Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 27

I really doubt it. Anyone in science working in a facility that is set up for stem cell research could get it published. Clearly Joe blogs who has never worked anywhere near stem cells will get red flagged, but that does not mean Hwangs papers were published due to an argument from authority. They were published due to the impact factor of the result.

(You forgot to sign.) If a scientist can get lies published with no scientifically verifiable data, but a non-scientist can't, that sure seems like an argument from authority to me. They accept his work solely based on his position, not based on the quality of the work. I'd even go so far as to say that someone lacking scientific credentials would have a difficult time getting a truthful paper published, even one packed with scientifically verifiable data. Also, do you recall the case of the hoax paper submitted for presentation at some scientific seminar a few years back ? It was just a bunch of random scientific sounding phrases thrown together to form total nonsense, with the name of a fictitious scientist on it with false credentials submitted. Several people were supposed to have done "peer review" on it, but it was quite apparent that none of them had ever read it, as this nonsense article was approved for presentation and published. This was done specifically to demonstrate how unreliable this "peer review" process really is. StuRat 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(actually I forgot to indent. I have put the second paragraph back above your answer) More like the scientists are priviledged to have access to facilities that allow them to do the work. In areas of science that do not require hugely expensive facilities I'd say anyone with data that fits into the body of knowledge and is of good quality will get published. So I disagree with you on that point. Its all about the data and quality of discussion, putting this data into context. The quality fo discussion may well be a stumbling block for anyone but a very good amature since part of being a scientist is knowing the body of knowledge. But having knowledge is not in itself an argument from authority but a mark of experience.

The paper you are talking about was a parody written by a

David D. (Talk)

09:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the title of this section be "questions that ask for opinion"?

What we have so far

If I have to provide sources on everything I mention in passing, whether it's what the OP actually asked about or not, when anyone wants to bring up a baseless challenge, then I would be slowed down dramatically, yes, while the person who makes baseless challenges, not bothering to do any research themself, can go on to make thousands more such baseless challenges and waste the time of many others. All we need is an "equal burden of proof" requirement to eliminate this. StuRat 08:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and since the person answering the question has the same burden of proof why are we always having this discussion? There would be no challenges without citations if the first to answer did so with a citation. To complain about being asked for a citation when none is given is strange. Certainly such a challenge is not baseless since if no citation can be provided is says a lot about the answer. The OP can take it or leave it but at least they know their answer could be unreliable.

David D. (Talk)

08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

OK, here's my take on it (Rockpocket, this is not referring to our recent dispute, but others I've had):

OP: I was at the

JFK

was assassinated has foggy windows. Why is that ?

Me: It's because the bullet-proof glass they installed has delaminated, and there is now water vapor between the layers.

Skeptic: Do you have an authoritative source for that claim ? If not, you should retract that claim immediately.

Me: I'm quite sure that's correct, but don't recall the source, no. Do you have any evidence to refute the claim ?

Skeptic: No, but I don't need to have evidence, only those who give answers need to have evidence.

I disagree that it's generally trivial, I'd say it's rarely trivial. For example, none of the books still under copyright are available online (at least legally), so many literature questions can't be sourced online. Perhaps the OP asked about a song with a particular plot in it "this man follows this woman around the world asking her to marry him, and she finally does" and wants to know the title. I then respond that it sounds familiar, I recall a song named "ILY" with that general plot. Unfortunately, I don't recall the singer or exact lyrics, so can't find it (this example is fictitious). Even when I think I know the lyrics, a search often fails, because I have a word or two wrong (i.e., "I'm headed to the beach" versus "I'm going to go to the shore"). StuRat 06:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't answer the literature questions so i have no opinion on how hard it is. For science it is pretty trivial if you have an inkling. In the scenario you paint for the ILY song it sounds like you don't know the answer. Could you be sending the OP on a wild goose chase?

David D. (Talk)

07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. I was not calling it a personal attack. I was referring to StuRats comment of "attacking those claims". Certainly that is not a personal attack. I agree your latter approach of requesting the librarian to point the students to the books we have on the shelves is the way to go.

David D. (Talk)

14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be pretty difficult for

chill with whatever others deign to contribute. V-Man - ^T/_C

09:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Saying "You're making that up" is a violation of

WP:AGF, and phrasing it in the form of a question doesn't avoid that. After all, does asking "Are you having sex with your mother ?" make this any more acceptable, because it's in the form of a question ? StuRat

22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If no evidence for the claim can be found and the user can provide no evidence for the claim, it is a perfectly valid question. An honest answer will provide the OP all the information s/he needs to judge the reliability of the answer.

David D. (Talk)

01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the question could be dealt with as a personal attack if it were loaded; i.e., "when did you start having sex with your mother?" or "Does your father know that you're having sex with your mother?" V-Man - ^T/_C 01:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What eric thinks we really have so far

The wiki process to determine content,

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

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

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

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

It's not a talk page. It's not within the the talk

eric

16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We've been through all this before.

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

17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

eric

20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Here's my stab at a three sentence Guideline- - - "The Wikipedia Reference Desk pages are neither articles nor talk pages. Regardless, any contributions and edits to the Ref Desk should abide by the standards and policies of Wikipedia as much as possible. These include, but are not limited to,

WP:CIVIL." --LarryMac

18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Note that Friday assumes that these "tons of editors" are all wrong about their interpretation of what the Ref Desk is for and his is the only possible correct interpretation ? StuRat 22:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Oh dear. In that case, perhaps "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether" (as stated on

WP:Policy) comes into play and we're all in the wrong place. --LarryMac

18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"Hang out policies" ? Does that mean no loitering ? "Move it along folks, nothing to see here". :-) StuRat 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As for opinions, I believe librarians are often asked for opinions, such as "what's a good book about the environment for 8 year olds ?". StuRat 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tooting my own horn

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

See User:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(re

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

My sincere thanks to the user who added the picture of

I wanna know who added this page to the

Wikipedia humor category... V-Man - ^T/_C

03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So it has; I thought you were joking! Perhaps this is no great surprise, V-Man. I'm sure you must be familiar with the alleged Medieval theological debate over

how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? Are you not reminded of this by so much of the discussion this page generates? I certainly am. Ah well, the futility of all earthly things! Clio the Muse

14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I plead guilty. I forgot that transcluding the page would bring the category tags along for the ride. But the humour tag does seem appropriate. In the black farce sort of way.:evil grin:

David D. (Talk)

15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It's just plain wrong to say that "...guidelines and policies that StuRat describes as written for articles are more accurately seen as written for the entire project". Do you seriously suggest that all facts placed on a user's own talk page must have an authoritative source, with footnotes ? That's crazy. Now you can't list your location on your user page unless you can provide a source which confirms it, I suppose, LOL. The rules clearly don't all apply everywhere, which makes it necessary for them to say which apply where, but which they rarely bother to do. Thus, we are left guessing. StuRat 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eric

21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There's like a subliminal message there in Jfarber's post saying US TO NOT TRY. And a little after that another message saying JUST US AND NOT ALL. There's more of some cool subliminal message a little above in another post by Jfarber. A.Z. 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know the (nick)name of these people who do not give a fuck about the quality of the reference desk. A.Z. 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about, just wondering how the meme progressed to its current state.

David D. (Talk)

17:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Any page, such as the Ref Desk, on which questions are asked and answers are given is, by definition, a "talk page", since asking and answering questions is "talk". The Ref Desk, however, is not an article talk page. StuRat 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This may be the root of the problem, right here: confusion about nomenclature. While some editors interpret 'talk page' to mean any page on which conversation or discussion ('talking', in a sense) occur, others understand 'talk page' – in the context of Wikipedia – to have a more specific definition for the purposes of applying Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

My personal understanding on 'talk pages' tends to follow a fairly narrow definition. (Others may interpret the term differently, of course, but I offer my two cents.) A Wikipedia talk page is any page in a namespace that starts with Talk: Wikipedia talk:, Template talk:, Image talk:, and plain-vanilla Talk:. This definition has one undeniable advantage—there's no need for any sort of ruleslawyering or interpretation or guessing games about what constitutes a Talk page, and consequently no question about where Talk page guidelines apply.

From a practical standpoint, all talk pages defined in this way share a common purpose—they hold all the discussion about their associated non-Talk-prefixed page. If I'm writing about Greece, I go to the mainspace page. If I'm writing about (or discussing) the process of writing about Greece, then I go to Talk:Greece. Image:A-ok sign.JPG tells me about the image itself ("Just the facts, Ma'am"). Image talk:A-ok sign.JPG provides a place for discussion about the image. Even pages which are themselves largely discussion-centered – think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard – have a talk page (Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard) where discussion about the discussion page itself takes place (call it metadiscussion, if you like).

This type of discussion and meta-discussion is particularly common on a number of high-traffic pages in the Wikipedia namespace.

WP:AfD

, and others all rely on discussions and commentary of various types. All of them also have their own Talk pages, appropriate for metadiscussion. (It is worth noting that all of these pages have their own evolved standards, policies, and traditions about who may post what, when and where.) The Ref Desk clearly follows this model—I don't think that anyone will dispute that the main page(s) include discussion (primarily in an ask & answer format) and the talk page holds discussions about the operation and format of the main pages.

So the answer to the question "Do we treat the Ref Desk as an article page or as a talk page?" is "Nope." I'm afraid that we don't get an 'easy' answer here. In many cases, we have to forge (or evolve) guidelines and practices to suit this particular, peculiar environment.

This is not to say that we need to start from scratch. There are some policies (

WP:DICK, etc.) which apply project-wide. There are also past attempts to codify Ref Desk practices, as well as the existing instructions and guidelines. For that matter, there is a substantial corpus of unwritten rules which have been adopted. The one thing that we cannot do is say "The Ref Desk is a talk/article page, ipso facto all talk/article page rules apply." TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit confict) Where can I find that definition of "talk page" you (Stu) are referring to?

Wikipedia:Talk pages does not mention them as such (or in fact at all). Instead, that page states clearly: "There are two types of talk pages — standard talk pages are used to discuss an article, a template, a category, etc., while user talk pages are used to communicate with other users or leave them messages." Clearly, the Reference desk pages fit neither of these two types. I don't think of them as talk pages, and I find it regrettable that some people do.  --Lambiam^Talk

00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It says there are 2 types, this does not mean that there aren't more, and at the time that was written, they knew that there would never be more than two types of talk pages (or would immediately amend the statement to the current number of types of talk pages). Where can I find the definition that says "talk pages will ALWAYS have the word 'talk' in the name of the page" ? And what definition of "talk" does not include a question/answer conversation ? StuRat 03:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A talk page is, by definition, a page you reach by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top of a page. They are always associated with another page, the one you reach by clicking on the tab to the left of the "discussion" tab. Usually they are meant for discussing improvements to the page they are associated with. User talk pages, however, serve a different purpose; they are not intended for discussing improvements to the user page; they just happen to use the same mechanism of associated page. However, user talk pages are also not intended for general discussion about arbitrary possibly interesting topics (but if people abuse their own user talk page for this purpose, it is unlikely to bother other users). The reference desk pages are not associated with any other pages, and are not intended for discussion to improve other pages, or the functioning of Wikipedia, or of aspects of the Wikipedia process. Our reference desk should function, as much as possible, like the reference desk of a library. Questioners should be made to understand, in a friendly way, that asking for opinions is not what a reference desk is for. And just as you do not expect a more information-oriented question you pose at the reference desk of a library to devolve into a social chat in which arbitrary bystanders venture even more arbitrary opinions, snickers, and off-colour remarks, questioners at our reference desk should only receive the best possible answers to their honest questions. We have no mechanism for preventing arbitrary occasional passers-by from misbehaving, but the regular RD patrollers should know better.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to ask a librarian opinion questions, like "what book on dogs would you recommend for an 8 year old". StuRat 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That is clearly an example of a question for information, just like the question: "What book would you recommend on Polynesian tapestry?". It is not perfectly acceptable to ask at the library's reference desk: "Should the United States consider China a friend or enemy?", "Isn't it a bit obvious now that Iran's motive for capturing 15 British sailors and marines was that Iran needed some hostages to work out a prisoner exchange?", or "Why can't celebrities lead normal disciplined life just like millions of others?".  --Lambiam^Talk 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the core of each question above would be acceptable at a library Reference Desk. The librarian would merely interpret them as "What info can I find on the current relationship between China and the US and speculation on the future of the relationship ?", "What analyses can I find on the reason for Iran capturing the 15 British sailors and marines ?", and "What studies have been done on celebrities and drug abuse and other destructive behaviors ?". It is our job to assume good faith, even if we have to reword the question in our own minds to take out the preconceptions. StuRat 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK in this context. V-Man - ^T/_C

00:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I suspect that very nearly every problem that arises on Wikipedia stems from a failure to follow that policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

So do I. A.Z. 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

After a question on the Misc. desk this week led to some great and truly REFERENCE DESK fact-checking (a properly sourced study used a 1971 journal article to make a claim that adding Vitamin D to soy milk was not legal), the

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

Given the dubious journalism involved, I submitted this to

I don't know if it might be considered as piling on, but I sent an e-mail to Jane Brody (the author of the NYT article in question) to point out this discrepancy between "correction" and "glossing over," encouraging her to bring the correction to light in the spirit of old-fashioned journalism rather than brush the error aside. Thought y'all ought to know. V-Man - ^T/_C 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also heard from at least one other wikipedian who has written to the public editor at the Times, asking why there was no correction; not sure what critical mass is for a body as substantial as the

New York Times, but it does make me ever hopeful that we will get some sort of response, at least. On a side note: this seems to be turning into a story about journalist ethics, which is interesting to me. Our original concerns about the story, IMHO, seemed to point to the panel recommendations, not to the reporter, as being responsible for reporting outdated information. It is only since the article was emended silently, with no accompanying correction or acknowledgement, that the Times' journalism has been called into question. One might say that this wasn't about the Times, until the Times made it about themselves. Unfortunately for them, as the BoingBoing acceptance may suggest, in a world where blogger-journalists pass discovery around like lightning, the Times may be a juicer target than a study about the nutritional applications of beverages, no matter how popular the original article may have been. Jfarber

03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the NYT behaved inappropriately, and commend everyone for following up on this. StuRat 05:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Original story now includes a correction! (But no acknowledgement of delay in making that correction.) Jfarber 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Any acknowledgment that Wikipedia editors notified them of the error ? StuRat 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "general advice" provided to the "

• ...[this] would have been more appropriately worded had it not been couched as your personal opinion. There are other, more objective ways to present the possibility that serving time in
  RD policy of not providing legal or medical advice is clear; exercising good judgment (and good taste) is the responsibility of all respondents, at their discretion. That response of yours, however well meant, is grossly lacking that latter quality. You might consider amending it yourself, if you see fit, besides the sort of disclaimer JackofOz
  subsequently added.
  

Removed[12], along w/ the comment concerning CIA careers.—

Good, thank you.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric, it is inappropriate for you to remove posts without notifying the author(s) (see section below). I will continue to restore such inappropriate deletions until you learn to do them properly. StuRat 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that you're basically promising to be disruptive with this statement? This is inappropriate- you're saying you're going to hold the page hostage until everyone does what you say. This is a collaborative project. What you're doing is no way to work peacefully with others. Friday (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "holding the page hostage". And it's not what I say, but what the consensus says. In fact, I haven't seen one person argue that it's a good idea to delete contributions without notifying the author. StuRat 05:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no consensus yet that if one party does something inappropriate, you have the freedom to react by doing something else that is inappropriate.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the crux. It's not ok to abandon the rules in relation to an apparently wayward user just because they have done so, or for any other reason. In simple terms, "two wrongs don't make a right". If there ever is a consensus that the rules cease to apply when someone pushes our buttons, or whatever, we may as well dispense with the rules here and now. Responsible behaviour is about dealing with an issue without resorting to the same stunts that irresponsible people engage in. JackofOz 05:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that EricR does this all the time, by saying that "because (in his personal opinion) this response violates X (usually some policy dealing with Wikipedia articles)", he can then delete it, without consensus, and without notifying the author. He is the one doing "two wrongs make a right". I, on the other hand, simply restore us to the situation before the last wrong was committed. StuRat 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed[13] some responses here. Our own opinions as to the answer to this question add no value to the reference desk. We should respond by pointing to the existing article coverage, or cite notable, published opinions.—

Good call. It was going nowhere good. Friday (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad call. You removed a serious attempt to answer the question. StuRat 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than being information-oriented in keeping with the

no doubt

intended as informative—but rather, are characterized as:

• Highly opinionated,
  POV
  , and/or speculative claims, e.g. from "China is not at all helpful in the world" to "the US and most of the world would be better off if the current Chinese government did not exist" and "there is no way the US or world can change the current Chinese gov, so it makes little difference".

• NPOV in the form of every contribution reflecting all POVs is only necessary on article pages, not the Ref Desk. At the Ref Desk, NPOV can be accomplished by having several responders list their POV. If you have a POV on how a world controlled by China will be better, you are welcome to list it there. StuRat 06:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Entirely Essentially lacking useful links on relevant topics (noted by
  eric
  , above).

• I believe a link to Sudan was provided, where the OP can read about the Darfur crisis, and follow links to specific UN security council votes where China has blocked action to end the genocide there. If that's not sufficient, I can include links to stories like these: "Downing Street is stressing that the Blair would prefer to act in concert with other Security Council members, but Sudan's defenders at the UN, led by China, are likely to resist any resolution backed by force" [14]. "French presidential candidate Francois Bayrou said last week that if Beijing continued to block UN Security Council resolutions condemning Sudan, then 'France will do itself honour by refusing to take part in the Olympic Games'" [15]. StuRat 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses that are partial or otherwise uninformed but objective may be retained, and perhaps will subsequently be supplemented by further postings. However: blanket condemnations and one-sided arguments (e.g.

POV, the Remove is justified. -- Deborahjay

06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the US is a major polluter is simply not relevant to the question, while whether China is a net positive or negative to the US is, and this includes their pollution. StuRat 06:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

At a very minimum, you need to at least notify people when you remove their posts. If not, they never know it happened, and therefore have no opportunity to argue for their posts, change them, or, if removal was justified, to learn from their mistake. Removing things "in secret" is totally unacceptable. See User:Rick Block's comment several sections above: [16]. StuRat 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree you should have been notified. I also agree with its removal. Please don't replace it again unless you can get a consensus to do so on this talk page.

David D. (Talk)

03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you remove it properly, and notify all the parties involved, then I will not restore it. You have to learn the proper way to behave, somehow. Such deletions are "secret" in that the author is unlikely to ever know their contributions have been destroyed. StuRat 04:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric, I agree with StuRat on this one.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines#Removing others' posts contains a sensible list of circumstances under which a post or a thread should be immediately removed from the RDs. This thread did not meet these criteria and should not have been removed. Removing other editors' posts should not be done lightly, and simply disagreeing with the way in which they answered the question is not sufficient grounds for doing this. The big practical reason behind this is that no-one will take on the job of policing the RDs 24x7, so we must show editors by example how to best respond to questions on controversial topics. Eric, your own response was excellent, but deleting other editors' posts just because they are POV will not improve the long term quality of the RDs. Gandalf61

10:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that March 29 on the Humanities desk seems to have been vaporised? Clio the Muse 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot ate it, but failed to regurgitate the archive page.—

eric

01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Per two recent topics here, there are evidently problems with this, along with a risk of rev wars. Setting aside the issue of what/why to remove, it would be instructive to have:

• a refresher explanation—including citation of the pertinent
  Reference Desk policy—of the "proper removal" process (to which StuRat refers above
  ).
• Discussion if the existing policy is being challenged
• Renewed consensus and compliance.

-- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK, we don't have an RD policy, as such (yes, yes, I know the RDs are part of Wikipedia, which has overall standards such as

Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines. Personally, I think that the resurfacing of this debate shows that we do need agreed RD guidelines, but I am pessimistic about the chances of reconciling the very different stances taken by various regulars on this talk page. Gandalf61

10:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with eric- the talk page is good enough. This should only be brought up on user talk if the same editor is repeatedly posting inappropriate content- then this would be a user conduct issue. Friday (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this talk page is not good enough, you know darned well that newbies won't know to look here for an explanation of why their contributions have been destroyed. Also, EricR goes well beyond deleting contributions he thinks violate policy, he also deletes responses to such contributions, where he only thinks the original contribution violated policy, not the response, and he deletes things simply because he personally (and incorrectly) judges the response to be incorrect. StuRat 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User warning template

There's now

You should tell them what specifically you objected to in their post, not just give a big list and say "it's probably one of those". StuRat 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

According to

Note that even articles often use the "multiple POVs" form to assure NPOV, as in articles with "arguments for" and "arguments against" (or "criticisms of") sections. StuRat 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

These are not the personal opinions of the contributors (or if they happen to be, this is purely accidental). They should be attributable, just like anything else. Even for article talk pages the guidelines state: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ref Desk doesn't contain "article talk pages", but rather a completely different type of talk pages, more like user talk pages. StuRat 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikiversity Help Desk accepts questions on anything. Please, instead of discouraging questions that don't belong here by saying "this is an encyclopedia" and not presenting good alternatives to the querents, start telling them to ask their questions on the Wikiversity Help Desk, like I just did on the China-USA question on the Humanities Reference Desk. This will hopefully improve both the quality of the Wikipedia Reference Desks and the quality of the Wikiversity Help Desk. A.Z. 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Wikiversity is okay with it, then by all means. If someone wants to craft a polite template with a link to the appropriate part of Wikiversity, it would be appreciated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity Help Desk pre-amble says the desk is for "general knowledge questions". Why would Wikiversity be able to answer a question if Wikipedia cannot ? And Wikiversity Help Desk got about 30 posts in March - so less traffic in one month than a single one of our RDs gets in one day. I think directing folks who ask difficult/controversial questions on our RDs towards Wikiversity is unhelpful to both the questioner and the folks at Wikiversity. Of course, we shouldn't tell them that their questions don't belong here, either (except in the most extreme cases). We should respond to each question in a mature, polite and factual way. Gandalf61 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gandalf, it's not that the editors here would not be able to answer the questions. The fact is that a lot of the editors are simply refusing to answer some kinds of questions and are also trying to "forbid" other editors to answer them. They say in here only "reference" questions should be asked.

The small number of posts on the Help Desk of Wikiversity is due to the fact that few people know that Help Desk. If we start to link it from Wikipedia, for sure the number of questions will increase and then the number of people answering questions will increase and it will soon be a very busy place. A.Z. 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A.Z, the situation is not as bad as you think. A small number of editors have narrow views on the "purpose" of the RDs, and every so often one of them goes on a crusade to "clean up" the RDs by deleting questions and/or answers that they don't like. This, of course, annoys other editors whose good-faith posts have been trashed, and stirs up controversy and edit wars. But most of the time, most questions on the RDs are answered with no fuss at all, and most RD contributors just get on with being as helpful as they can. If it follows previous patterns, the current debate will reach a peak soon and then die down in a week or two. Please don't let it put you off making useful contributions to the RDs. Gandalf61 17:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for telling me that, Gandalf. I'm not well-versed in Reference Desk History, so I had no idea this debate happened from time to time and eventually ended and everything got back to normal. It's good to know that. And thank you for your advice. It surely encouraged me to continue making useful contributions despite everything. A.Z. 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that the Wikiversity desk was so low-traffic. While A.Z.'s intentions are good, I agree that redirecting people's questions there might be frustrating until they have things up and running. (Catch-22, perhaps.)

In any case, the issue is not whether or not we are capable of answering certain types of quetsions. It has been amply demonstrated that certain types of opinion questions generate lively and extensive discussion, in at least some cases this discussion is probably exactly the sort of thing the original querent is looking for.

However, extensive and lively debate over (what are fundamentally) questions of opinion is not as service that a Reference Desk (here or in the bricks and mortal world) is intended to provide. Such activities are best suited to university symposia (formal) or the pub (informal).

There are several problems with attempting to fit such discussions into the framework of our Ref Desk. These have been discussed amply and at length, but a non-exhaustive summary might include some of the following points.

• Long discussions eat up space. The Ref Desk page is already very long; encouraging extended discussion would make it utterly impossible for a dialup user to access. It's also difficult enough as it is for a novice to even find his original question.
• Discussions have a way of degenerating. Opinion discussions have a demonstrated tendency to slip into incivility and personal attacks.
• The thread gets lost. Segues into offtopic discussion begin (which is okay, to a point) and eventually end up as nothing more than chat.

I don't mind a bit of chat, or a bit of opinion, or a bit of informality. Unfortunately, encouraging long, opinion-driven discussions interferes with our ability to carry out our core Ref Desk function, which is why we limit these sorts of debates. Perhaps Wikiversity would like to set up a symposium space. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I reject the argument of lack of space. It sounds like a technical problem that can be fixed by a few changes in the way that the Reference Desks work. I also think that we should let the discussions degenerate if that's what happens. It's not bad that it happens at all. If a discussion degenerates, people can choose one part of the discussion that can be discussed about again and then just ask a new question and start a new discussion with a new focus. When this discussion degenerates, yet another can be started by doing the same. Much learning can be obtained from the whole process and even a conclusion can be eventually reached. Maybe we should just transfer the questions to another place when they start getting too long. A.Z. 17:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of chatting opportunities on the Internet that exist just for that purpose. I don't understand why some people insist that our RD should offer unlimited possibilities for people to spout their ill-informed personal opinions in offensive ways. The reference desk is not meant for that. Let me spell out what the purpose is. The Wikipedia reference desk is meant to work like a

library reference desk, a public service function. In a library, users can consult the professional staff at the reference desk for help in finding information. We don't have professional staff, but when users leave questions on the reference desk, the volunteers doing RD duty work to find the information needed to answer the questions.  --Lambiam^Talk

10:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lambian, who exactly are these "some people" who "insist that our RD should offer unlimited possibilities for people to spout their ill-informed personal opinions in offensive ways" ? Where exactly has anyone made that proposal ? I believe you are exaggerating. Gandalf61 11:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people who occasionally (but regularly) produce contributions that I see as ill-informed personal opinions, sometimes in ways that I consider unnecessarily rude, condescending, or highly insensitive to a questioner's plight, appear pretty miffed if their contributions are then deleted. However, if I name them, that would more likely than not be construed as a violation of

WP:NPA. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the same people will not be able to recognize themselves in this description.  --Lambiam^Talk

15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've recently noted the same phenomena as those described by

RD user myself, I intend to continue supporting it by my contributions where I can best do so. This includes some degree of monitoring, and intervening in cases of what I regard as abuses (which is why I want to understand the definitions of the latter per guidelines and consensus). I'll also note here that lately this takes an inordinate amount of my time that might better be spent editing and creating articles. However, I consider myself relatively new and am still learning the ropes here, and appreciate the discussion provided by my fellow Users—including those with whom I disagree, as this elucidates a reality with which we must contend. -- Deborahjay

23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AZ, you might be onto a good idea there. I will ask at Wikiversity if they would object to us directing questions which call for speculation ("What portions of stars have planets ?") and opinion ("What is the best movie of all time ?"), but not trolling ("Is it true that Bush is an idiot ?") there. I, for one, would be willing to spend some time there answering such questions. We could add a "virtual desk", called Opinion Ref Desk, which would actually be a link the Wikiversity Help Desk. This could also solve the issue of those who never want to see any opinion questions or subjective answers on the Ref Desk. The other issue is if the hard-asses here would so object to an answer ever being given to such a question that they will either follow us there to delete our answers or delete the links from the Ref Desk so the OP can't find the answer. StuRat 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed[17] a great deal of debate here as to the advantages or disadvantages of the electoral college and the probability of reforming it. The question asked for a history of efforts towards electoral reform, a topic covered in such articles as:

With all due respect, eric, don't you think it would be more polite to express your concerns about the use of the question on the thread itself and then convince the editors who wrote the posts to remove their posts themselves? What it looks like when you do that is that you think you know something that they don't and you also can't persuade them that you are right by using arguments, and so they should simply write their posts and trust you to decide whether they should stay on the desk or be removed. A.Z. 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The removed content is back. A.Z. 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. The correct place to discuss the appropriateness of responses is here on the talk page, not on the desk itself. Also, please provide a justification for restoring the material, don't simply revert or undo without an edit summary. I have been removing material from the desks in an effort to improve Wikipedia, and explained my reasoning each time. Any editor who restores such material should do so only if they feel that particular content improves the quality of the reference desk, and should also make some effort to explain why.—

eric

17:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your edit summary:"off-topic debate, the question asks for history of electoral reform, not the opinion of editors concerning the electoral college".

Here is my reasoning to reject your justification and therefore undo your changes:

1-The question is really vague and no one should take it literally . If you are really willing to take it literally, then it only accepts "yes" or "no" as answers, since it asks "Has there ever been serious discussion about reforming the US Presidential Election system?" Editors thought that the querent would appreciate the debate and their opinions.

2-Even if you thought that the answers had nothing to do with the question, this doesn't mean the querent is not appreciating the answers. And it's up to the querent to decide whether the answers are helpful or not.

(I may not have expressed my thoughts in a way you understand them, I am not a native English speaker, so please ask me for any further clarification and I'll do my best to explain everything to you until you know exactly what I mean and thus become able to either accept or reject my argument on a logical basis.) A.Z. 17:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And also the appropriateness of the responses is always discussed on the desk itself, dozens of times a day. Some editors say that the answers given by other editors are not helpful, others try to make the responses of other editors better. It's up to each person reading it to judge for themselves what they think about the responses, but it's not up to each person to delete or restore the posts. This is up to consensus-based decisions. A.Z. 18:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AZ, you are merely demonstrating that you don't know what a talk page is for. If you're this unfamiliar with how things work here, please don't be so insistent on getting your own way. Your edit warring on this issue has been disruptive. Friday (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We've seen this type of comment from you before, Friday, that nonconsensus removal of material from the Ref Desk, without even notifying the author, is just fine, but putting the same content back is "disruptive edit warring". Those who delete inappropriately are the cause of edit wars, not those who correctly restore the inappropriately deleted material. StuRat 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)Even if the editor which asked the question would like to see random opinions on the electoral college, the reference desk is not the proper forum to ask or for such to be provided. Please take the time to read

eric

18:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As has frequently been mentioned here, NPOV often takes the form of different authors providing different POVs, with the total being NPOV. This even happens in articles with "arguments for" and "arguments against" or "criticisms of" sections. In such cases, as on the Ref Desk, it's the person who removes one POV of the argument who is violating NPOV. StuRat 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Show me how they violated this policy. A.Z. 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support this removal, and the removal of any off-topic or soapboxing responses, at the discretion of reasonable editors. I don't know why we're arguing over this again. This sort of thing is done as needed on any other page, and nobody has suggested a reason why the ref desk is any different. If people feel strongly that authors ought to be notified, the obvious sensible solution when this happens is to go and notify those authors, rather than putting the inappropriate content back. Friday (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, if you allow editors to perform deletions without notifying the author, they will continue to do so forever. The way to stop this sloppiness is to undo all their deletions until they learn to behave properly. StuRat 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what

WP:POINT addresses. If you're restoring content to make a point to those you disagree with, rather than because you think it improves the page, this is inappropriate. Friday (talk)

17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I restore them because I think deleting things without notifying the author harms the Ref Desk, and thus restoring them helps the Ref Desk, by undoing this harm. As for your suggestion that I notify the authors of the deletion, it's not my responsibility to clean up after messes made by others. StuRat 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what is "off-topic" and "soapboxing responses". I don't see how this is different from saying "I did not like the answers". If you support something, please explain your reasons. A.Z. 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I, too, support the removal; it is an effective (and wiki-appropriate) way to manage the reference desk AS a reference desk. But I remain concerned about using the particular phrasing of NPOV to make this case. As eric's own cut-and-paste shows, "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)." But the reference desk is no more one or several "articles and other encyclopedic content" than a librarian is the book collection to which she guides querents. It's not just that a better defense is to focus on the definition of reference desk, note the narrowly defined way the term is used in Wikipedia, and state clearly what that should mean for policy assumptions; it's that fighting from the corners of "it's essentially a talk page" and "it's the same as everywhere in wikipedia" have become entrenched and unresolvable positions which only cause others to dig in further. Can't we accept that there is confusion about this space, enough to cause it to regularly teeter on the edge of useful, and try to find consensus by using neutral terms...and let the silly argument about whether the reference desks should have the FULL parameter set and policies of either talk pages or article space collapse into more productive discussion? Jfarber 18:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and try doing that. Some of use have been trying unsuccessfully for months to turn discussion in a more useful direction. It's difficult. Maybe different editors coming in and trying is just what we need. Friday (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't do that at all, Friday, you're one of the people who insists that all Wikipedia rules apply to the Ref Desk, such as when you make the argument that "If you disagree with NPOV, go discuss it on the NPOV talk page, not here". You are bypassing the entire question of whether policies written for Wikipedia articles, like NPOV, should be applied directly to the Ref Desk, which is not helpful at all. StuRat 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try once more. I have explained my views, sometimes at far too great a length, on what I think is or is not appropriate. Like many other editors who've expressed opinions, my views have a bit of nuance and are not nearly as black and white as you're presenting them. We have policies on verifiability and neutrality for a reason. Heck, even the talk page guidelines go out of their way to explain that we don't abandon these concepts on talk pages. If you want to discuss how and why policies do or don't apply to the ref desk, I'll happily participate. But I gotta be honest here- you have a tendency to paraphrase people's arguments in extremely simple, frequently misleading terms, and this is counterproductive to useful discussion. When people have nuanced opinions, usually that nuance is there for a reason. Friday (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the "nuance" in telling people to go discuss NPOV on the NPOV page, instead of here ? That's just a big, ugly straw man. StuRat 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so you all know, the Wikipedia:Chat desk was deleted! Check out the explanation. Turns out Wikipedia's not for chatting after all. Who knew?!? Friday (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

At first you seem happy with all the exclamation marks. But then I realize it's not happiness, it looks more like you wanted to get back on people who think differently from you. Revenge never brings happiness, I think you agree. It was just a deletion, no more than that. And the "explanation" is only the opinion of one person, Friday, there's no one reason to take it as being the truth about what Wikipedia is. A.Z. 18:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not happiness, it's sarcasm. The point is that there's a broad, existing consensus that Wikipedia is not for chatting. Anyone unwilling to accept this just needs to chat elsewhere. Outside our little walled garden of the ref desk, this is a no-brainer. Friday (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus since I did not agree to abide to that. A.Z. 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. You believe the only policies, guidelines, or standards on Wikipedia that you should follow are those you've personally agreed to yourself? I'm afraid this is quite far off from how things work. Wikipedia has a code of conduct. For a high level explanation of Wikipedia, see the

five pillars. Friday (talk)

19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How can I decide whether I should follow standards that I don't understand? A.Z. 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. 'Consensus' is another one of those words which has a specific meaning and traditions in the context of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Practically speaking, it means that a policy can be considered to have a 'consensus' in support, despite not actually having the agreement of every single person who works on the encyclopedia. (See also the confusion about the distinction between 'pages on which talk sometimes takes place' and 'talk pages' for another instance of Wikipedia-specific terminology.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

They should find another word for it then. Using the word "consensus" just makes everything confusing. A.Z. 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. We do have this issue with other words, too, like "verifiability". In plain English, if you call your friend on the phone to ask him his dog's name, you've verified the name. In Wikipedia terms, what you've got isn't verifiable at all. All I can suggest is that learning the ropes of Wikipedia takes some time. Some people are around for years and never do. Friday (talk)

AZ, I really recommend exploring the difference between consensus and unanimity.

Friday, you repeated sarcasm is a clear breach of civility, one of core principles of Wikipedia. You are taunting AZ, which is one of the behaviours specifically prohibited by

WP:CIVIL. It is especially inappropriate to behave this way towards a fairly new editor. As you said on my talk page recently "Everyone was new at some time". You should apologise. Gandalf61

19:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that I'm taunting at all. This is not my intention. Nonetheless, I have accidentally offended before, so it's certainly possible. A.Z., please accept my apologies if I have offended. I didn't mean to. Friday (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether I was offended. A.Z. 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But, I don't see why new editors should get special treatment. Is it okey to offend old editors? A.Z. 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It's never ok to intentionally offend anyone. If you do it unintentionally, take responsibility for it, apologise, and learn from your mistake. JackofOz 03:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't any less appropriate to insult new or old editors, but new editors are more likely to be insulted, especially with ad hominem attacks ... "you don't know about the 5 pillars, so you're a moron, so nothing you say matters". StuRat 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the conflicts we've had come from people who are actually objecting not specifically to what happens at the ref desk, but rather to the character of Wikipedia in general. I would invite those people to raise their objections in the appropriate place, rather than here. If everyone would read and understand the

So you think all the people debating on the electoral reform thread do not understand the five pillars or are objecting to them? The pillars are really vague and I for one admit that I do not understand them, but I think that other people may just have different interpretations for them. A.Z. 19:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe the best way to understand them is to go get lots of experience editing articles, and occasionally go back to the page and re-read them. They should get more clear over time. Friday (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to understand why someone felt compelled to come up with something called the Five Pillars, and why they gained broad acceptance. Rather than having someone tell you, "these are the rules, learn them well", as if they were sent from heaven and are infallible. Vranak

The problem isn't "not understanding the rules of Wikipedia", but rather those who try to apply rules, which were written for articles, to the Ref Desk, without change. Some rules don't apply at all (like anyone being able to remove anything as long as they think it's an improvement), other rules are applied differently (like NPOV, neutrality is obtained by obtaining many views on the Ref Desk, and suppressing none, not by requiring that each response contain all possible views), and other rules apply in exactly the same way to the Ref Desk, like assuming good faith. StuRat 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say neutrality should be treated differently on the ref desk? Are you saying there's existing consensus or a guideline that indicates this, or are you giving your own opinion on how things should be? There are well-established ways of dealing with neutrality - I can't think of a good reason to not use these established practices on the ref desk also. Friday (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The help desk does not - nor cannot - operate as if we were writing articles in response to questions. Mostly people come here because the articles we have have failed them in some way (well, no - mostly people come here to troll - but when we do get a serious question, it's often because articles have failed them). As a result, the answers they get cannot be properly referenced - they are frequently off-the-cuff and it sometimes takes the answers from several Wikipedians to nail the result. What we have here is more a conversation between people who mostly have the right knowledge - it's what you get if you ask someone a question - not what you expect to find in an encyclopedia. We very often nail the question exactly - sometimes we don't. Humor creeps in because it's a conversation - not a formal article. All in all, I think we help people - which makes it worthwhile. SteveBaker 16:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, NPOV doesn't apply in the same way to talk pages, like the Ref Desk. To say that, in response to the question "What are US politician's view on abortion ?", I can't list any politician's views unless I list every politician's views, in order to maintain NPOV, is absurd. StuRat 19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)