Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/purpose

I think it's intended that the questions people get answers to would be questions you might find the answer to in an encyclopedia. I think this is implied by the language on the RD pages, and the fact that the RD is part of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia

This is related to the "scope of information" issue- right now the page just says there are different opinions on this. I think the question I posed above is pretty important so I hope other people chime in on this. Friday (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said at RD Talk, the purpose of the RD is the same as the purpose of WP, to make information available. Information used on the RD shouldn't have to pass through wikipedia to be valid for use on the RD- all information out there is fair game. A lot of information isn't available on wikipedia --froth^{T C} 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a contradiction to me. If the purpose of the RD is the same as the purpose of Wikipedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's strictly for what's

proper sources. If people were answering RD questions with links to pseudoscience websites, for example, I would see this as being in direct conflict with the goals of WP, despite it being "information". To me this heavily suggest that we don't mean any and all information- we mean some subset of information. I'd call this subset "encyclopedic" information. Friday (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Friday, you seem to be really adamant about being extremely restrictive about the the scope of the reference desk. My objection below is still valid. -THB 03:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your objection is, but I've tweaked the intro to remove the objectionable language. Friday (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the hierarchy of quality of information, a Wikipedia article falls far below a paper encyclopedia article, a refereed scholarly journal, a mainstream newspaper, or a book from a mainstream publisher, since a Wikipedia article may lack any reference, may be POV, or may have been vandalized. There is no good rationale for restricting Ref Desk replies to Wikipedia articles. A real life reference librarian has no limitations on the info sources to which he may direct a patron. Certainly there is no library where the librarian is punished if he directs a patron to other than a paper encyclopedia. So why should the Ref Desk editors be limited to telling questioners which Wikipedia article to examine? Edison 06:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough- we should point them to a

good source instead then. If we give people answers either from our own content, or from a source that would be acceptable to use as a source for our content, I think this is plenty good. Friday (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Another bone of contention (that hopefully can be answered by nailing down the purpose of the RD) is to what extent personal opinions should be given. I made the observation that while telling someone your opinions on how to cook a fish is unlikely to cause trouble, giving an opinion on a controversial topic is more of an issue. Giving controversial opinions would probably encourage ongoing debate (which is what a forum is for, not what Wikipedia is for). Also, there's the chance that a new editor of member or the general public would get the impression that "Wikipedia says so-and-so" where "so-and-so" is just the personal opinion of one editor. I'm not suggesting we need to stamp out all opinion, but I think there's good reason to discourage giving personal opinions, except perhaps on trivial topics. Friday (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to stay away from personal opinions like religion and politics. While certainly I wouldn't care if some flaming liberal stauchly supported abortion on the RD (and I'm pretty conservative myself), I can definately recognize the potential for offending people. That being said, most topics have some controversy associated with them and opinion is still valuable there, especially if different views are represented by the responses. But highly controversial topics (especially those 2 that I mentioned) should definately be avoided --froth^{T C} 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion or recollection should be qualified, as in "If I recall correctly, Scientific American published an article in the late 1960's which covered the question you asked, and said that......" This sets the questioner on the line towards an answer he desires. Alas, I do not have online access to said journal, but if pressed I could go to a university library and confirm it. The questioner has a better state of information than he started with, but does not necessarily have the answer handed to him on a platter.Edison 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. There are any number of things that could be inappropriate without being required to offend "most" viewers. How would we even measure such a thing? I think it's clear enough to say that offensive content should be avoided. Friday (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As this is a page intended for consumption by the general public, we need to take extra care to maintain a friendly environment. To me, this means being extra careful about offensive content. Friday (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But you can't ban things just because they might offend someone. That's called censorship. It restricts the flow of information. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to make information available. -THB 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And, if we keep answers on topic, this should be all we need to ensure we're in the right spot. If someone looks at the article Penis, they expect what they get there. If someone comes to the reference desk and asks an unrelated question, they don't expect some crude penis reference in the answer. In short, all that's needed is normal adult judgment. Friday (talk)

You have to allow for the possibility that a given individual editor or admin might be way more thin-skinned than the community standard. Input of other editors would be a benefit in deciding what material is over the line. Agreed there is no reason for some horny juvenile editor to make every question into some phallic or masturbatory jest. Edison 07:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this paragraph as too narrow. Wikipedia is incomplete. If the only purpose of the RD is to help people find the correct article in Wikipedia, replace it with a better search engine and instructions on how to use it. I believe that the RD should function not only on that level. -THB 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Implied" section above for my opinion on why this is reasonable. Friday (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've described the purpose of the reference desk as "educational", based in part on the purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation. I assume this won't be controversial but I felt an explanation would be helpful. The exact wording of this needs help, of course. Friday (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has probably been superceeded by

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that more content necessarily needs merged, I just wanted a way to mark that this page was redundant now. If nobody objects in a few days, I think I will turn this into a redirect, since this is harmless and is a good way to preserve history without letting this continue as a seperate page. Friday (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge -THB 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Friday. A summary of purpose would be a good addition to the guideline, and the two are redundant. (THB, note that this a discussion rather than a vote, so could you please explain to us why you object?) (Radiant) 13:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also curious what THB means. IMO, the current version of the guideline explains the purpose pretty well, probably in as much detail as is really needed. Friday (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold all further discussion in a central spot, which for now is