role to decide which one. GPs, family doctors and clinics should all be able to make the call to direct them to the right place once the OP goes there. I won't argue too much about using the term "medical professional" in the place of doctor, but really... Mingmingla (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It has nothing to do with the cost of health services or whether the OP can afford them or not or whether they're geographically isolated or any other issue they may have. It is about us saying "You've come to us with a health problem, but we cannot help you. We think it's probably something a health professional is best placed to help you with". That's as far as our duty of care should go. From then on, it's for them to sort out. We are not responsible for their lives, they are. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The standard language that we do not give medical and legal advice, and that one should seek out a doctor or lawyer for this, is only really advice if we doubt that doctors and lawyers are the best source of medical and legal guidance. If we accept that doctors and lawyers are the best source of medical and legal guidance, then we are not really advising, but merely recycling standard opinions on this subject. Bus stop (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in some cases it would be more appropriate to refer them to a website where such questions are being answered. Giving no alternatives does not serve the best interests of the individual; basic example: patient information leaflets list side effects that are common and do not warrant medical attention. Telling him/her to go see a doctor would not be beneficial and could even be harmful, because of physical exertion and the risk of infection. Let's not forget that the medical profession itself is one of the leading causes of death, disease and injury. Ssscienccce (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Referring them to a website where such questions are being answered - isn't that tantamount to endorsing that website? Or to suggesting they see a particular doctor that we nominate? That seems to be in the same league of inappropriateness as diagnosing the condition ourselves. And can you please clarify your last statement? It's hard to forget something we're not aware of in the first place. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In 2000, the Report to the President on Medical Errors was published. They estimated between 45,000 and 98,000 Americans died each year due to medical errors. the lower estimate would make it the eight leading cause of mortality in the United States. they estimated that medical errors cost the US about $37.6 billion each year. More recent news: Medicalnewstoday: Medical Error Is The Fifth-Leading Cause Of Death In The U.S.; NY Times: More Treatment, More Mistakes: "According to a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine, as many as 98,000 Americans were dying every year because of medical mistakes. .. a reasonable estimate is that medical mistakes now kill around 200,000 Americans every year. "

Injuries: In 2006 an estimated 1.5 million.

cdph.ca.gov: California department of public health: Hospital acquired infections are the most common complication of hospital care and are listed among the top ten leading causes of death in the United States. It is estimated that each year there are more than 1.7 million infections, 99,000 deaths, and $3.1 billion dollars in excess healthcare costs in acute care hospitals alone.

And i see that medical error has most of the info... Ssscienccce (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

But one thing I do have to take issue with, Ssscienccce, though it might be a relatively minor quibble, as you probably chose your words quickly—I have to question that "patient information leaflets list side effects that are common and do not warrant medical attention"[25] insofar as occasionally the "side effects" could warrant "medical attention". I don't think you mean to make a blanket statement that side effects of for instance medications do not sometimes warrant medical intervention. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I lost part of my argument along the way it seems. What I meant to say was, they have a list of common, uncommon and rare side effects, and then they have the "if you experience ... consult a doctor" section. With the "normal" side effects, there's no reason for concern.

But anyway, the whole argument is just a reaction to the far-fetched arguments I read before, like the hearing loss - age topic being interpreted as medical advice. Coming from an editor who removes the statement (amphetamines) if they are injected they become Class A drugs. that was referenced with an archived page of the home office website (here's the current one) because "This kind of information needs to cite a reliable source. See WP:RS"... Ssscienccce (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen some problematic examples of this recently. Someone requested advice for sleeping problems that from reading his account were clearly anxiety related. The person was afraid of going to sleep and as a result was severly sleep deprived. The advice he got was to seek immediate medial attention. But in his case, that is the worst sort of medical advice you could give the person, as it would make him stay awake for even longer. You end up confirming the mistaken beliefs that makes this person afraid to go to sleep. Also the longer you stay awake the more prone to anxiety you tend to become. Count Iblis (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think everyone has made an Everest-sized mountain out of a molehill here. The policy is "we don't answer questions that you should be getting the answer from somewhere else, if that somewhere else is from a medical or legal professional". The fact that the best objections we can come up with to this policy revolves around the current wording, and not to the general sentiment, speaks volumes to how trivial this debate is. From the above, these are the major objections: 1) people might not be able to afford a doctor or lawyer 2) people might be better served seing a different professional like a nurse or a paralegal 3) Some people have unusual and rare psychological conditions that might be exacerbated by us telling them to see a doctor or 4) Doctors sometimes screw up and kill people, so we shouldn't be telling people to seek help from them. Seriously? These are the objections? Let's get this clear. We have several major objectives when dealing with questions that ask for unambiguous advice of this nature. First, we do not provide that advice. Second, we don't want to be rude and ignore or delete the question without explanation. Third, we need to explain why we don't directly answer their question, and give some sort of blanket advice where they should go instead of Wikipedia. The objections to the policy seem quite trivial in that they don't address the major need for the policy. If we need to play around with the wording, that's fine, but none of the objections above amounts to a major challenge to the rationale behind the policy in the first place. --Jayron32 18:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the "Please consult a professional" line is just a polite version of: "Get lost you illiterate idiot! You should have read the disclaimer prominently placed at the top on this page before posting this question!". Roger (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We should use your version instead? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"No answer for you!" 67.163.109.173 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

* --Jayron32 05:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Question feedback

I'm reading the discussions above with interest, and I'm feeling a certain amount of positive vibes from the conversation. It feels like we might be able to come to some sort of common understanding about the best way to operate this desk in the future. With that in mind I'm starting to formulate in my mind a set of proposals, mainly based on the consensus that seems to be appearing above. In order to pre-emptively test this out, though, I'd like to ask you to criticise a few answers I've given recently whilst trying to follow my own proposals: [26] [27] [28] - did I answer the questions in the way you feel a reference desk should? Should I have given more information? Less? Or should the question have been flagged as medical/legal/general advice? If you wish, feel free to post responses on my talk page. I welcome your thoughts. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Too concise, you're gonna make the rest of us look bad! So yes, that's pretty much how it should be I think. The autism question had potential to go offtopic, a controversial topic invites opinions about the subject. A lot depends on the first answer imo, if that's offtopic, others will follow; if it's an educated guess, you'll get more of the same (hard to resist sometimes); but when it's to the point, with references, things turn out ok. That's my impression at least based on RD/science. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you're doing it right in my book. I encourage others to do what you have done here, and I was in fact about to do the same. For example I was fairly happy with how this question about allergies went (which some editors may have seen as borderline, regarding medical issue):[29](If anyone wants to comment on that thread as well, I'll be interested to hear). I was fairly confident in my answer, but unsure of the scope (e.g. some/ all / many). So I put in some refs, and worded carefully. A few hours later, people with more experience/confidence in the field chimed in with additional info and refs, and I think the OP got what they wanted out of it. Also, Ssscience's point is very apt: the first few responses set the tone, and I would encourage editors to be extra careful to provide some refs on the first response, and be especially reticent to opine/guess right out of the gate. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it be permissible for an autistic Wikipedian to provide anecdotal feedback relating to the qualia of intrapersonal autism? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a response to my comment? I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection. Anyway, I suppose the context is very important, and (IMO) there is not a simple yes/no answer to your question. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

On further reflection, I would support a guideline that the first attempt to answer to a question should provide some reference (a very low bar to cross). Not as a hard/strict rule (no such thing here anyway ;), but as a guideline, i.e. a suggestion for best practice. If an editor cannot find any suitable reference, and the question has zero current replies, then perhaps s/he should wait a half day, until they have more time to find a ref, or others have started the process out on the right foot. (I add this not to derail, but in the spirit of CM's post: to build a common understanding of how to run the desk) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

An alternative to "no medical advice"?

Hi. This question is basically a very simple scenario and does not seek to undermine Wikipedia's overall policy related to its medical/legal disclaimers. In one scenario, suppose that a questioneer asks what topical antibiotic antiseptics are out there as an alternative to seeking medical or first aid attention, and does not disclose any details of personal injury, but suggests that he/she would like to know how to treat a cut. Would it be appropriate to tell the OP that honey has anti-bacterial and anti-viral properties, with the caveat that Wikipedia does not provide medical advice?

Scenario Two: Suppose that a questioneer may or may not be facing legal charges, and cannot afford a lawyer. He/she would like to know the applicable copyright law in said user's country, and explore whether any loopholes exist, as well as more background on fair use, free use and copyright legislation. The OP does not ask for specific arguments to make during the case, which may or may not exist according to an upcoming trial. Is it permissible for us Wikipedians to pull up legal documents from the Internet on said country's copyright? Further, what happens if a user asks a list of 200 items, inquiring whether each one would be a copyright infringement?

In each case, would Wikipedian feedback be "pushing the line" in terms of our general and legal/medical disclaimers? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

IMO, in both cases, pushing the line and over it. Bielle (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Both clearly over the line. The ref desks should not be telling people what to do to treat conditions that are normally treated by medical professionals. Providing people with alternatives to standard medical treatments amounts to an endorsement of those specific treatments (and by contrast, an endorsement against those treatments that aren't mentioned). People shouldn't be getting such advice from Wikipedia. We can't stop people from finding Wikipedia articles on a subject and acting of their own volition, but we can stop providing people with what could be easily construed as advice or endorsement of a specific course of action. A disclaimer is meaningless; it means nothing to give what amounts to medical advice, and then say "this wasn't medical advice". The same applies to the legal scenario also. There are people who's job it is to retrieve relevent legal documents and precedents, and to organize and present that evidence to build a case for a particular viewpoint on a matter of contention. Those people are called lawyers. The specific scenario #2 laid out by AstroHurricane would pretty much read like a job description for what a lawyer does. Deciding if any individual item meets the legal definition of what a copyright infringement is (or even citing Wikipedia articles or other documents which amounts to an endorsement of the viewpoint that there is (or isn't) a violation) would be over the line. We do answer general questions regarding medicine and law (i.e. "What is the difference between Type I and Type II diabetes?" or "What does "freedom of panorama" mean in layman's terms?"), however we should not provide direct advice in any form that a questioner has made clear they need to make a decision regarding their own situation (i.e. "I have diabetes, but I find my insulin treatment to be very expensive. How can I modify my lifestyle to become less insulin dependent" or "I have some pictures here, and I want to know if I will be sued if I publish them in a book I am producing"). That's my perspective anyways. --Jayron32 19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that those are over the line:

In the 1st case, it's the "as an alternative to seeking medical or first aid attention" part that makes it so. If they just asked for a list of over-the-counter products with antibacterial properties, we could provide that.

In the second case, it's over the line if it may be about a real case. General questions about copyright law are OK, and a question with 200 instances is not technically forbidden, but I don't see anyone spending that kind of time on a single Q. I'd also hat that portion, so it doesn't take up the entire Desk. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't even figure out its own copyright rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it can, but stopping the torrent of violations is a bit like trying to take a urine sample with a thimble, with roughly the same results. --Jayron32 05:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A monopoly? Yet Wikipedia has already ended the de facto monopoly on knowledge. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

what's wrong with this question?

I simply wanted advice on deducing if formaldehyde or Coomassie Brilliant Blue would be (excruciatingly) painful to drink or not, despite their toxicity. Yet my question kept on being removed. It's not a request for medical advice. 71.207.151.227 (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I advised the IP to ask here rather than restore the question to the ref desk after AndyTheGrump properly deleted it. You'll forgive me if I don't explain myself why asking what lethal poisons taste like is not a question we can answer encyclopedically. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a question we can answer, were it not for the medical advice police. It's quite ironic that important safety information cannot be supplied any more. If this is going to be the wikipedia policy, MSDS data from all chemistry articles should be removed, as well toxic amounts from medicines etc... We report that nickel tetracarbonyl has a musty smell; phosgene the smell of freshly cut grass, hydrogen cyanide smells of almonds, mustard gass smells of mustard, and so on... What would be the appropriate forum to get a formal decision on this issue? Ssscienccce (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources you have provided, Sscinece, explain how "excruciatingly painful" consuming those poisons is? Really? Responding willy-nilly to nonsense does not amount to providing relevantly encyclopedic references. μηδείς (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not impossible for descriptions of pain to be encyclopedic - see cluster headache for an example. I'm slightly surprised that the Cyanide poisoning article doesn't include an anecdotal report of the experience - I could have sworn it used to. Perhaps some snob removed that part. <sarc>Not in keeping with the encyclopedic tone, don'tchaknow. Can't include that interesting information, some people might enjoy reading it, and that wouldn't be edifying.</sarc> Granted, the content of such anecdotes is original research, and can't be supported by sources; but if the anecdotes are notable, the fact that somebody said it can be included ... or we can say what an expert thinks the experience is like, based on people's anecdotes. Failing that, deductions about the experience could be made based on the nature of the poisoning. With suitable references, of course.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Guess I misinterpreted your words. I agree that info on excruciating pain when drinking toxic chemicals isn't a usual topic in safety sheets, or anywhere for that matter. Given that such an effect would certainly be noteworthy, not finding it would indicate it probably doesn't occur. Excruciating pain is not generally overlooked, see the bullet ant, some types of jellyfish, the delayed effects of mustard gas... So yes, excruciating pain would be mentioned if it occured. The ATSDR fact sheet reports that drinking large amounts of formaldehyde can cause severe pain, vomiting, coma and possible death. the NCDOL guide to formaldehyde's instructions if swallowed are to induce vomiting immediately, toxic effects after ingestion include severe irritation to mucosal surfaces. Nothing that points to what the OP is asking. Considering the once widespread use of formalin to inactivate proteins or preserve specimens and the practice of mouth pipetting, and not finding any horror stories about it, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The medical guidelines have no bearing on this hypothetical question. It is a difficult question to answer. Sometimes survivors of poisonings report what the experience was like, but that's more likely to be the case with well-known poisons, particularly the ones used as weapons. I don't know why the question (diff) was deleted.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you people out of your minds? Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Under no circumstances should questions like this be answered. Instead, the matter should promptly be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation, and via e-mail or IRC to an admin - both of which I promptly did after deleting the material. Unfortunately, I have to go out now, but I shall be reporting this matter at AN/I when I return, and asking that action be taken to ensure such grossly irresponsible behaviour is not repeated in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, that was not a threat of harm. --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy's taking the fact that it's a question about whether a potentially fatal thing hurts a lot, and interpreting that as a suicide threat.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is in the eye of the beholder whether a question like that is a threat of self harm, maybe it is, maybe its just curiosity, we should avoid overly harsh criticism of each other in cases such as this where reasonable minds may differ. Without more context in the question it is impossible to say for sure. Monty₈₄₅ 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we being asked advice on a dangerous topic? Yes. Is the question encyclopedic in nature? No. Is it asking for opinion? Yes. Do we need to or benefit from answering questions like this? A resounding no. Regardless of Andy's suspicions, which are plausible, and should be given the benefit of the doubt, this is a perfect candidate for, "try a chat room". μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Given recent talk page debates, I wonder if someone isn't baiting us with this question. Does [blank] hurt doesn't strike new as medical advice or diagnosis but the direct reference to poison seems suspiciously well timed to rile people up. Mingmingla (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Formaldehyde will cause extreme pain if ingested -- it will destroy the lining of the stomach. The consequences of ingesting Coomassie Brilliant Blue have not actually been studied -- the Material Safety Data Sheet states: "Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal tract irritation with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The toxicological properties of this substance have not been fully investigated". Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with answering this question, and no way is it medical advice. But, I don't know the answer, nor even how to get it unless it turns up in a search by dumb luck. Wnt (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I can imagine a theoretically reasonable purpose for this question—perhaps someone is writing a mystery novel. But I also find it quite unlikely that this is the reason the question is being asked. Given recent controversies here, I suspect that the question is being asked for purposes of testing the boundaries and creating discord. For this reason among others, removing the question was appropriate, and it should not receive further attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a threat of harm; there's no condition attached nor are other people in actual danger. It's rather nanny'ish to prevent someone from seeking information to inform decisions over their own lives when it doesn't negatively affect anyone else. I have already sought professional treatment for my condition and am already on 450 mg bupropion (maximum dose) and 3 mg risperdal, but I'm already quickly adapting to my meds and the relapsing pain is unbearable. I'm just asking for some compassion here in answering my question. It's not a "dangerous" question -- no one is being harmed. 71.207.151.227 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Are opinion-seeking questions admissable or not? A Yes or No will do.

I just don't get it. And I don’t like not getting things I feel I really ought to be across.

The thread about 5 yr olds being allowed/able to play outside by themselves was hatted, with the message "The Reference Desk does not answer requests for opinions". Maybe it should have said: "The Reference Desk is not really supposed to answer requests for opinions, but we often do. Just not in this case", because clearly it DOES answer requests for opinions. Often. Witness the immediately preceding thread, about Libya. The OP included a link, but not one of the respondents included any reference sources that would have at least addressed the question. The responses were entirely the opinions of the respondents. There were a handful of wikilinks to identify something a respondent was mentioning in their own opinion, that's all.

The point is the Libya question asked for an opinion, just like the "playing outside" thread. Virtually all "why" questions are seeking opinions. But instead of being hatted as an unanswerable question, it was immediately and generously welcomed, and a free-for-all ensued. A part of the thread was hatted, but only because it was off-topic; the remainder of it was let stand. We may as well say it's perfectly OK to rob a bank or murder someone, as long as you don't used bad language while doing it.

The difference in treatment could not be any more stark. One would get from the Libya thread that it’s perfectly OK to answer opinion-seeking questions (as long as we don't commit the grievous sin of veering off-topic). But from the next thread one would get that it's perfectly NOT-OK to answer such questions. This is yet another example of the grossly inconsistent application of the rules I referred to a few threads back. I know what would have happened if I'd hatted the LIbya thread, as I was sorely tempted to do when I first saw it: I'd have been accused of being a self-appointed wiki-police.

What's the point of having any rules, or of having these interminable discussions about the rules, if they're so shoddily and unrigorously and inconsistently applied? Either let all opinion-seeking answers through, or let none of them through. I could live with either paradigm. But this "sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on the whim of the moment" thing really does my head in.

I was told a while ago that we should not judge questions by the answers they get. Just because nobody's bothered to come up with a reference source yet does not mean that such sources don't exist. Maybe a source will be provided, just have a little patience, Jack. Yeah, sure it will. But the Libya question was all about opinion. That was obvious before there were any responses. One could come up with any facts one liked in support of one's opinion, but no answer anyone could ever provide to such a question would be free of opinion as to which facts were more important. No external source could ever say definitively and incontrovertibly "This is why". But we could at least have included some sources that talk about the issue, as the OP did. That would have been like turning only one blind eye to the policy. But as it is, both eyes of some editors appear to be wired and sewn shut and cemented over. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason cited isn't the real reason the Q on letting a 5 year old play alone outside was hatted. The problem is that a "Yes, go right ahead" answer could get somebody killed. No answer to the Libya question is dangerous, however, so it was left alone. So, it's questions which solicit potentially dangerous opinions we don't allow. StuRat (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Stu may be right, but I somehow got the impression that answering requests for opinions was OK whenever several regulars had very strong opinions to give. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So, please point to the part of the Ref Desk Guidelines that says "Answering questions that seek opinions is acceptable, as long as it doesn't endanger lives". I can show you one that says "Answering questions that seek opinions is not acceptable, period" (my paraphrase). The strength of the opinions anyone might entertain, as a factor in interpreting this policy, seems to have been curiously omitted from our Guidelines.

Some people live their lives under the philosophy of "The more fervently I believe something is the case, the more the rest of the world should accept my belief as a fact". Not so. Wikipedians, of all the people in the world, ought to know that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the guidelines in years. I attempted to construct a rule based on observational evidence alone. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The two relevant sections of the guidelines are:

"The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources. An individual editor is not required to provide a fully comprehensive answer – a partial answer may be improved on by subsequent answers. However, responses must not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute."

"Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate."

Neither one seems to say that all opinions and questions asking for opinions should be deleted immediately, but that opinions should be limited. Thus, your paraphrasing above seems to be incorrect, and based on, well... your opinion. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And you've interpreted all that down to "It's questions which solicit potentially dangerous opinions we don't allow"? Well, thank God this isn't the Reformation or the Renaissance or the Soviet Union. And what does "limited" mean? No more than 20 opinions per editor per day per desk? No more than 95% of the content of any one thread?

Come on, Stu, let's have an honest discussion for once, not one characterised by obfuscation and re-interpretation on the run. There has to be a general agreement or consensus about what these policies actually mean, which we all abide by; not just one editor saying "I can pretend to make it mean X when it suits me". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what you did when paraphrasing it to say "Answering questions that seek opinions is not acceptable, period". StuRat (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Both threads should have been hatted. Whoever got to the 5y/o one first did the responsible thing. I ignored the Libya one after the first few words when it was posted. Having read the first few sentences now, it's clearly an invitation to debate. Once a question like that gets a few answers, the momentum is to keep it up. It should have been nipped in the bud, rather than responded to by whomever placed the first response. We could use a template given in markup at the top of each page that deletes a question and replaces it with "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, references could exist for the Libya question. At first, it was a strictly factual question: Why did the US support Libyan rebels with known connections to Al Qaeda? The problems were a) it got into a bit of a rant, and b), there weren't any answers that provided references to directly address the good part of the question. Had StuRat provided references for his opinions, I don't think the debate would have necessarily started. While StuRat did make a point to provide references to the organizations he mentions (good on him) he didn't put forth any other references that would support his suggestions. Had that been done, I don't now if this would have got to the point of hatting. That said, I don't object to the hatting.

Here is the test I propose for question admissability: Would a reference librarian be reasonably able to answer the question? these are the same tests I perform when I work the reference desk in real life, ones that are taught in a roundabout way at library school:

• Q. asks for a specific fact: Answerable.
• Q. asks for a suggestion in further reading on any topic: Reader's Advisory. Answerable."
• Q. asks why a current event is occurring: Find an appropriate news source or Wikipedia article, then link and summarize. Otherwise, leave it. In this case, if neither of the above is provided, the answer (not the question) is to be hatted/deleted.
• Q. asks medical/legal advice. Not answerable. Medical and legal information fact requests (no matter how odd) are acceptable)
• Q. asks about moral or personal issues. Look for reputable etiquette guides and reference it. Otherwise, leave it alone or close it.
• Q. asks for a debate. Zzzappp.

It is not ours to judge why they want an answer, just to answer it as far as we can within the bounds above.

This is all stuff we should be doing now. We are claiming to be like a library reference desk. It's time to act like it. That's means shutting down anything that isn't, either by putting the question back on track or by shutting it down. Medeis has been doing this, to much debate, but Medeis is getting better, and bringing it here is great. More of us should have the balls to do it to the obvious ones. If we're wrong, it can always be restored. Mingmingla (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Eureka!

My only quibble with your answer, Ming, is that "Why did the US support Libyan rebels with known connections to Al Qaeda?" was never going to be a factual question. When it comes to why Country A did Action X to Country B, all we ever have is a multitude of opinions. Maybe the head of state/government of Country A made a statement about it; we should at least cite that if we're going to answer the question at all. But whether that statement represents the real reason/s, well, you'll always have debate about that. All we can do is cite what reputable sources have to say on the matter. What any of us editors individually has to say on the matter is not what questioners come here to find out; and even if they do, that's not what a professional reference service does. Just because we're all volunteers is no reason not to act in a professional manner. OK, we're not robots, and we know stuff that we like to share, which is part of why we're here in the first place. But please let us do our jobs first, by providing suitable references, and then after that perhaps we can have a bit of a chat. Let us not keep on pretending that an interchange of our opinions can take the place of relevant citations from reputable sources. They cannot and they do not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I read that question and ignored it. But I come to the same conclusion as Jack. I think it would also be appropriate to respond to the implied assumption within the question, which could have itself been a separate and purely factual question. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If we are honest with ourselves, any one of us would happily hat or delete all the opinion questions with the immediate exception of the ones "I" want to answer -because that is what it comes down to, doesn't it? We will even battle over what constitutes a question calling for an opinion. The Entertainment desk frequently has questions about "bands that sound like . . ." and variations on that theme. Unless you are providing a technical reference about chordal structure or instrumentation or rhythmic patterns (and I have yet to see one answered that way), it's all just opinion. Are we planning to delete all of them? I went to the Computer and IT desk (shudder!) and very quickly found what I expected to find, a question on the "best X" (in this case, the most comfortable noise-canceling headphones). A number of answers followed, not one of which referenced a review or technical specs -all just personal opinion. While there was a unanimity of responses on the noise-cancelling query, there were debates (or challenges) on the "bands that sound like Black Sabbath" which is the current Entertainment desk example. (I know you want diffs, but I am about finished for the night. Trust me, right?) Some kinds of questions appear to me to be obvious matters of opinion that we should not be answering -"why" questions outside of the hard sciences, for example, or "alternate universe" questions - but I couldn't ever work up the energy to delete the opinions on who sounds like Black Sabbath. This is the wrong issue on which to be looking for consistency, I fear. Bielle (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's simply ridiculous, Bielle. That question is one of the better answered ones currently around, with plenty of scholarly/eductaed links. I added links only after all that had died down to certain omitted groups which in my educated opinion fit the criterion with links to our articles and outside links so the questioner can make his own judgements. Had the question been on piano concertos I'd have held my tongue as clueless. This is no different from someone on the language desk suggesting that such and such might be a good synonym, or a better translation, or the word the inquirer is looking for. (Those have elements of judgment too, but they are able to be looked up and confirmed by the reader, while no answer to the Libya question is going to be found in Facts on File.) Judging what is similar to what is a hell of a lot different from asking for mind reading as to why certain people took certain actions or asking what they "should" have done under certain moral premises. Had the Black Sabbath question been, who is the best band of all time, or why didn't Black Sabbath record more dance tunes you'd have a point. As of now, I think sleep is a good idea. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the music questions of the type Bielle mentions is a form of Readers' Advisory, something that many public library reference desks do. And so do many of our articles, often under See Also sections and in the Genre pages. Mingmingla (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to determine whether a question to which the answer is unknown is subjective or not (e.g. "does sex hurt?") therefore there is no way to determine whether an opinion question was known as such when asked. Therefore prohibiting opinion questions is impossible. Also, reasonable people will often reasonably disagree about which questions are subjective. Therefore, there is no way to resolve this issue. —Cupco 01:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We need a link to the Libya/Syria question being discussed here: [30]. (How ironic that Jack, who complains about lack of refs, didn't provide any here.) Note that I tried to give factual answers related to the Q, like what type of aid the US is providing the Syrian rebels. I've been reading News reports daily on Syria, and have also gone to the Syrian News Agency (SANA) each day for their POV (if anyone doubts my word, you will note that I asked a Q on why the SANA web site was inaccessible several weeks ago: [31].). So, I do have some qualifications to answer as to what's happening in Syria, probably as much as anyone else here, unless we happen to have a Syrian Ref Desk volunteer. Therefore, my first response was not just a bunch of personal opinions (although I did add personal opinions in the later portion, which I hatted as off topic). StuRat (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about your opinions, StuRat. I think they are reasonable and plausible. The thing is, if you've read so much about the issues, you should have therefore be able to post references to the stuff you read to back up your opinions. That's the issue here. Provide references on the Reference Desk. Mingmingla (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The answers StuRat and others gave had all the hallmarks of "This is the case because I say so". And that is not what a good reference librarian does (as distinct from a participant in a pub debate on a Saturday afternoon). If you can find a source to back up what you think/feel/believe/assume/suspect/opine/assert/insist is true, provide it. If you can't even be bothered to go looking for one, what are you doing manning a reference desk? There are plenty of other places online where you can debate stuff till kingdom come, with no requirement for references. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sleep is avoiding me. Medeis, as no one connected anything specific in the articles on the bands named (and, here, finally, is a link to the question), I made the assumption that the links were there merely "because there are articles". However, the few I have now looked at do have mentions of their place in heavy metal. Where I really was wrong was that I skipped Jayron's second response entirely, where he does provide a lot of third-party references. So mea culpa. My point stands. I just picked a poor example; you were right about that. However (may I waffle now?), the Entertainment desk does get a lot of opinion questions. Here's a better example. It took me about 3 minutes in the archives to find it. It is possible that someone has written on "The Best White Rappers", so this could have been a "Facts on File" question. It is possible that someone has, or will shortly, write a scholarly work on why the U.S. supported Libya. The over-riding point I am making is that, if we can't find a source that answers the question, perhaps we should just say that-and nothing more.

But then then there are other types of questions. JackofOz answered one which asked about the key of Ode to Joy. The references all seemed to say one thing, but Jack went right to the original document (or as close as he could get with a piece written almost 200 years ago without breaking into a museum on the other side of the globe) and demonstrated that the references were probably wrong and certainly incomplete. In an article, that would be WP:OR and not acceptable, and there is a certain amount of opinion about choosing which single key best represented the piece. But the response was, in my opinion, wonderful, and about as complete as one could wish.

Consistent? Good luck. Bielle (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)