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.

When the Ref Desk works...

...it really works! Based on this, (someone could change the link to a diff so it stays permanent, 'cause I don't know how), a new article was created. I'd've thought everything existed by now... Mingmingla (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You can tag the question and the article talk page with tags from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration, which was set up to facilitate and recognize exactly the kind of work you're talking about. Tag the article talk page with {{WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration}} and the question with {{WPRDAC attention}}. Instructions for useing them are at the Wikiproject page. --Jayron32 17:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What new article was created ? StuRat (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If I read correctly this history, Glacial Lake Mcconnell Mingmingla (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I broke it! Can anyone revert it or whatever? Mingmingla (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's your bad edit: [1]. I fixed it. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Solicitation of legal advice

I have removed a question about how the OP can obtain the rights to other people's work and a good faith response to it as giving explicit legal advice in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#how_dual_licensing_works. Here is a diff showing the question and its response:diff. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think explaining how multi-licensing works in broad terms constitutes giving legal advice, or explaining what licenses are and how they work in the context of Wikipedia, either. We have articles on all of these things; they are not legal advice, either. The entire point of Creative Commons licenses is that they have already been gone over by lawyers so that the common man doesn't actually need a law degree to use sensible legal copyleft license. I think saying that you need to talk to an intellectual property lawyer to make sense of how to dual-license your own website is a bit overkill. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a general question, but as asked and answered it was specific legal advice to him, down even to suggested verbiage. I think we can safely provide general links below the deleted question as it now stands. And I thought your answer was quite good, actually. But that opinion is worth what you have paid me for it. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting a question does not exactly lead other people to post answers to it. Deleting my answers doesn't exactly make me want to go through the trouble of re-writing them for your approval. So there it stands. I don't care enough to argue about it any further; I'm done with it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to sympathize with you that no one else has rendered an opinion here, one way or the other. I don't take myself as the sole arbiter, which is why I started the thread here. But I do stand by my original action and judgment that the OP solicited specific advice which was actually legal in nature (how to obtain the rights to other people's work at his website) and you gave a very specific answer down to verbiage he could use. As I said, the thread itself wasn't deleted, and you could have provided general links and still can unless the question's so old it's been archived. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Medical advice question removed

[2] --Jayron32 02:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good removal. I added a link from the Q to here. StuRat (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not asking for medical advice/diagnostic. Can I ask the following: "Can a ganglion cyst be found on the arm or forearm far from the wrist? can you provide pics or descrption of such cases?".

I do not provide any personal info and not asking about myself so there is no one to diagnose or to give him advise. Eleshow (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this line in your original post means it was a medical Q: "I've a small bump there (0.7cm) and it feels like a ganglion cyst, and looks like this in the ultrasound scan". So, we can't answer any subsequent Q about this topic either. StuRat (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you hadn't posted that last bit it could legitimately have been answered as a hypothetical request for information. As ever, the way to get around the rule is to depersonalize the request. --Viennese Waltz 05:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good removal. If the OP's concerned, he should see a medical professional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the "damaged goods" school of Refdesk censorship. Our knowledge about the poster should be irrelevant - we should not discriminate against people with medical conditions. That should be as fundamental to us as not discriminating against posters by race, religion, or sexual orientation. I see no reason whatsoever not to answer "Can a ganglion cyst be found on the arm or forearm far from the wrist? can you provide photos or descriptions of such cases?" when this person asks it, any more than we should tag posters as "diabetic" and refuse to answer their questions about carbohydrate metabolism. Indeed, I would have answered the question anyway, except... I haven't figured out an effective way to search for an answer. Wnt (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The guy described his own condition and asked for advice on the subject. That's a request for medical advice. Your disdain for the rule doesn't invalidate the rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • This faux distinction between medical advice and medical facts is ridiculous. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The free legal advice we've been getting on this thread is worth less than we've paid for it. Seriously, do we need to give medical advice to a person who wants to tell us whether he has a joint disease in the middle of his arm? Presuming to dispense medical advice with any sort of authority opens you up to civil liability. Wikipedia has to have such a policy, or it can easily find itself liable--google "free medical advice" if you doubt me. Or better yet, ask a real lawyer. (There's also the moral issue, not that any of us have morals.) We can safely point to references which speak with their own authority about general factual questions. Even then we must meet WP:MEDRS. Once again I have to say I am shocked how important it is to some people here to be able to offer medical advice, etc., under every possible circumstance. This lust to tell fools who want to seek medical advice from people who might be preteens or psychopaths how reword a question about their serious medical condition is perverse in the extreme. Start your own blog under your own "name". If you want patients get an effing medical degree and become a doctor and stop wasting your time playing one on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion of this policy has found that Wikipedia is already covered by a medical disclaimer and that the sole justification given for it is "ethical". Such "ethics" as are displayed at [3] depend solely on which side the bread is buttered on; doctors will cheerfully endorse practices that kill patients, spread disease, deny care, deny medication, and deny education as long as they increase the bottom line. Wikipedia has a right to cover biology, a right to cover medical conditions, and here on the Refdesk I have the right to solicit help in putting together a diagram for the article of what spots on the body frequently, occasionally, or never develop ganglion cysts, which I anticipate I'll be using shortly. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Lord. What are you doing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Once the new thematic organisation, Wikimedia Medicine, is up and running, we can commission some expert opinions on the legal liability of editors who publish dangerous medical misinformation. The next round of funding to chapters and thematic organisations gets disbursed in about a year, I think, but this is such a critical question that I hope they will find a way to fund that advice earlier than that. Personally, though, I think we should strictly limit all medical assertions on-wiki to those supported by MEDRS-compliant sources on moral grounds, regardless of the legal ramifications. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between "publishing dangerous medical misinformation" and freely citing interesting data from the published medical literature, or indeed, other interesting folklore from appropriately labelled sources. If someone wants to prosecute people for doing that, the appropriate response is jihad. Nor does Wikipedia need some as-to-be-yet-established outside organization to tell it what its general disclaimer means. That's a really basic part of Wikipedia operations. Wnt (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, for the slow ones at the back of the class, would you explain this: "If someone wants to prosecute people for doing that, the appropriate response is jihad"? There is no meaning of "jihad" I know that would fit here. Contributions from others are also welcome. Bielle (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wnt has made it clear on many occasions that he hates medical professionals and also hates rules. He's entitled to that opinion. If he wants to start his own "free medical advice at your own risk" wiki, that's up to him. But he's not entitled to use his dislike of doctors and of rules, as justification for violating the "no medical advice" rule here. In this particular case, the guy said, "I think I have this condition." Any response to that question other than "see a professional" is a violation of the rules here. And dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but there is a better response, which is to spend less time on this troll board playing Survivor. Wnt (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

<Stares blankly and subtly points his finger at the door> --Jayron32 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a particularly sensitive topic because a quick perusal of PubMed will reveal that ganglion cysts are frequently confused with malignant tumors, especially when they are not immediately adjacent to a joint. Any response which does not consist of asking the questioner to see a doctor is quantitatively and qualitatively mistaken. —Cupco 03:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And if we didn't already have the question removed and the poster told to FOAD already, maybe you could provide that response. People want the questioner to be as ignorant as possible, then wash their hands of it when, in ignorance, he waits until it is too late to get help. The fact is, most of the important medical decisions happen before the tumor starts to hurt, before your blood sugar causes obvious health effects, at times when no normal person is going to go to a doctor and where he's not going to get any useful help even if he does go unless he knows exactly the right thing to mention. Which he won't unless somebody, somewhere has the cojones to give him some medical information. Wnt (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it would be better to say "see a doctor because those are often confused with cancer" than just "see a doctor," but a map of where they are likely occur would be worse than either. —Cupco 05:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The only "cojones" needed are the ethics to tell the questioner to see a professional. Anyone who would accept medical advice from an anonymous body on the internet needs at least two kinds of doctors: one to review the physical symptoms; and the other to review the patient's sanity. If someone is asking for advice about some specific entity, why doesn't he just put it in the search box? I think the reason is that the user is actually looking for "comforting" advice, for someone to tell him that everything is going to be OK, rather than seeking a professional who might tell him some unpleasant and scary truth. Playing into that is highly unethical, and in the worse case could result in someone's death because they waited too long to see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the Guardian Scandinavian?

I have asked a linguistic question about what happens to be a political question. I don't want comments on politics. Why do I have to keep fighting to keep the political debate on the language desk closed, when all I want are linguistic comments about a language question on the language desk? Why do I feel like Nancy Kerrigan? Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&diff=514769261&oldid=514768867 μηδείς (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you feel like Nancy Kerrigan ? Is it because you get way too much attention for suffering a relatively minor injury ? StuRat (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In a collaborative system without strict sanctioning, what you want is only one input into the system. If others want other things, its hard or even impossible to enforce your view. Trying to do so creates unnecessary friction and stress. Just try to live with the fact that some things don't go your way. The probability of substantial damage to any one person is minimal. "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Who said that (besides you) ? StuRat (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson (the emphasis is mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The first responses tried to address your question and then got a bit sidetracked. It's a difficult question; about not grammar but semantics; interpretation of charged political discourse is involved (or might be, depending on what the question means). Itsmejudith (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Medies' idiotic hatting is this. The question asks whether the Guardian is Scandanavian, in the context of a youtube video of a talking head banging on about how bad the Grauniad is w.r.t. Israel. Analysis of the question necessarily involves discussion of whether or not the guardian is antisemitic and whether or not scandanvia is antisemitic. Medies, for some reason, sees this leg of the answer as "political". Well duh. Discussion of a political simile involves an unerstanding of whether both legs of that simile are sound or not. I'd be grateful if the hat could be moved to a more sensible place - such as hatting Bogs completely off topic contribution. Further, I invite Medeis to explain here exactly why discussion of whether the guardian and scandanavia share the same characteristics is not relevant to a discussion of whether the guardian is scandanavian. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Idiotic"? Well fuck you, tagishimon. I am not interested in your politics, and I did not invite you to debate politics, or hat others because of their politics, which is what started this policy violation in the first place. And if you or anyone else continues with politics I'll take it to ANI. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the simile is sound or not, it only matters whether it's correctly understood. Analysis of the question doesn't require establishing whether or not the newspaper or region is anti-semitic. V85's statement "whether such a perception is justified is, obviously, up for discussion" leads the analysis into more excitingly controversial territory than is necessary. It would have been better to say "whether such a perception is Pat Condell's is, obviously, in need of investigation", because that's what the question was: "what does Pat Condell mean". Somebody could find out what he has previously said about Scandinavia, and I expect that will reveal the answer.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Before taking anything to ANI you may want to review WP:BOOMERANG. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the "hat" as there is significant opposition to it here. --Jayron32 13:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, lets get into a political debate, against policy, with one editor hatting another's political comments while posting his own. That's exactly how a reference desk is supposed to work, right? Bullshit. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"with one editor hatting another's political comments while posting his own" Hypocrisy much? (sorry, I'm too lazy to search for diffs, but I will if necessary).

But seriously, I think it's time either Medeis finds a hobby other than being the proclaimed drama queen of the refdesks, or someone should indeed take this whole shebang to ANI or whichever venue seems appropriate - I've been following the refdesks and their talk page mostly as a passive reader for the last couple of months, and the ratio of useful content vs drama caused by Medeis is getting ridiculous. Am I the only one who feels something needs to be done before Medeis ruins the refdesks for good? -- Ferkelparade π 23:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, let me be even more blunt: I am an (as of yet) uninvolved admin on Wikipedia. You (Medeis) have caused an unbelievable amount of unnecessary drama on the refdesks in the last couple of months, and I don't even want to start to count the number of valued refdesk editors your antics have driven away (myself included, for varying definitions of "valued refdesk editor"). The next time I see you hatting something for spurious reasons or creating drama for no good reason, I will block you for being a troll, consequences be damned. Seriously, I think it's overdue someone shows you the ropes here. You have been singlehandedly responsible for pretty much all of the drama on the refdesks in the last couple of months, and it's high time someone tells you to stop. Consider this your final warning. (I am fully aware that you have the chance to turn me from a mostly uninvolved admin into an involved admin by replying here and provoking me into a response, in which case I won't block you. But seriously. Take a step back and think about what you're doing here.) -- Ferkelparade π 00:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur, and I've been weighing similar action (though I'm further along the uninvolved-involved spectrum). I'd hoped that Medeis' "what the hell is going on?" moment earlier this month would prompt some self-modification of her activities here, but apparently it didn't. — Lomn 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you paid any attention here, Ferkelparade, Tagishimon started this by hatting Bugs' political comment as off topic. I simply expanded that hatting to include all the political comments on a linguistic question on the language ref desk as off topic. Tagishomon insisted that no, his own off topic answers were relevant but that other's comments should be hatted. I suggest there's not a single seriously considered comment above, yours especially. We've got an explicit policy against debate on the ref desk. But by all means, threaten me for wanting a language question I asked on the language desk to be limited to linguistic answers. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My question about adjective use for reference, and the five political comments that followed it, which I hatted as a whole as debate, after Tagishomon had hatted Bug's response as off topic

Well, I am definitely not looking for a discussion of the politics. My main concern is, how would one linguistically describe the difference between the adjectival uses here? One could interpret Scandinavian as merely an idiomatic modifier of intensity, as if Scandinavians were typically intense, as in "He always plays the car radio Scandinavianly intense; the volume cranked to 11." (Although I have never heard it used that way.) Or one could assume, which seems the consensus, that analogously he meant the Guardian's intensity on the issue was similar to the intensity of Scandinavians on the issue. How might one describe the two different ways the adjective is being used in these examples using linguistic terms? It reminds me of Zulu, which has a small closed class of real adjectives for size and color, and has to use what are more like stative verb phrases along the lines of which-is-Scandinavian elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC) I don't wan't to get into a political debate here, but your description of the situation for Jews in Sweden is nothing like how it is generllay perceived. It seems you have been watching a "documentary" or read an "article" that had no interest in fair or unbiased reporting. The GuardianCondell is probably right in that there is comparatively strong anti-Israel sentiment in Sweden, though that doesn't automatically mean there's antisemitism, as the supporters of Israel always seem to want to imply./81.170.148.21 (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC) What we have: Antisemitism in Sweden, Antisemitism in Norway. Not pretty reading. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC) That kind of coatrack articles never are. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC) How clever you are, 81.170.148.21. First stating that you don't wan't{ [sic] to get into a political debate, and then doing just that. I have now added several main-stream media sources to your 'citation needed' request; it seems pretty clear that the Jews who have been asked have experience what they themselves would term 'anti-Semitism'. The point here is that while 1 in 3 Jewish children are harassed for being Jewish, compared to only 5% of Muslims, 'islamophobia' receives a lot mot attention than anti-Semitism. V85 (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC) It's easy to "support" Hamas and/or Hizbollah when you don't have to live next door to them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: Medeis, you asked a question that made the discussion of the political situation necessary, since the way the term "Scandanavian" was used was loaded. That said, the comments after Saddhiyama's were fishing. Mingmingla (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between my saying someone is a troll and should be blocked or banned from wikipedia, and my saying that I am interested in linguistic answers to a linguistic question. Especially after I clarified the question as in the collapsed section above, editors should have refrained from offering political answers. Anyone who actually paid attention to the thread would see that a fight broke out between Tagishomon and Bugs, which they actually continued on their talk pages, with hatting and unhatting on the thread. That's debate. It has nothing to do with the fact that I asked a grammatical question about sentences that had political words in them. And to see that I am accused by an "admin" (!) of trolling because I want to shut down a political catfight on a language thread question about language makes me think that at wikipedia the word admin means "inmate". I trust you, Mingmingla. Should I regard myself as the troll here? μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think you should, because I agree with you here. That's what I was trying to say: this question was legit, but the likelihood of debate was high, given the circumstance of the usage of the term. All I'm saying is you shouldn't be surprised that it devolved so quickly. The reason you are being accused of trolling is that you do frequently close things that are occasionally not so much violations than in this case (where I agree with you). I refuse to take the harsh tone others have with you, since I can see where your coming from, even if I don't generally agree. Mingmingla (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Facade, garcon, cedillas, therefore, and therefor

OK, so I hatted this bit of palaver on the Language desk, because it was utterly unrelated to the foregoing, which was about the meanings of jail, gaol and prison, which then diverted to a sub-question about whether there any English words besides "gaol" and "margarine" where "ga" is pronounced like "ja". That sub-question was clearly related to the main topic. So far, so good.

What happened next was a complete break from any of that. Medeis wrote "Facade, like garcon is supposed to be spellt with a cedilla, we just don't bother anymores."

I did respond with a quote from an earlier question, but preceded it with a query as to the relevance of this new topic. My next foray into the thread was to again question the relevance to the topic at hand. That produced a sub-header, but it was stuck in mid-conversation, which by that time had diverted even further, away from cedillas on facade and garcon, to whether there's a "therefore" symbol on keyboards. This was not even a 9th cousin 5 times removed to the primary topic of the various meanings of jail, gaol and prison. So, I hatted the whole sub-thread, with the message "No evidence of any relevance to the question".

The hatting has now been removed, with the edit summary: "the section has its own head, people are entitled to ask followup questions"

Well, it doesn't have its own header. There's a header stuck in mid-conversation about "therefore" symbols. But I queried the relevance of cedillas on facade and garcon, and that's where any sub-header should have gone, because that's where the completely new topic was introduced. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how it was related to the primary topic.

Yes, people are entitled to ask follow-up questions, which is what Baseball Bugs's post was, which was answered. But the next post, from Medeis, was (a) not a question, (b) not at all related to the foregoing and therefore in no sense a "follow-up question".

Colour me befuddled. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

By way of a follow-up question, what do we think about follow-up questions? A follow-up from the OP Is one thing, but shouldn't regular responders usually open a new thread instead? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If this question were asked separately, it would be entirely unobjectionable on all grounds. It should stande as a subquestion, with a subhead, of the prior question, to maintain contexte. If there were really some problem with it on other grounds we'd have heard that, no? Evene if maintaining contexte were unimportante, the proper action would be separating the question, not hatting it. But separating it is not necessary in this case--unless perhapse the original questioner objects? μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I am fairly certain there were two valid followup questions, (1) are there other words with soft c's and g's before the letter a, and (2) are there keyboards with a therefore sign? μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that your post about cedillas was not a question, I agree with your first sentence. But where is the contextual linkage to the existing topic? I have asked twice, and I'm now asking a third time. Where's the connection? Why was a comment on the dropping of cedillas at all relevant to jails, gaols and prisons, or the spelling thereof? What happened after that will never legitimate an irrelevant post. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Adde or change the header if it matters, or even move it to a separate threade. Just don't rehat it as if there were some sorte of unwarranted heated ideological debate or unlicensed medical advice going on. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But why does it deserve a separate thread? There was no new question asked. You just started abruptly talking about something that had nothing to do with what we had been talking about. Nothing. Not even vaguely related. Which is why I queried the relevance of your post right up front; and when no explanation was forthcoming, why I queried it again; and when still no explanation was forthcoming, why I hatted it; and when you unhatted it with a mystifying edit summary, why I brought it here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah Jack, you're getting(?) old and inflexible. Let your mind wander more, and follow unmapped paths taken by others. Anyway, I've just discovered that my spell checker (Chrome) doesn't like cliche. It insists that I change it to cliché. Isn't that amazing! HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that Henry VIII had 6 wives and that Beethoven went deaf? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, your comment "old and inflexible" strikes me as quite rude, but because it also strikes me as not your usual style, I ask for an explanation rather than a strikeout. Bielle (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am fairely certaine the proper worde to describe Hilo's commente is jocular, not rude. μηδείς (talk)

I wasn't offended, Bielle. I saw it as HiLo's subtle and gentle dig at Medeis's irrelevant and still-unexplained post about cedillas on a thread that had nothing to do with that subject. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack and I are both mature aged gentlemen living only a couple of hundred kilometres apart in the same part of the world. He is welcome to fire age related barbs at me if he feels it appropriate (and thinks he can score with them). HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your call, Jack. I am content. HiLo is off the hook. Bielle (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Jack above, "deserve a separate thread"? Seriously? That's bizarrely controlling and meta. There's no requirement that someone ask permission here before asking a question. I refuse even to entertain the notion that petitioners here have to prove they "deserve" to be able to ask a question that doesn't break the no medical/legal advice or debate rules. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But you didn't ask a question, and I have zero idea what the rest of what you just said is about. Again with the irrelevancies that completely avoid the issue at hand. Who is talking about anyone needing to ask permission before asking questions? Certainly not me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly going nowhere. I've added an appropriate header to the sub-thread in question. Done. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Question removed as "medical advice"

My question and all subsequent answers were removed here: [4]. As you can see, it's a question about general medical procedures, not a request for medical advice. Furthermore, Anthonyhcole did not post any message here informing us of the removal, notify any of the parties who posted there, and did not even leave a medical removal template behind. Comments ? StuRat (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. This was clearly not a request for medical advice and should not have been removed. --Viennese Waltz 08:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Anybody else ? StuRat (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the question, as asked, is/was fine; it's a general question about medical treatment, not a request for specific treatment. Matt Deres (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kainaw/Kainaw%27s_criterion μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't just cite that without further elucidation, it's irritating. Does the question fall foul of Kainaw's criterion in your view, or not? In my view it does not. --Viennese Waltz 20:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am one of the ones who responded to the question and who restored it when it had been hatted without explanation, so I didn't think it necessary to comment further. It's obviously a general question--in fact, too general. We can imagine that the asker might somehow act on specific information were he to get it. It's obviously on just that good faith imagined possibility that the question was closed. But the concern with the disclaimer is that we not give actual individual advice or diagnosis, not that we make it impossible for ourselves to imagine that people might somehow act on information we provide; just like it's not our place to imagine what valid question the poster might have given that we could have answered when he's given one we know that, as it has been asked, we can't. People can imagine anything--but we're not paid to. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Some context for the question would be helpful. It's not the type of question that's likely to come out of the clear blue sky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I saw it in passing on some medical show, and wanted to know if there was a better way to do this type of treatment. (They gave steroids for a lung infection, with inflammation, presumably, and the patient's BS went to 700 something, then they gave massive doses of insulin to try to get it back down.) I didn't catch the name of the show, or I'd have mentioned it. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Kainaw: It is a question about treatment. Bielle (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But not one I'm going to implement. What I find out about the recommended treatment will never be used on a real patient. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't know that. I suspect the point is that this is not just about what StuRat intends to do with the answers to his question, but what any other reader could do with a treatment proposal, even a sourced one. I have no reason to disbelieve you personally, StuRat, but we cannot control the conclusions others will draw, ever, so we need to control the types of questions we will answer. Your modified request in this scenario for unsourced opinion is most inappropriate given the topic. Bielle (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bielle, that's irrelevant. When we hat unambiguous medical advice questions, we then also take the attitude that it's none of our business to correct any misunderstandings the patient may have, we simply say, don't ask us, go to the doctor. So, even if it is very clear to us that the patient is doing himself harm, we still leave it to the doctor to intervene, we're not going to advice the patient to prevent that harm. Similarly, when we discuss anything of a medical nature here, we should be able to do that without any regard for some misguided patient to do something stupid. You really can't prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. Count Iblis (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Per PMID 17627511, there's not a lot anyone can do with brittle diabetics until they can get an islet transplant. They're like immunocompromised patients. I don't think this was a request for advice and I don't think it should have been removed. Doesn't anyone try researching the answer before posting questions or acting on them? —Cupco 23:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant, Iblis? Not at all. First, we don't hat "unambiguous medical advice" questions; we delete them -with the appropriate links and notifications, of course. Hatting seems to be for the ambiguous ones. It is perfectly true that we can't prevent stupid people from doing stupid things; we can't even prevent bright people from doing stupid things. We can, however, and usually do, prevent the Ref Desks from adding to the general range of stupid choices. To accomplish this, we have a rule that we do not respond to requests for medical advice and legal advice, two areas where stupidity may be more dangerous than others. Bielle (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

But the question was not a request for medical advice. Per Kainaw, a complete response to the question would not have contained a diagnosis, a prognosis or advice on treatment. --Viennese Waltz 08:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Some may recognize me as an editor who favors removal of medical advice from the RD. This specific question was (clearly, IMO) not a request for medical advice, rather it was a request for medical information (a crucial distinction that is addressed in Kainaw's criterion cited above). As noted above, this deletion also fell short in terms of notification. -- Scray (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

JETFA

I think the best way to proceed with this stuff from this point is a WP:DENY strategy I hereby christen "JETFA". Why argue out this stuff and get all furious with people and devote oceans of ink to Talk Page Archive #96? I humbly suggest we Just Edit The Friendly Article. An additional advantage of this tactic is that our articles on this stuff are so scanty, unreferenced, and often downright inaccurate that it's not hard to find good new information to throw in from all your false-positive search results even if you never do find the specific question that was asked, and you probably reach more people in need, and if the nattering nabobs have even a vestige of ethics they won't be able to revert you entirely. And I think they'll encounter some resistance from the admins if they try to claim you can't build the encyclopedia because some sick guy on the Refdesk might want to read it. Extra credit will be counted if you can remember what that Refdesk Collaboration template thingy was called and put it up alongside the "question deleted" notice. Wnt (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That's all fine. We're still not going to answer questions people should be getting answers from their doctors for. --Jayron32 06:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wnt is fond of citing statistics that supposedly show how often patients have been killed by doctors. I wonder if there are any stats of folks who were killed by following the advice of random internet users by either not going to a doctor at all, or by finally going to a doctor once it was too late to be saved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As a rule increased educational level is associated with a reduction in all-causes mortality.[5] Some of this is explained by a very basic level education indeed - eating your vegetables, not smoking cigarettes. Some isn't. However, it is clear that the more people know, the better their chances, and if our articles, or our Refdesk answers, provide people with an increased level - even when it is not a professional level - of medical information, this will be to the good. Wnt (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To both of you: It ultimately doesn't matter. We aren't going to change this long-standing practice because of the singular campaign of one editor. Wnt is welcome to improve any Wikipedia article he wants. We're still not going to answer questions whereby people ask us for how to cure their diseases. --Jayron32 15:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised you call this a campaign by me, when this discussion began as a dispute between other editors and I proposed a "compromise" that you sound willing to accept. Wnt (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept any attempt to improve the content of a Wikipedia article. That's irrelevent to the practice of this board's refusal to attempt to provide answers to people who want us to diagnose or give treatment advice for their diseases or injuries. That should never change. If you want to make Wikipedia articles better, you do that. We're still not telling people how to cure their diseases. --Jayron32 17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That thingy is called WP:RDAC.  Card Zero  (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, here's Wikipedia:Just Edit The Friendly Article. Do we have agreement? Wnt (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that creating or editing an article is appropriate. However, it may not be appropriate to notify the OP on the Ref Desk of the article. It's OK on their talk page, as this makes it obvious that you personally think that article may apply, versus "the Wikipedia Ref Desk" saying so. However, people with dynamic I/P's and no screen name may never see their messages. In this case, perhaps a Ref Desk link to the article would be allowed, provided it's made entirely clear that it's the personal opinion of the poster that this article may apply. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the Refdesk collaboration tag, as I understand it, is to recruit other editors to work on the article; should the OP see it, it is a happy coincidence. I doubt anyone who objected to mentioning the collaboration would really be happy to see you one-on-oneing the OP on his talk page at greater length, but that's outside the scope of this essay. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The essay would represent a constructive statement if not for the third paragraph, which is obviously not neutral. More importantly, referring RD/S visitors to an article is generally a good idea because there's a good chance that article will have been edited collaboratively, have a general tone, and be well-sourced. These characteristics are especially unlikely to be present in an article that has been created or edited to answer an RD/S question; to the contrary, the article's content with respect to the RD/S question, to the extent that it has been edited per JETFA, will represent one editor's POV and interpretation of the questioner's need. Therefore, I strongly oppose the approach advocated in your essay. I see nothing wrong with RD/S questions prompting improvements to our articles, of course; I just don't think that an essay should suggest this as a way of circumventing our medical advice guidelines. -- Scray (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly I am not suggesting to take a diagnosis for one person and dress it up as an article; that would be absurd. I'm saying to expand or create articles as need be to cover the topic, according to the usual standards for articles. Wnt (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Australo-American relations and low unrounded diphthongs

I moved this here because it was a metadiscussion about behavior and personality, and unrelated to providing references to readers regarding subjects under discussion. --Jayron32 04:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please add a link to show where you moved it from. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why this racist obsession with Americans, when Canadians and RP Brits and even the Irish have the same exact opinion of Australian vowels? Is there something inferior about Americans that needs emphasis for her majesty's subjects, present or recent, or whatever? μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? --Jayron32 03:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Pffft! (?) μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Since that didn't work, let me elaborate: Would you care to explain the source of your outburst? And perhaps you could do so with less inflamatory language this time. It would be most helpful. --Jayron32 03:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No obsession. The subject was raised by Baseball Bugs who, I would would be bold enough to suggest, is unashamedly American. Other views (on spoken Australian English, our Bugs, or anything else) are, of course, welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My point was that the vowel of words like "high" is /ai/ in Gen Am, RP, and most dialects of English. To discuss how it is Americans who have an issue with how the Aussies pronounce that diphthong is not only biased, it's ignorant. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I said other views were welcome, so thank you for your view :-) HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Who said that Americans have any issues? You're inventing subtext again Medeis. You really should just take people at face value. I can't find anything here that either I or HiLo48 or any other user said which could possibly be construed as "racist" in any way. --Jayron32 04:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know any Americans who have "issues" with Australians or any other English-speakers. If anything, Americans admire Aussies as free-thinking and independent, like our own image of the Old West and of America in general. And the various ways English speakers pronounce words is a lot of fun. Accents are fun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The success of Crocodile Dundee is evidence that Americans don't hate Australian pronunciation, though they do find it "colorful" and have some stereotypes. Unfortunately, Australia's individualist image has been tarnished in recent years by its internet censorship and weak record on freedom of speech... Hmmm, why is this on RD:Talk again? You should just split to a new question. Wnt (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the problem is that Americans think of Aussies as too colorful. When we encounter an Aussie we start saying thinks like "Put the shrimp on the barbie, mate !". That's about as annoying to an Aussie as if anyone who encountered an American started doing John Wayne: "Howdy pilgrims !". StuRat (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, "shrimp on the barbie" came from an ad campaign designed for the American market, because they wouldn't have made much sense of putting "prawns on the barbie". No Australian ever talks about shrimps when it's prawns they're eating. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

God, well if you are going to judge Americans by their ad campaign designers we have no defense--at least not one that isn't a racist attack on the 'people who control the media'. My sole point was that most Americans can't tell the difference between an Aussie and a British accent (or a Cockney and an RP accent) and think they all sound posh, while Brits are the biggest critics of Antipodean English. To cast it all in terms of American opinions of Australians is not only bigoted, it's factually wrong. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finally recognising my true status. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Being an American, I find this just plain wrong: "... most Americans can't tell the difference between an Aussie and a British accent (or a Cockney and an RP accent) and think they all sound posh ..." e.g. to me a Cockney accent sounds rather lower class. Americans I've known, can tell the difference between those accents.
America is a big place with a huge variety of people and cultural pockets, and a covering a large land area. So to make a blanket statement about what "Americans" can or can't distinguish language-wise is naively stereotyping. e.g. I find the Aussie use of "Cheers" as a sign-off irritating, kind of like "Have a nice day!" But that's me.
And what is meant by this: "well if you are going to judge Americans by their ad campaign designers we have no defense--at least not one that isn't a racist attack on the 'people who control the media'." In what sense is "racist attack" being used here?
And who designed this ad campaign for the American market - and which market? I never heard that ad campaign. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it was a long time ago. Maybe 20 years. When Crocodile Dundee was still well known. And I'm an Aussie who never says "Cheers". As for being liked for our "colourful" language (hope you like that spelling), it doesn't work here. If I see bullshit written here, and openly call it bullshit, I get accused of being uncivil. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is that iconic ad that lead to the whole “shrimp on the barbie” thing. It was from 1984, 28 years ago. How time flies.

And here's an Aussie take on it.

This an utterly execrable and totally forgettable attempt to cash in on it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Entertaining. I think. That "Aussie take on it" reminds me that at least a lot of Australians help Americans when they sing. They do it with an American accent. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Mathew: don't worry about -- pay no attention to -- that curious remark about "judging Americans by their ad campaign designers". I didn't understand it, either, but it's just Medeis being outrageous, as usual. I'm not going to say what I think he is, because he'd cite me for a personal attack, but I recommend that you just ignore him. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't start this pointless stupid thread, but I am glad you took the opportunity to blame me for it. That's why we have neutral admins, right? μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fighting

I thought this page was to discuss ideas that would improve the Reference Desk, or to identify problems with the Reference Desk, either one with the intent or desire of improving it. But lately all I see is fighting. Please stop fighting. Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the most frequent "problems with the Reference Desk" is the manner in which individual editors interact with each other. There are many ways in which interactions can be less than ideal. Sometimes, these matters need to be discussed back here. If not here, where?

If we could eliminate all less-than-ideal interactions between individuals, both here and in life generally, we'd .... I'm sorry, but that would be OR, because there is no real-life example I could possibly show you.

I, for one, would much rather we talk things out, or at least try to. It doesn't always work; some people just want to have it their way, with as little dissent as possible, and have very limited patience with anyone who has a contrary view. That's sad, but it's part of the way things are, and we have to deal with things the way they are, not the way we'd like them to be. Getting to the point where things are the way we, collectively, would like them to be is, we hope, the end result of dealing with things the way they are right now.

I'm sorry you see these back-room discussions as fighting. That's the last thing I would ever want to be associated with, and I think I speak for most others here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Lately"? I've been frequenting the Ref Desks for more than six years and I can't remember a time when peace and harmony reigned. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's better to debate issues here than to do so in front of the OPs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Michael J, and welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is what we do here... --Jayron32 12:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

...Fight?  Card Zero  (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Fighting describes a sizable portion of what happens in all of Wikipedia, every day. Where have all of you people been? --Jayron32 13:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe that, especially in main space, editors fighting is extremely beneficial. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, okay, healthy debate, yeah, but we do have WP:CIVIL, too... —Steve Summit (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, I have been editing on Wikipedia for nearly seven years. ... I guess I am just noticing that the nature of the discussion includes more animosity and personal insults than in the past. But then again, discussion and discourse in general society has devolved in that manner over the past few years as well, so I guess the talk page is just mirroring society. Not that I have to like it in either place. (I remember a time when a group of us would gather together specifically to politely debate politics and religion.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been here almost as long as you have (2005-2006) and it hasn't been any different the whole time I've been here. I don't participate in such rudeness, as best as I am able, but it's always been there, and always been like this. It isn't correct, I argue till I am blue in the face for a more professional, civil, and respectful discourse. But expressing incredulity at the situation is a worthless endeavor. I recognize that it is the state we are in. I don't like it, but I also don't pretend it doesn't exist or hasn't existed for many years. --Jayron32 01:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the provocative thread above this one I have to say to Jayron that people who take bets on cockfights rarely strap on the spurs themselves and stand in them as participants. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow. Could you speak more plainly, perhaps? --Jayron32 02:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Exceptions to the medical advice policy

There are a few cases that I've encountered on another forum (where we don't have the "no-medical advice policy") that would pose a problem if they had been posted here and then deleted or hatted. This has to do with patients who get (dangerously) bad treatment from their doctors. In such a case, one would at least have to hat the question with the advice to seek another doctor, which in itself is non-trivial medical advice.

An example of a case that occured a few weeks ago. On a forum about vitamin D, a patient asked a question about the alfacalcidol she was prescribed. She had read that alfacalcidol is potentially dangerous and askd if she should instead use regular vitamin D. Then at this point, had this question be asked here, we would have deleted or hatted the question. But now consider what happened on our forum. We asked the patient to post her blood test results and asked if she is a kidney patient. It turned out that her blood tests were ok. that she had been vitamin D deficient but due to the previously prescibed vitamin D supplements, her vitamin D levels were now normal. And she is not a kidney patient who needs to use alfacalcidol.

The reason why the doctor prescribed her the alfacalcidol was simply because this is insured and vitamin D supplements are not. Not only that, the doctor had not planned any regular checks of her blood calcium levels, so basically the doctor was prescribing alfacalcidol as if it were just some vitamin D supplement.

Our advice was to go back to the doctor, explain to the doctor why taking alfacalcidol is a bad idea in her case (we gave the detailed explanation to her), return the alfacalcidol and ask for regular vitamin D supplements (and then find another, competent doctor). Then the next day we heard from her what happened. The doctor did gave her regular vitamin D supplements, but didn't take the alphacalcidol back, he told her that as it would be destroyed when returned, she could just as wel keep it and give it to someone else who is vitamin D deficient.

Count Iblis (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we went over this before. Telling people "we don't answer these kinds of questions", is not, in itself, any form of medical advice. I see no problem with refusing to answer medical advice questions where people believe their first doctor gave them what we believe to be bad advice. We don't respond to requests for the kinds of questions a doctor should be answering instead of us. Full stop. --Jayron32 17:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I like the direction of your mind, but if this is a prescription drug (speaking of which, what's the best resource to find out this sort of legalistic stuff about chemicals?) then isn't it highly illegal for her to give it to someone else? Of course, since he's a doctor, his advice is ethical by definition, and I would not want to contradict his suggestion here for fear of violating our policy on giving medical and/or legal advice... Wnt (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the doctor was just incompetent on this issue, giving this drug to others is completely irresponsible. To address Jayron's point, I think we do need a new policy for such exceptional situations were, beyond a reasobable doubt, the patient is at risk. It's not that different from the policy we have about dealing with suicidal editors, or people who make a credible threat to use violence, or a pedophile who is grooming some child here. There are emergency procedures here to deal with these issues, so why not have some procedure here to deal with the (rare) case of someone who is not getting the right medical attention?

All we would be doing is simply refer the person to the right doctor with just minimal advice from our side. And this doesn't have to be done by us here at the Ref-Desk, there could be someone from the WMF who would assist the patient. So, this procedure should only be used when saying "go to your doctor" would likely do more harm than good, like in the case described above. It's rare, but not so extremely rare that it never happens. Count Iblis (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

All we should be doing is not giving them any advice. As far as I'm concerned, this is a non-starter. At the absolute outside, we should say: "If you are concerned about the advice your doctor gave you, see a different doctor", and nothing else. And that is a stretch, too. We aren't doctors, and we almost certainly don't have the relevant info, such as patient history, allergies, etc. Mingmingla (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Telling people "in this case your doctor's judgement is questionable, so get a 2nd opinion" is iffy, yes. A better approach might be to alter our medical advice template to say "If you are unhappy with the advice from your current doctor, seek advice from another". StuRat (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You would have to think about a wording that works across the world. In the UK you have a right to seek a second opinion. That's probably on the NHS website somewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly you have the right to a 2nd opinion anywhere. I assume you meant that the government/insurance will pay for it, in the case of the UK. That does bring up any interesting issue, though, of nations where a 2nd opinion is at the patient's expense, and many can't afford one. This is similar to the problem of the uninsured in the US. It certainly seems like health outcomes would be improved in such situations if there was somewhere online that people could get a minimum level of medical advice for free, although that doesn't need to be Wikipedia ("Your cut has turned green, swollen, is oozing pus, and smells bad ? Go to the emergency room !"). StuRat (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)