Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask/archive1

message: This has already been said, but perhaps it's worth repeating.  In a chat room, you're either going to get an answer right away or not answer at all.  There's no way for someone to review questions asked earlier that day and provide answers.  If we limit the ref desk to questions which get answered right away, far fewer questions will get answered.  So I think the disadvantage of IRC as a ref desk tool is pretty clear.  What were the advantages again?  Friday (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not quite valid as clients will show hours of text behind the current conversation. I do not believe questions will go unanswered. GDonato (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: IRC does not necessarily fall down on this, especially on quieter channels, see my comment above ;-) GDonato (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, if someone was in the channel the whole time, and chooses to scroll back, sure, they can see old stuff. This seems quite inconvenient compared with, say, watchlisting a page.  Here's what I'm getting at- if you're going to suggest fragmenting the ref desk this way, I want to see some very compelling advantages of the new medium.  So far all I see are disadvantages.  You sound like someone arguing why a heavy wrench can be used to drive nails, while ignoring the readily available hammer.  We should pick the best tool for the job.   Friday (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, one choice, I have a general knowledge question, IRC or wiki? Hmm... wiki, yes, but why limit ourselves to one choice the channel is set-up already and I am sure users with a quick question would prefer a quick, real-time response. Also, I think that many questions asked on-wiki are left then ignored by the questioner, on IRC this is less likely to happen. It also allows for greater discussion over answers. Wiki is one-answer in nature, in the questions that have been asked so far the users have been able to follow-up their original question until they get the best answer they are really looking for. GDonato (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref desk questions on the wiki quite often get more than one answer.  The things you're suggesting can happen in IRC can also easily happen on the wiki, unless I'm missing something.  Friday (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More then one answer for sure plus there is the option of corrections and additions at the reference desk. On IRC once the exchange is done, it's done...it's not available for other users to review or for the original user to post a followup. RxS 18:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to be saying that if what is desired is having a chat, IRC is probably better than the wiki.  I doubt many people will dispute this.  But this is the reference desk, not the chat desk.  Friday (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a chat- just a conversation between users sharing knowledge which may involve several follow-ups and requests for clarification- learning more. GDonato (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OMG! What a phreaking stupid proposal!  It's just a ludicrous way to run things - what you say about instant response can only work if there are people actually logged into the IRC channel and actively watching it.  If they are actively doing that then they can just as effectively give those responses in a Wiki format.  Please tell me why this instant back-and-forth that you just described can't happen on the present system?  (I'll tell you why - it's because there aren't people continually watching it - just as there won't be enough people continually watching the IRC line).  Look back through the last 24 hours.  How many different people actually answered questions on - say - the science desk?  The answer is 9 (well, 11 if you count two inane/useless answers) - so the Science desk is manned by about 10 people.  So do you really think there will be anything even close to 24 hour coverage on the IRC line?  Of course not...no chance with just 9 people.  And even if there were - what is the probability that the TWO people who were able to answer the question on 'Differential Gear' would have happened to be online when that question was asked?   The answer is that there might MAYBE be a 10% chance.  So in that - much more likely 90% scenario, the IRC situation is: UserA asks a question.  Nobody responds because (fairly likely) nobody is online right now - or (extremely likely) neither of the two people who could answer it effectively are online right now.   So UserA sits there for 10 minutes.  Nobody responds - or nobody responds usefully - or the usual background chatter that infects every IRC line simply streams on regardless.  They give up.  Maybe (although I think it's unlikely), a little later someone wakes up on IRC and sees the question sitting there and responds to it - but it's too late.  If by some chance UserA comes back later, then 30 minutes of the typical inane babble that fills IRC channels will likely have scrolled both question and answer off the top of the history.  Contrast that with the present scheme:  They ask a question - maybe they get an immediate answer - maybe they don't - but if they come back the next day, the answer is there with almost 100% certainty.  Because questions hang around for longer - there is a better chance that a bad answer will get fixed.  If someone asks on IRC and happens to get one of the handful of idiots we have here - they'll get a misleading answer or a funny answer - but not the right answer.  However, that's all they'll see and they'll either go away ill-informed or with a feeling that this service is junk.  Many answers require a considerable amount of research - again, IRC sucks for that because the questioner will long ago have gone away by the time I've gotten a good answer together.  It's a reference desk - not a 'phone a friend' feature for some quiz show.  It's a research desk for chrissakes - we're supposed to research the questions - not just come up with a flip off-the-cuff reply.  Finally - if you truly, deeply believe this is useful - you don't need Wikipedia in order to set up your service.  Find an IRC service (they are everywhere) - set it up and just do it.  The help desk in it's present form is a part of Wikipedia because it's run like Wikipedia - with persistant text, archiving, version control, traceability, vandal-blocking, editing, hyperlinks, multimedia, etc.  All of that goes away with IRC. SteveBaker 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't call peoples' proposals stupid. There has always been someone logged on to IRC desk, afaik. Perhaps they can't answer the question immediately themselves but there is also the opportuinity for colaborative research in real-time. I do not believe that users of the service so far have had flip off-the-cuff answers. IRC does allow for the things you said except multimedia- but how does that come up in an answer. Realisticly, users will be told that they may have to wait for an answer, if an answer is not forthcoming then we may help them research further. Nobody on the channel so far has had their question ignored, that I can guarantee. GDonato (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe calling it stupid wasn't nice, but I have to agree it's a rather half-baked idea.  IRC has a number of disadvantages, compared to the wiki, for providing reference desk functionality.  Before we go trying to send half the questioners off to some chat room, it's completely appropriate to look at possible advantages and disadvantages of the new medium.  The only advantage I can see is that if lots of back-and-forth is required, IRC makes this quicker and easier than the wiki.  This one little advantage is not nearly enough to offset the other various disadvantages, in my opinion.  Also, as Steve pointed out- you can go start up a reference desk chat room all on your own, no cooperation required from Wikipedia.  So let's keep separate things separate.  I see no need to link to some chat room from the "how to ask a question" page.   This page is about the Wikipedia reference desk, not any and every reference desk anyone in the world chooses to set up.  Friday (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages and disadvantages of IRC as a reference desk tool

message: See also Wikipedia talk:IRC channels for discussion of the usefulness of the reference desk channel.  Friday (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also