Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 5

This is an current talk page .

These rules should become an essay, that would be linked from the guidelines. Wikipedia already has an established tradition of linking essays about policies and guidelines from their pages. I expect there be no objection to that. However, for the sake of community work, consensus, cooperation, collaboration, etc, I am asking you here before I make the changes: is there any objection, not concerning the merit of the rules that StuRat supports, but to linking it from the page? A.Z. 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to linking to them because I object to the content of these rules. Maybe you're unfamiliar with the history but that set of rules has never enjoyed any kind of wide support that I ever noticed, and they're way more bureaucratic than the kinds of guidelines we use at Wikipedia. If I recall, they were created as content fork when guideline discussions didn't go the way the author wanted. Friday (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how objecting to the content is a legitimate reason to object to linking to it. All comments after your first sentence seem to be completely irrelevant to this matter. A.Z. 21:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If they were written in the format of an assay, then there might be precedent for this. However, as it is that page is lacking context or wider meaning for the general reader. If you, or anyone else wishes to write a well structured, meaningful essay on Ref Desk philosophy, then I don't think there would be much opposition. Rockpocket 21:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I already did think like that before I read your post. I'm sorry that I didn't make it clearer when I first created this section. A.Z. 21:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, come back when you have an essay and we can see what the consensus is. Rockpocket 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. That may take some time, though. A.Z. 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Those rules in question are not an essay but a {{

rejected}} proposal. I would suggest marking them as such. >Radiant<

14:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, there was never any consensus to reject that proposal. StuRat 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not an essay. That's what we were talking about above, that it should become an essay. A.Z. 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• If something is not an essay, then it cannot "become" an essay just by changing the tag either. Tags aren't a "status", they're a description of a page, and you can't change a page by changing a description. All this talk of "promoting" "changing" and "wanting to tag as" is misguided. >Radiant< 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to a library reference desk." (the proposal as of Saturday morning)

I brought this section back because I still think that the analogy should not be included in the guidelines. A.Z. 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This was already discussed; the statement has wide support as a useful analogy. Note that "comparable to" is not the same in meaning or intent as "identical to"; the phrasing already acknowledges implicitly that there is a difference between a bricks-and-mortar library reference desk and the Wikipedia Reference Desk.

Neither the Desk itself nor this talk page is meant to be a debating society or a court of infinite appeals—please don't copy & paste large discussions back in to reopen debates that have been settled. Please note, A.Z., that I don't want to start a large discussion about what I mean by "debate" – or any other word – and that I won't be responding further in this thread. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1)You made the wrong decision, in my opinion.

2)No debate was ever "closed".

3)I don't think the "wide support" is relevant to whether you should archive the thread or not.

4)This is the talk page of the policy and here is where any user talks about the guideline/policy as much as they want to talk about the guideline/policy. If I decide to stay here 24 hours a day endlessly discussing what you think are minor details of the policy/guideline with other users, the most you can do is to tell me that it bothers you. You cannot just tell me to stop.

5)This is not a court of appeals because this was never a court in the first place. There's simply nothing to be "appealed", because there's no court ruling.

6)Take it back, please. A.Z. 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to attempt to revive the discussion by copying an old thread here in its entirety. If you think the discussion should be reopened, then make a cogent case, with arguments that do not just rehash the arguments you made before. "I still prefer my version" does not cut it as an argument, sorry. I'd much rather prefer, though, that you stopped behaving like a 12-yea someone trying to transform the Wikipedia Reference Desk into the Wikipedia Debating Club.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and I respect it. I just don't think it is a good reason to archive the thread. Ten could at least have made it clear whether it is OK for me to unarchive it or not, and he could just tell me that he thinks it is an inappropriate approach and suggest that I voluntarily archive it. His actions were extremely rude, and it's hard to believe that he is not questioning my intentions and my intelligence. A.Z. 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that putting the old discussion in an archive box is anything resembling rude. People who want to see it can click "show" and otherwise it prevents cluttering up the page. I don't see anything wrong with saying we provide services comparable to a reference desk- that does seem to be pretty much what we aim at. Friday (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment "The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it." makes it sound like the decision has been made and debate is now closed. Nobody has authority to close off debate here, so such actions aren't appropriate unless everyone agrees. StuRat 05:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If this were true no debate would ever finish. Holdouts do not get to filibuster indefinitely.

David D. (Talk)

07:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a debate doesn't have to finish in order for action on its subject to be taken. There's no problem with merely discussing, without a deadline and without the intention of immediately changing things. As far as I know, there are a lot of open debates about the guidelines, and no debate is "closed" just because there's large support for the current state of affairs. A.Z. 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a filibuster and bringing new ideas to the table.

David D. (Talk)

18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The only difference I can see is that the first has bad intentions and the second acts in good faith. A.Z. 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what the actual purposes of the Reference Desks are and how they help Wikipedia?--MadBarker 00:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Much has been written on this. See the

Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines (which you are of course already aware of) and also this version of an old document and I believe there's still also User:TenOfAllTrades/RD_thoughts. Friday (talk)

01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am very glad to see that User:Friday has seen fit to answer this question and I thank him/her for that. However, I feel that the real purpose(s) of the Rds has yet to be properly defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmellyMuffin (talk • contribs) on behalf of Mad Barker et al!

He is a man. [2] A.Z. 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're able to act like an adult and discuss things civilly, you could possibly even participate in some discussion of the purposes of the ref desks. If instead you act like a sulking child, your contributions are likely to be removed. Friday (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the recent entry here by his most recent sock User:RectumParalyser, that will be a tall order. I hope I'm wrong.

David D. (Talk)

18:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish to apologise sincerely on behalf of my associate User:RectumParalyser. His comment regarding Friday was way OTT and he should not have posted it. I can only explain his actions by assuming that he was drunk. I shall have strict words with him to ensure that this sort of petty name calling only intended as insults is not repeated.--OrificePlate 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read and try to understand before deleting.

Yes I know that:

• the RDs try to answer questions mainly from people who dont know how to (or cant be bothered to) look up the answer themselves.
• some editors see the RDs as a playground and source of light relief from the arduous task of encyclopedia building.
• RDs provides training for some of the newer admins in 'vandalism' fighting.

However, no one has as yet provided a solid explanation of how the RDs actually help to build WP. Unless this question is answered the policy cannot be established and the RDs might as well be disassociated from WP as, by definition the RDs serve no purpose to WP.

To my mind, the amount of Admin (largely wasted) effort that goes into policing the RDs is diverting them from their proper job of helping to BUILD an encyclopedia! BTW I like the RDs but Im not sure they have much to do with WP anymore.--OrificePlate 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The Reference Desk builds – or can help to build – Wikipedia in a number of ways. Some are listed in the links that Friday provided earlier in this section.
2. Admins—like all other editors on Wikipedia, are volunteers. We let them perform whatever tasks and contribute positively however they wish. In any case, the Ref Desks actually require relatively little in the way of admin maintenance and intervention.
3. The Desks would require require even less attention if a particularly childish sockpuppeteer and vandal found something useful to do with his time rather than coming here, but it's not much of a bother even so.
4. In general, we tend to ignore policy suggestions from vandals and trolls.

Incidentally, I've blocked OrificePlate because of his recent sockpuppeting and vandalism, as well as his typically disingenuous apology. Further contributions from Mr. Lloyd will be reverted on sight, and I will not be feeding this troll any further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

One intervention, and one only, though I doubt the person to whom my remark is directed is really interested in a meaningful answer. There is a lot of work on the Humanities Desk alone that is beginning to feed into the main body of the encyclopedia. Would it not have been best to put MadBarker down at the outset? Clio the Muse 22:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Friday decided to treat him like a responsible adult to see if he could respond in kind. I presume that Friday hoped Light current's six-month enforced break from Wikipedia might cool him down sufficiently to partipate meaningfully again. Given that he failed that test rather thoroughly, we can go back to ignoring Mr. Lloyd with a clear conscience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

my take

I suppose it's pretty pointless to tack a serious answer onto a thread like this, but I'd been thinking about this question again anyway, so here's my answer:

The purposes of the Reference Desks are (in order):

1. To improve the encyclopedia. They do this in two ways:
   • by discovering, via people's questions, which of our articles need work (or are missing entirely), and beginning the process of improving/adding them; and
   • by helping Wikipedia editors with their questions, as they work on articles.
2. To help other people on the Internet by answering their questions.
3. To have fun showing off our knowledge, expertise, and erudition.

Now, even if I were singlehandedly writing the guidelines, I would not necessarily state these purposes this way, because (as written) they're exceedingly easy to misinterpret. But I'll explain what I mean by them, and why I've listed them that way:

First of all, my list is a mixture of the way things are and the way they ought to be. (That is, I'm being both prescriptive and descriptive, thus maximizing my chances of pissing everyone off. :-) ).

I do believe that "helping the encyclopedia" has to be our first priority. Anything else, and it becomes impossible to answer the question, "then what are these desks doing as part of the Wikipedia project?" Saying that this is the top priority does not mean that it is the only priority, but it's important to list it that way so we're clear on what we're supposed to be doing here.

I also believe (in answer to a poll from a couple months ago, further up the page) that yes, ideally, we should answer every question by citing an existing Wikipedia article. In fact, I'll go further than that: for any question, if an existing Wikipedia article doesn't answer it adequately, such that an aspiring RD answerer is tempted to launch into a finely-wrought explanation, the right thing to do, theoretically, is to instead add that finely-wrought explanation to the appropriate article, and then link to it.

With that said, though, I do not actually believe or expect that any of the Reference Desks would ever actually meet this "ideal" in practice. In fact, I wouldn't want them to; a Reference Desk with nothing but clipped citations of articles, with no nice friendly explanations fine-tuned to a particular questioner's situation, would be deathly boring for all concerned, and I for one would have no interest in participating. (True confession: I love launching into finely-wrought explanations right here on the desks, existing Wikipedia articles be damned, and I know I'm not alone.) But I do think this ideal is worth keeping in mind, to (again) clarify our thinking about what our real purpose is here, even though I have negative expectations of achieving it. (But stating a primary goal or purpose that you do not ever expect to actually meet is a terribly risky proposition, which is why I say I wouldn't necessarily word these priorities this way in the actual guidelines.)

Number two is obvious. It's what the apparent purpose of these desks has always seemed to be and probably always will seem to be. But (selfish though it sounds), I think that helping the encyclopedia ought to be a higher priority than helping any one individual questioner. This does not, of course, mean that we're not interested in helping individual questioners, that we won't always try to do our best in helping them. But if there's ever a conflict between helping the project versus helping an individual questioner, the project has to come first.

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

—

Well put, Steve. The definitive statement, as far as I am concerned. Clio the Muse 22:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice post. You could create a page with that content and add the essay tag, with a title like "The purposes of the reference desk". I think your post is much better at explaining the reference desk to newcomers than, say, the current guidelines, and it's especially good that the parts that are your personal opinion are correctly labeled as such: this allows people to know that they are not an "imposed", "official" view of any superior entity such as "The Community". A.Z. 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a brillant post Steve, but you have forgotten to mention the flying monkeys, listen it's not easy keeping a hundred flying monkeys, fed, watered and happy and quite frankly i've had enough, either the monkeys get put into the guidelines or else! (empty threat!):) Perry-mankster 11:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice post - thanks!

To speak to (3) in your list of reasons, I treat answering ref desk questions less as 'showing off' and more like doing a crossword puzzle. People who do crosswords look forward to a fresh set of clues each day. Same here - I look forward to opening up the ref desk and seeing what questions there are today. Lots of times I can't answer them - and THAT'S where the value comes in. But the motive (certainly for me) is not showing off - it's improving myself. In researching (or even merely thinking about) a reply, I learn a lot. It forces you to go and look up facts - it makes you think. That means that we are improving our own breadth and depth of knowledge - and (almost as important in a modern world) exercising skills with search engines.

The benefits to Wikipedia are more tenuous. Most good paper encyclopedias have reference desks. Years ago when I bought a paper copy of Britannica, it came with about 100 little vouchers. You could clip one of them to a letter containing a question and post it off to their reference desk. I used most of them. The result was often a photocopy of an article that they'd already written for someone else (they obviously had a 'FAQ' list) - sometimes a set of references into the encyclopedia - and occasionally, a hand-written note providing exactly the kind of information we give out here. A good reference desk is a part of an encyclopedia - and I don't think further justification for our existance is required. A lesser benefit to Wikipedia is that I and many others here are WikiGnomes and it's common to need to fix small things in articles we read that we would never normally think of reading. This is a way to direct editors to fix articles that people actually need. The ref desk is never going to direct you to read an article that doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia - by definition, everything we need to refer to is needed in order to answer someone's question. This is a means to direct editor efforts to articles that are needed - and which need to be fixed.

In the end, Wikipedia should look at this on a cost/benefit basis. The cost to WP is negligable. The traffic here is less by far than many other talk pages out there that produce less results. The daily storage and bandwidth costs for the ref desk is negligable compared to one photograph elsewhere in the encyclopedia. The payback in terms of public good and encyclopeadic improvement can be correspondingly tiny and still be worthwhile. SteveBaker 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines should have a link to the Wikiversity Help Desk, so people have a welcoming place to debate things that they can't debate here because the guidelines forbid it. I forgot to link, but I had added that information to the guidelines. Rockpocket reverted it. A.Z. 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have advertised this discussion on Wikiversity. A.Z. 03:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has already given her opinion about this matter on this page. A.Z. 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an external link go under a section called "

external links" Rockpocket

03:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done It's fine by me. A.Z. 03:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ilmari Karonen removed the sentence "However, general medical and legal questions ("What treatments are used for diabetes?", "Which countries recognize common law marriages?") are fine." and replaced it with "Questions that appear to be soliciting such advice should be removed and replaced with a message (such as {{RD-deleted}}) pointing to these guidelines."

I'm not opposed to the removal per se, though I have noticed that the distinction of asking for medical advice vs asking a question about medical sciences hasn't received a lot of direct attention recently, but instead has been blurred to use as a strawman in discussion and also as a suggestion on how to get around our refusal to give medical advice. (e.g.: "What diseases can have headache, blurred vision and a tingling sensation in the left pinky as symptoms?" instead of "I have ..... What could it be?"). Just wanted to point this out here. Given the number of misunderstandings, diverging understandings, as well as

Practical example - take a look at [3] - is this a medical advice question in disguise ? It might be. How can we tell what the intentions of the questioner are ? My point is that we shouldn't be expected to guess what is in a questioner's mind. The "appear to be soliciting" phrasing is too vague. The template advocates should come up with a clear and unambiguous definition of "seeking medical advice" based solely on the contents of a question. Until such a definition is produced, I oppose the use of this template. Gandalf61 08:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the assumption of good faith won't lead us anywhere here. For instance, an unaware user could also be formulating the question in an abstract way, not in order to get around the guidelines, but to de-personalize the question and maybe even to make it more encyclopedic. (I have asked questions like this, though outside medicine and law). At the same time the user, in good faith (but dangerously, in my opinion), might intend to apply the answer to his own case. (I did so as well.) To be honest, I can't think of an operable assumption or distinction here, which doesn't mean no one else can, but applying common sense has its limits when real life interferes with the faceless world online. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the change, both because it was made without discussion here and because questions like "What treatments are used for diabetes?" and "Which countries recognize common law marriages?" are fine. If we stop providing resources or answers for such questions, Wikipedia stops becoming a useful resource for students or others looking to start their research here. And I do believe that Assume Good Faith applies here, as well as everywhere else in Wikipedia. StuRat 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I certainly had no intention of making any substantive change with that removal. The

subpage linked from that paragraph still contains essentially the same definition and examples, and I simply felt that, given the existence of a whole subpage devoted to the topic, it would be better to keep the relevant paragraph on the main guidelines page as short and to the point as possible, leaving the more detailed aspects for the subpage. I'm certainly not opposed to the reintroduction of the content in question, if people feel that presenting it on the medical advice subpage is not sufficient. (I also wouldn't oppose removing much of the more detailed content I introduced in that edit from the general guideline page later, but I'd like to keep there for a while until people have had a chance to notice and become familiar with it.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at the subpage, I did note that this information had gotten somewhat buried among the instructions. I've now moved it to a more prominent place there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. No strong opinion where it's written either way, just thought I'd point out the problems of blurred distinction regarding what constitutes seeking medical advice. (What constitutes giving medical advice - diagnosis, prognosis, suggestions for treatment - is well defined, on the other hand). StuRat, I brought up

WP:AGF because I saw someone suggest that people should have the "good sense" to rephrase their question in an abstract way, detached from a real life situation. In my opinion, this is just another example of trying to game the rules against their spirit, and I think this should be discouraged rather than encouraged. ---Sluzzelin talk

09:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I put the example back in. I also took out that part about deleting any question which appears to be asking for medical advice. There have been numerous examples of people treating questions as medical advice which were clearly not. If we were to add that line to the rules, any question on biology would be at risk for deletion. At the very least, it should be discussed and a consensus reached before that change is made. StuRat 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed, right here. (The proposal was on the main refdesk talkpage before someone decided to split all the discussions about medical advice to a subpage.) If you wish to discuss that subject, I suggest it would be best done there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that I've found that discussion, I've participated there. StuRat 03:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I need to know which world regions or countries are effected by desertification and why? $$$$$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.13.33 (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the

talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 5. You may have more success if you ask your question at the Reference desk/Science page.  --Lambiam

21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but why not create a guideline for relisting questions that no one even attempted to respond to, rather than archiving them?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this talk page is the best forum; Wikipedia talk:Reference desk seems a better spot. In any case, just making a guideline doesn't work unless it is clear who is supposed to enforce it. Conceivably, a bot could detect unanswered questions about to be disappear from the desks and do something special. Just relisting them, however, might create an ever-expanding collection of unanswerable questions. I could imagine foresaid bot depositing a daily list of links to standing unanswered questions on a new section of Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. In many cases we can't say much more than: "Sorry, but no-one here appears to have an answer to this question."  --Lambiam 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

who can satisfy a doubt for me please: who wrote: "if there was a fire, and i saw a cat and a picasso picture, I would take a cat, because I choose life over art."? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.35.159 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the

Reference desk/guidelines. You may have more success if you ask your question at the Reference desk/Humanities page.  --Lambiam

09:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was just wondering if there is a place to sign up if i choose to volunteer, or do i just go in and answer questions. Also, is there a user box related to this? Yeltsinfan (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered on Yeltsinfan's talk page. --LarryMac | Talk 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see here. I think that consensus has been reached (the only poster who didn't object agreed that the OP doesn't own his/her question). Is there a case to be made for adding something to this effect to the guidelines? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the phenomenon is so rare that it is not worth the effort of formulating a rule. If a posting is offensive, then everyone and certainly the poster should be allowed to remove it, so formulating the rule simply as "don't remove your own postings" is unadvisable. This holds not only for questions but also for responses. Not removing but editing one's own postings can also be problematic, for example when it changes the interpretation of reactions. All this is not specific for the Reference desk; it also applies to many other pages such as the Village pump and Media copyright questions, so if rules need to be formulated, that should be done at a more central spot. I could imagine that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states that the rules listed under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments is stated to apply to all pages where users post comments, and not just article talk pages. But again, as far as I can see, this is not an urgent issue.  --Lambiam 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let it go. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we use the {{resolved}} tag, like we do on the helpdesk, here? That way users can ignore questions that have received a sufficient answer...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to post this at

WT:RD

?

The usefulness of the tag is less clear for the RD. Responses to questions such as "How did English perceptions of the French evolve?" or "Will

mechs ever be used on the battlefield?" may be satisfactory to the questioners, but that does not mean any issue has been "resolved". My impression is that the tag would be appropriate for only a minority of responses. A more pressing problem is what to do with questions that did not get any (possibly) satisfactory responses at all. See Unanswered questions above.  --Lambiam

10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Athosfolk (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were already, where information is given but no predictions on what someone should do with their money, unless it's something like "give it to me!" F. goodness sake, we'll be down to answering about novels and the weather. Scratch that. No weather predictions either, but I acknowledge you are being thoughtful, Athosfolk. *sigh* Maybe we should make a disclaimer that the refdesks are "for entertainment purposes only". Julia Rossi (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Spend less than you earn. Save for retirement. Don't put your shirt on "Straight to the Knacker's" in the 3.30 at Towcester. All of these statements are financial advice, and very sound advice at that. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The subject of ongoing debate at WP:RD/S and at WP:RDTK - what constitutes a request for medical advice? The obvious answer is any medical question can be construed as a request for medical advice. I've taken the approach that our guidelines are not to give advice, regardless of the question, and that removing the question doesn't actually help OPs consider how they'll phrase their questions. I've ben discussing this

Thanks for posting your question. Your question seems to be a request for medical advice. It is against our guidelines to provide medical advice. You might like to re-phrase your question. You may also find it helpful to read the article: Article , and form your own opinion from the information there. Other comments Note to editors: Any response containing prescriptive information or medical advice will be removed. Please ensure your responses are constructed so as not to be construed as medical advice! If you remove a response, please paste it and your reason for removal on the Reference Desk Discussion page If you feel a response you have given has been removed in error, please discuss it at the Reference Desk Discussion page before restoring it.

. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 04:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much to have a graphical template instead of just the text "Sorry we can't answer this because it's medical advice". This particular template is way too physically large, in any case. Tempshill (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so i dont do it or get accused of doing it what the hell is a troll or trolling? Please dont say something that lives under a bridge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromagnum (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See

Troll (Internet) and meta:What is a troll?. Zain Ebrahim (talk

) 10:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.(it says also Not to be confused with large warty monsters thought to dwell under bridges, in caves etc.) :)Chromagnum (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be an answer to the question of whether a research question may be posed to wikipedia. "Given that it may allow someone else to publish, where I am only interested in the answer, is it reasonable to pose the question to wikipedia?" was how I was phrasing a question here, and it may help others in making their decisions about this sort of question to have the answer in your guidelines.Julzes (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm noting an increase in the number of "relationship advice" questions. Right now there is one on the Miscellaneous desk asking advice about a boyfriend who thinks he may have fathered a child. In the past few weeks we've had one about a shy boy getting to meet women, and several others.

I want to propose that relationship questions are not an appropriate subject for the Reference Desk, and that they should be excluded by guideline. My reasoning for this is as follows:

1. Such questions are rarely purely factual, and are more in the nature of counselling than they are informational.
2. They are often closer to chat, and invitations to discussion, than they are to requests for factual information.
3. Good answers to such questions usually require knowledge of the personal circumstances of the questioner, which again brings the questions closer to being chat than requests for facts.
4. These questions degrade Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia would not answer such information, no matter how comprehensive.
5. There is potential for harmful answers being given by inexperienced, or malicious, editors.
6. There is potential for trolling questions, which asks for advice on some extreme (but fictitious) situation, with the intent of either promoting argument of ridiculing Wikipedia.

On the other hand I have to admit that, unlike medical and legal advice, we are unlikely to get sued as a result of such questions. I don't suggest excluding purely factual questions in this area ("My boyfriend says the paternity test might be a false positive - how likely is this?") but I do think we should ban anything asking "what should I do", or anything specific to a person or situation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have given this matter a lot of thought recently as well. They aren't reference desk questions, they are agony aunt questions. However, does that mean we shouldn't answer them? We have a group of very intelligent and knowledgeable people here and they can be very helpful and solving life problems as well a reference related problems. If we can help people, why shouldn't we? You offer some good answers to that question. I don't think answering these kinds of questions brings the project into disrepute, although I can see why it might. Until I see some evidence of people thinking ill of us because of these questions, I will dismiss that point. You mention the potential for trolling - I think we are very good at dealing with extreme questions. My strategy is always to just take them seriously. If you give a serious, well-meaning answer then I don't see how it really matters whether the question was in good faith or not, you've done your best to help someone you thought was in need. That's a good thing. You also mention the potential for harmful answers, while that is certainly true I think the fact that we are quite a large group answering these questions limits to potential for harm there quite considerably. --Tango (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DJ Clayworth on this matter. These questions are impossible to properly address without having the entire background and accurate facts from each of the "relationship situations". These questions are very chatty in nature, frequently trollish and are quite often impossible to address with an actual reference. This is a reference desk after all, not a forum or discussion group for contributers to show off how "intelligent and knowledgeable" they happen to be while giving relationship advice.10draftsdeep (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think relationship advice requests are 50% chat forum and 50% medical/legal advice type questions and as such, we should probably make it explicit that we should not answer them, and that they should not be asked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are times (and perhaps this is one of them) where the simple, clear-thinking approach we're often able to offer is constructive and useful. In this case, we can say that someone who last had sex with some woman in December couldn't be responsible for her being 9 weeks pregnant today. This may seem obvious to you or I - but to a stressed out/confused person - perhaps not. The criteria for banning particular categories of questions isn't generally that the answer might do harm. You can imagine a scenario when almost any answer on almost any topic would be harmful. These questions are going to get asked anyway - I see no particular problem in allowing people to answer them. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. A whole host of other sayings also apply to this situation:

Garbage In, Garbage Out. I am in agreement with others that the RD should be for providing credible references, either Wikipedia articles or other external references, NOT for advice or personal opinion. Granted, many questions seem to verge on (or explicitly ask for) opinion, but we should refrain from offering advice and stick to the facts, else this enterprise is in danger of becoming the "Wikipedia Advice Desk and Relationship Discussion Forum". Several recent threads relating to masturbation, suicide, relationships, and dealing with job interviews (not to mention the eternal debate over what constitutes medical advice) demonstrate the inherent problems with trying to tackle these questions. --- Medical geneticist (talk

) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that asking here for relationship advice is possibly beyond the intent of a reference desk at an encyclopedia, and I do think people should be coming here for factual information. I'd add that asking here for relationship advice is like asking a room full of

AFD list where we're going to spout at newcomers rules like "Question deleted! It has violated RD C2:E!" Maybe it's best to just be silent on the matter from a policy perspective. Is this proposal a solution in search of a problem? Tempshill (talk

) 06:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be appropriate to provide factual answers to relationship questions (you can't be nine weeks pregnant from sex had six months ago) but both the question and the answers mentioned above went way beyond the factual. If we don't want to remove them by policy, should we discourage them? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)