Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 16

message: Putting aside all the squabbling for a second, has anyone else noticed that  has been down since December 2nd and no one even noticed? --172.132.202.103 16:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to be getting a bit long, but that's only two days ago, not time to panic yet (when exactly is the proper time to panic, anyway ?). StuRat 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the longest any one desk has ever gotten was about 3500 KB or 3.5 MB, so anything short of that probably isn't going to break wikipedia, at least going on past experiences--172.147.216.150 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool, thanks. StuRat 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :D.  If it misses just one day, it would help hugely if you could tell me on my talk page, so I can run a job and start the bot up again, rather than waiting 'til I notice :) Martinp23 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. StuRat 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''{{User|RefDeskBot}}''' 

message: This edit is meta-comment about recent requests that LC keep his comments a bit more on topic.  We need to keep meta-discussion on the ref desk talk page, please—when put on the reference desk itself, it gets in the way. -- SCZenz 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats good for the goose....So why isnt other peoples off topic posting remarked upon-- only mine?--Light current 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it is because you do it most often, and because you tend to add comments that are both entirely off-topic and entirely without useful content.  This is something, it would appear, that various people would like you to work on.  By the way, I appreciate your choice to remove the remark I mentioned above. -- SCZenz 03:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would contend that non of my posts is entirely off topic. Its just that people may need to use a bit more lateral thinking to make the connection. There are many posts on WP that are entirely w/o useful content according to some. But I do not set myself to judge.8-)--Light current 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the phrase "chit chat" is hardly a serious disruption worthy of complaining about here. StuRat 05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it anyway. Its not worth making a big deal out of it. THanks for your concern. My point has been made 8-)--Light current 05:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I removed at least part of the comment your comment was commenting on.  I took your point to heart. -THB 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THanks I wasnt actually getting at you personally on the desk-- I just saw some chat and well... the rest is in the history 8-)--Light current 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I understood, but I am trying to improve my behavior. -THB 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you could reasonably ask for much more meta-discussion on this page at this hour than already exists! -THB 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I think that is generally correct.--Light current 16:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, unless 'psychological effects' include 'giving and listening to reasons', in which case the claim makes no substantive point. There's a difference between merely expressing disapproval, and also giving reasons for disapproval. Sam Clark 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. One comes after the other. First, chastisement. Then, correction. If a child defecated on your best Persian rug, would you first inform him that you do indeed have a toilet for such purposes, and then thrash him soundly? Not in my colony. :) Theavatar3 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ninety percent of all colonists live within 100 miles of the U.S. border, where we certainly do try to toilet-train children without thrashing them. -THB 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Not another fucking elf!' Theavatar3 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen SomethingAwful.com lately? --Shuttlebug 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off topic!! 8-))--Light current 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the pages being discussed there here.  Is that satire? It's quite effective if so.  I can't tell the difference. -THB 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows? Im past caring now!--Light current 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely brilliant parody.  -THB 06:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is, at bottom, mean-spirited. It hides it ever so well behind reasonableness, but at the end of the day, no one will be improved by going to SomethingAwful. At least the title is honest though. Theavatar3 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Posterity demands we provide a link --Tagishsimon (talk)
"This article is definitely not FA anymore and is going to lose its GA status soon. I have already revoked the suggestion for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0 after a lengthy discussion with the top inner-circle of wikipedia editors. Most of you refuse to respect the other editors who are more versed in the quality demands of wikipedia. Stop adding new sections to Thunder Straps, stop moving paragraphs around, proof read your work before adding it to the article. These are really horrid and, frankly, I'm disgusted beyond words by the whole mess this once-useful article has become. Wikidkid 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disrupting the reference desk to make a point 

message: ::Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen SomethingAwful.com lately? --Shuttlebug 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off topic!! 8-))--Light current 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the pages being discussed there here.  Is that satire? It's quite effective if so.  I can't tell the difference. -THB 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows? Im past caring now!--Light current 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely brilliant parody.  -THB 06:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is, at bottom, mean-spirited. It hides it ever so well behind reasonableness, but at the end of the day, no one will be improved by going to SomethingAwful. At least the title is honest though. Theavatar3 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Posterity demands we provide a link --Tagishsimon (talk)
"This article is definitely not FA anymore and is going to lose its GA status soon. I have already revoked the suggestion for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0 after a lengthy discussion with the top inner-circle of wikipedia editors. Most of you refuse to respect the other editors who are more versed in the quality demands of wikipedia. Stop adding new sections to Thunder Straps, stop moving paragraphs around, proof read your work before adding it to the article. These are really horrid and, frankly, I'm disgusted beyond words by the whole mess this once-useful article has become. Wikidkid 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something Awful

message: How do people even find the reference desk? I don't know how I found it but right now I have no idea how to get to it without typing WP:RD in the search box. --⁪frothT C 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it on the main page - linked at the very bottom. RDWarrior 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I initially found it when reading through the Discussion page for the Main Page. Some time later, I noticed there's a direct link halfway down the Main Page. It's not something that catches the eye, though. Theavatar3 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I found it through the Reference desk page while looking for the guide on references (footnotes). -THB 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a link to it from the Wikipedia help portal (Help:Contents) and Wikipedia questions portal ((Wikipedia:Questions), both linked to from the Main Page (just underneath "Welcome to Wikipedia" in the default skin). Also, the Help desk links to it from time to time. — QuantumEleven 12:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curious 

message: ::I blocked the acount, Friday unblocked, and I've reblocked again. I did not block for sockpuppetry - this was not the core issue, nor was it the principle to use to take action. The point has been made, and it's time to end the drama over it. If the account holder is as experienced as is consistent with their statements, it would be apparent why I have taken this position. During the block, I unchecked all the options, so that only the account name is banned - I did not want the underlying IP address to show up anywhere on Wikipedia, even implicitly.
::I have become utterly disappointed at how reference desk has evolved over time. This talk page has been the place where the best and worst of process has appeared - it has become a polarizing focal point, where principles on all sides are at stake. This situation is unacceptable, and it needs to be alleviated today.
::I cannot speak for everyone who frequents here, but this has been the silent voice that has not been heard: that there were things which were done here, which could have, and should have been done differently. This goes for all users, and I am deliberately not applying specifics, because in a sense, this is a collective failure that nobody has taken the responsibility to say that we need to do better, and we need to do it now.
::A number of times in the archives, I have mentioned that the problems on the reference desk are systemic, and it cannot be solved by a single Wikipedian - this simply is impossible, and those that have pressed for it here ultimately see that this is true. Leadership by example is what works best on a Wiki, because the technology was designed to facilitate asynchronous observation and collaboration.
::This cloud and rhetoric about what is an "appropriate" response, or whether "censorship" should take place is politicizing and obscuring the core issue of what this place is about - reciprocating questions and answers so that information becomes clear. The Wiki is not here to facilitate and enforce "proper" behaviour; no participant on Wikipedia comes to be lectured about how to behave. This is fundamentally not a babysitting service, and it will not work. Having said this, the Wiki is here to evaluate when things do not look professional nor measured - there is a public face to what we do here on this project, and this means that public consciousness needs to take more precedence over other priorities.
::I do not like the fact that there are so many hurt feelings lingering about - and I write this from the perspective of numerous e-mails I have received on this issue - so much so, that I have had to turn my e-mail preferences off temporarily. Things that need to be fixed on the Wiki, need to be done on the Wiki. I wish there was such a thing as a magic wand, one that I could wave and remove the negativity that has accumulated here. However, there is no such facility. Be gracious, and move on from the past - and for the sake of this project, do not hold on to this baggage either - it is simply unhealthy, and it does not bring out any good. As I have said multiple times, if we seek to look for what we want to find, we will find it. We are smart, intelligent, mature people who know what we need to do. Codifying how to do this precisely is deferring responsibility to act in present.
::To sum this up:
::* There were actions taken here which should have, and could have been done differently.
::* We need to move on from this now.
::* We each know what is being asked of us.
::Now, what is stopping any of us to be a good Wikipedian? I will leave it at that. --HappyCamper 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said, HappyCamper. I completely agree. I'm also dismayed at the polarisation of "reference desk regulars" (as if having a comment to make on every question somehow confers "ownership" of the desk, over those that chime in only when they have something useful to say) and "deletionists". As it stands, the two groups appear to me to more interested in furthering their position by making WP:POINTs. I know there are plenty of individuals, like me, who believe a little more self-policing is required - from everyone - to make this place a pleasant and informative place to be. Isn't that the Wikipidia way? Lets move on, as at the moment it is, quite frankly, boring. Rockpocket 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it is that each side is desperately trying to make as many concessions to the other as possible.. a strange situation but it seems healthy so far --⁪frothT C 06:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly are you proposing? --⁪frothT C 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This has to stop 

message: If a question could be answered by an article but isn't, consider fixing the article so it's more understandable and then referring the questioner to it.  This puts the effort where it counts for the most- in the encyclopedia content.  This will do more good for the project over the long run than putting your time into making an answer just for this page- that'll get archived soon and won't do any lasting good.  Friday (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason you can't do both.  That is, answer the question as quickly and thoroughly as possible on the Ref Desk, then copy that answer, with suitable reformatting, to the article in question. StuRat 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, as long as it isn't to specific(such as some of my questions about javascript ect. ect.)... Xiaden 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  Many questions like "what was JFK doing the day before he was assassinated", while valid and deserving of an answer, may not meet notability requirements of otherwise deserve a permanent entry in Wikipedia article. StuRat 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday's suggestion is already followed to some extent. Wikipedia articles are far from perfect, so if a misleading or incomplete section can be improved as a result of the research here, it is a win-win. But many questions are "how-to" which the articles are for some reason supposed to avoid. A question about what hacksaw blade could cut up a steel framed sofa so it would fit in the elevator comes to mind as an instance of "too specific how to." But info from the answer would improve Hacksaw, which does not note the referenced guidelines cited in the answer for teeth per inch versus thickness of metal. Edison 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I cut the sofa frame into halves and then quarters and it's been out of my (small) apartment for a couple of weeks (after sitting there for at least a year) and I'd like to thank everyone for their help and opinions on that matter. -THB 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My greatest dread is that we leave out some idiotic safety suggestion like "wear eye protection," or "make sure a responsible adult supervises" and someone puts out an eye, severs an artery, or burns down the house." Edison 05:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good, I'm glad we could help. StuRat 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked what happens in the Real World of in-person or online reference desk librarians. In both cases, they have a card file for frequent questions, such as "What is the total number of human beings who have ever lived," and they use the file to answer recurring questions. The online RLRDLs also have templates to use when trolls ask inappropriate questions, and in extreme cases (such as harrassment) they have policies for tracking down the individual user and getting sanctions applied. RLRDLs have policies of answering questions within a set timeframe, such as 24 hours, and do some followup surveying to make sure the question was answered satisfactorily. They also ask followup questions to determine the age and sophistication of the questioner, and to better define the question. Edison 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for re-use of help answers 

message: Per the request to keep meta-comments here and not on the project page, why is the long thread about a farmer storing peanuts in the forest (Peanuts, Dec. 5, Miscellaneous ) still on the main page? It smacks of masks and seagulls. I was not aware of the rule about no meta-comments on the project page at the time I questioned there the presence of the thread. Edison 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which rule is this? --HappyCamper 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Because some people believe that removing a troll's questions is ineffective, as it was in this case, which was a repost of a "questin" that was "rubbed out" that was ostensibly posted by.....a squirrel.  Yes, the whole thing was totally humorous, including the two spellings of "forest" as "forast" and "forsest".  Who posted the questions?  I have no idea.  Some people couldn't even see that it was not a serious situation.  Is this harmful to the reference desk?  I don't believe so. At this point, however, I'm not sure if I should even comment on things like this because I really don't want to upset anyone. -THB 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I "assumed good faith", treated it as a serious question, and responded accordingly. StuRat 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless you're a religious person, then a scientist is a troll. It's irrelevant in this situation, it was obviously trolling to post a silly question by a squirrel, nothing to do with heresy of any sort. Juvenile, non-disruptive trolling, but trolling nonetheless. -THB 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peanuts

message: :Some of this is instruction creep.  Also, you're seriously misrepresenting the "deletionists" you keep talking about.  Who's suggesting that anyone can delete anything for any reason? If you really think that's what people are suggesting, it's no wonder you disagree so strongly.  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I don't see why we need some formal process like this.  How about we use our best judgment, and discuss specific cases on the talk page if there's disagreement?  Friday (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday, this isn't a call for explicit codification, just a quick way to get some agreement to move things along. There hasn't been agreement on this desk for the past 8 months! --HappyCamper 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is the very core of all the trouble at the Ref Desk, a fundamental disagreement on the process for deleting both questions and answers.  As such, I feel that any solution will require us to reach a consensus on the process to be used.  Just saying "Standard Wikipedia rules apply" is too vague, there are many contradictory rules, so how are we to decide which rules apply here, if not by consensus ? StuRat 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  Here's my opinion on this:  The reference desk is part of Wikipedia.  It is meant to be a useful resource to help people find the information they're looking for.  If questions lead us to realize there's a deficiency in an article, and we can improve it- so much the better.  The reference desk is meant to be primarily informative, not social.  Excessive chatting is discouraged.  Off-topic content can be removed at the discretion of an editor, but we should take a light hand in doing so.  As for reverts- we should follow standard practice here.  If someone makes an edit and you feel strongly enough that it's unhelpful as to want to revert it, do so, but do not do this lightly.  If someone disagrees, let's discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring.  It is usually bad form to redo an edit someone else has undone- this is in contrast to "b" above.  Users who regularly act in a way contrary to the goals of the reference desk will probably find people on their talk pages asking them to change their approach.  The above are things I expect there should be wide agreement on.  The other opinion I have, which may be more controversial, is my belief that original research does not belong on the reference desk any more than it belongs in other part of Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the rub:  Friday's opinion is fundamentally different. -THB 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discounting the OR bit, where?  I've tried to stick to opinions about the RD that come solely from an understanding of the goals, culture, and policies of Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, many editors here disagree with your interpretation of the implementation of those goals, culture, and policies at the RD, and we aren't just ignorant newbies, so there are multiple valid ways to read such things.  This is why we need a consensus, as opposed to having each of us going off on our own interpretation and unilaterally doing things (this is what has caused all the recent trouble here). StuRat 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me what you disagree with in the above, and why.  As I've said- I've tried to just talk about fundamentals- there should be wide agreement on these issues, and if there's not, I want to know why.  Friday (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for one it leads to, as stu said, unilateral action. Some anon ip removed a very valid reply of sturat's earlier today and the only reason I caught it was because I was perusing the history (which is something that not a lot of RD contributors do). I'd rather see one of these epic, megabyte-sized arguments over a reponse than see it quietly deleted and lost. --⁪frothT C 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  BTW, which of my contributions was deleted anonymously?  Did you restore it ?  StuRat 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is why we need to hear the opinions of others, and determine which opinion the consensus says we should follow. StuRat 19:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to avoid getting into the whole discussion of what is appropriate at the Ref Desk, and limit this discussion solely to the process for removing something once we find it to be inappropriate.  This is something we should actually be able to agree on, with a bit of compromise. StuRat 19:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things that are inappropriate may be candidates for removal, so I don't see that there's a way to seperate the two issues.  You seem to be wanting to vote on what's appropriate, and that's not how we do things here.  Friday (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Establishing a process acceptable to all would allow for the determination of whether the material is appropriate for removal.  Deleting things on sight is one person deciding for all what is appropriate.  That's what people are upset about.  -THB 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (Go back and read at the top of the page the "I feel this comment is inappropriate" section.) -THB 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this process for deletions could be used whatever the criteria for deletion are.  For example, if we decide that any post containing the word "bagel" is a candidate for removal, then this process can be used for that. StuRat 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure you understand how things work here.  Even if you get consensus that posts with "bagel" can be removed, this is not valid.  Wikipedia is not a democracy- we have certain fundamental policies that consensus cannot override.  Friday (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is governed by consensus, both in the interpretation/application of the rules and in the definition of the rules, themselves.  So, I disagree that there are some rules "written in stone" that we are forced to follow. StuRat 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV is non-negotiable per Jimbo. -THB 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also IIRC is the rest of that "holy trinity" of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR. I can't find the link on meta that calls it that exactly but i believe those are the three. Anyway it's irrelevant to this topic --⁪frothT C 07:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Where are those fundamental policies so I may review them? -THB 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday, yes, that's true, but the entire politics around that is not what is needed now. Something needs to be stated that so that there is a sense of security and stability. The ambiguity in that sort of unilateralism isn't what needs emphasis at the moment. Well, to answer THB, maybe Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, might be something, but then again, see also Wikipedia:Follow all rules. --HappyCamper 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, a perfect example of how the rules contradict one another, and we must decide which to apply to the RD. StuRat 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally I got someone to laugh around here. Now, we can get to work. :-) Stu and THB, let's try a little modest proposal ourselves, hm? The key is to see through the gossamer of rhetoric along that entire spectrum of thought. I'm going to risk leaving this talk page now, because I have one of those Wikipedian feelings that the problem knows how to fix itself already. --HappyCamper 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The're not really contradictory- IAR says that if the rules prevent you from improving wikipedia, then ignore them. FAR says that the rules are beneficial to wikipedia so you rarely if ever have to worry about IAR. I'm not a big fan of IAR, however the RD definately seems to me like one of those cases where a lot of stuff just has got to slide --⁪frothT C 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Other good ones are WP:ENC and WP:5P.  Happycamper, I agree- this isn't the place to discuss esoteric aspects of Wikipedia policy, but I felt there are still some fundamental misunderstandings that are getting in the way.  Wanting to have an exact, rigid process to follow is fundamentally misguided, and I don't feel any meaningful discussion of the issue can happen without pointing this out.  This is why I suggested people get more experience with the project and come to their own understanding- the policy that is written is not the true policy.  Friday (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And mine was August, 2005.  I've also had experience writing articles, editing existing articles, reverting vandalism, and even working over at WikiNews, with some 15,000 edits in total (not all of them puns).  So, we certainly all have enough collective experience here to "understand the wiki process". StuRat 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used wikipedia as early as 2003, but this account was registered sometime in 2005 to be associated with my nintendo forums account at the time. Not as many edits as others, but I like to think that they're generally good quality :) Not to mention that i have almost no edits in the mainspace, where quick 1-character edits rack up oh so fast --⁪frothT C 07:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Froth! Just because most of my edits are useless doesn't mean they all are!!!!-THB 21:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You lucky duck, I wish I've edited the encyclopedia more. I admit that I just don't have much of a heart for it- the RD and various WP infrastructures are far more interesting to me --⁪frothT C 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The inverse of the above is that chastisements, removals, and blocks are like "fines", so should be used sparingly.  If these fines exceed the "payments", then working the Ref Desk becomes a net negative, and we all leave. StuRat 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone can make their own choices about whether to edit or not. -- SCZenz 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with sczenz, we should make policy to get things right, not to pander to the editors (no matter how noble our work may be =) ) --⁪frothT C 08:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "customers" (question askers) and "employees" (Ref Desk volunteers) concerns should both be taken equally, neither should be ignored. StuRat 10:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we follow policies and guidelines everything should just work- IMO that's the idea behind Wikipedia:Follow all rules. I'm not so much concerned about the human aspect of the problem as I am about finding a reasonable application of the rules to the reference desk --⁪frothT C 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fie  to Luddites and authoritarians who seek to destroy the RD through Wikilawyering and penalties for good-faith efforts to answer questions. Edison 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref Desk volunteers fined in chastisements, removals, and blocks

message: At some point in the dim and distant past some wikipedians must have decided that a 'library type' reference desk would be a good idea. THey would then have discussed it interminably putting arguments for against and sideways and sometimes tangentially or orthogonally (my favorite word), and finally, after a few years of bitter wrangling and beating about the bush started one. 
Now, During these discussions, did any arguments as to the purpose of the RDs surface? I wasnt here so I dont know. I assume though that the consensis at the time was that it was a good idea. Has that consensus changed and if so, can a new consensus agree to dispense with the RDs. 
I have elsewhere given my reasons in favor of keeping the RDs. (as a QC check on the articles). 
The similarity of the RDs with a real library, are of course, minimal:
*Desks in libraries know their books are ok (theye been published by reputable forms etc). All our stuff is suspect.
*Libraries employ proessional librarians or information people to help; we use anyone who happens to be passing and volunteers
*Libraries pay their staff.
*Libraries are not encyclopedias.
*Library staff get respect from the users (usually) RD volunteers get quite a lot of abuse and cricisism
*Library staff do not go and get the book for you, open it, and start reading the contents to you like a bedtime story (you have to pay extra for that--- not a joke with any sexual or other implied meaning whatsoever!!). Yet this very thing is what we as RD staff are being asked to do more and more rather than merely referring a reader to the shelf on which his information may be found.
People here (WP) need to decide on the purpose of the RD and whilst they are deciding (which could take another copuple of years), we should go back to the original aims, which were....?? When the original aims have been rediscoverd, a simple set of guidelins for behaviour should be drawn up for editors and questioners alike as I have said and initialed about three times now, only to be interrupted by others (usually admins) who want no rules.
--Light current 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I never really took that idea seriously, and it seems like few other people did --⁪frothT C 08:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins and purpose of RD 

message: I firmly believe that any question or comment posted by a user that can be answered in a way that increases the user's knowledge should be answered. Even trolling questions, like some we've had about race, can be a vehicle for learning. -THB 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think people who come here to troll want to learn?  This is.. surprising to me.  I'd suggest not wasting our time on trolls. Friday (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm generally not a deletionist, but the problem with trollish questions is a) when they're answered, the questioner frequently digs deeper with more (and worse) trollish questions (perhaps because of the encouragement), and b) they become a magnet for trollish answers. If every question, no matter how ignorant, stupid, or bad-faith, was answered factually, and not answered in the spirit in which it was asked, I wouldn't have a problem with any trollish questions. But unfortunately that doesn't happen very often. Anchoress 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anchoress, fortunately, that's not *usually* the case on the RD.  In fact, most questioners don't even seem to come back to get their answers-THB 22:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that most questioners don't even come back for their answers, but it's been my observation that the worst trolls post serially, and their contributions degenerate. And so do the answers. Anchoress 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Friday, you don't have to waste your time helping trolls learn.  It's volunteer.  -THB 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feeding the trolls hurts us all. Friday (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To look at the flip side: does any one think that trolls can in some cases actually contribute something positve to WP. THis is a serious Q not a troll. THe implied Q is of course: who and why are the trolls? --Light current 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should find a way to harness their energy! Like, build an anger cage that traps it all and converts it into electricity. Then we'd have a party or something. Hopefully I answered that question well. 64.90.198.6 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to believe that most people don't come back for answers to their questions.  What most people don't do is leave any evidence they've checked back, such as a query or an acknowledgement. JackofOz 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought thats what the RDs were!--Light current 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And if you answer one question, and they ask a more offensive follow-up? -- SCZenz 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there is a point where things should be deleted.  I've done it myself.  Offhand I can't recall a troll digging a hole deeper and deeper the more we've poured water into it. -THB 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A troll is very difficult to detect on the first Q. Ive been mistaken myself a few times. The follow up Q usually gives more of an indication, whilst the third Q usually confirms it. At that point (and at that point only) ALL postings and answers to the troll should be deleted. Thats my view anyway! 8-)--Light current 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are specific guidelines somewhere on Wikipedia, maybe even a policy, that says WP:AGF trumps WP:DFTT. -THB 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: LC, I am shocked that you've been mistaken for a Troll!!!! You didn't get blocked or anything, did you??? ;-) -THB 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive been called one a few times. Thats because I say things that others disagree with or becuase I sometimes make a merry quip on the RDs.--Light current 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes! Good observation!--Light current 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What kinds of questions are allowed on the Reference Desk?

message: Anyone think maybe Wikipedia:Reference desk/purpose or something similiar could be used for a specific statement about the purpose of the RD?  If we kept it strictly to things that were generally agreed upon, maybe having such a thing could prevent a similiar conversation from coming up again in a year's time.  Friday (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea!--Light current 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a tiny little start, just using content that was already on the RD pages, so there shouldn't be anything there that anyone disagrees with. Friday (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW Is it a talk page or a project page? ie can we post to it?--Light current 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Friday's saying it's for consensus statements only. -THB 02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'm suggesting this- I have no magical right to dictate.) Friday (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that seems obvious but it isn't to some. -THB 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (ec) It's in project space, and it has a talk page of course.  I hope other people edit it, otherwise I'm just talking to myself.  However I suggest that to avoid conflict, we should only put things in that page that we think there's general agreement on.  Let's move slowly here, maybe we'll get some useful result.  Friday (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second half of the last sentence is missing "if possible" somewhere in there. -THB 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it if you like- but I was just using language that already was written.  To me, "should" covers "if possible"- there's a difference between "should" and "must". Friday (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a Wikipedia project page, whose content is governed by the wiki process.  That means that you can put anything you want there, or remove anything you want, but that it's probably best to limit things to consensus statements to avoid edit wars. -- SCZenz 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No lets say 'hopefully' or by the 'Grace of God' or something--Light current 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus was that the page was for consensus. -THB 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So lets get hammering it out on its talk page!--Light current 02:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, even after taking a couple of hours to go out to eat, I'm exhausted! -THB 02:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well have a little rest, a few beers etc. watch a bit of TV, get some sleep. Then we'll see you back!--Light current 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It means it's a non-article page whose purpose is to serve the project, or technically simply that the name begins with "Wikipedia:".  I'm not sure declaring the ref desk a talk page is really the right approach; it really doesn't fit with existing definitions. -- SCZenz 08:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page in itself Wikipedia:Reference desk/purpose is instruction creep. This is just another way to sanction ambiguous actions taken here. It fundamentally does not solve the problem. Why are we not listening? --HappyCamper 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're mostly trying our best.  Can you be more clear about what your suggestion is? Friday (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I pointed out at that /purpose talk page and somewhere else on this page, the RD shares a common purpose with WP (to make information more available) but shouldn't have to serve it. I guess everyone likes to think that their project is an exception to the definition but this really does seem like a valid case. --⁪frothT C 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpage? 

message: After discussion with SCzenz I think I figured something out. I am going to try to make these my final words. Feel free to use any of my comments anywhere you like. Part of the problem seems to be a disagreement in what the RD should look like; should it look like article-space or community-space. Some might think it is unprofessional that it looks like community-space since it might be the first place a newcomer spends time or posts. Community space is often characterized by the lighthearted irreverance that pervades the entire project outside of article-space and I can point at many many policies and advices that are written in a lighthearted irreverent vein ex. WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:SNOW, many more. This question of the nature of the RD is the elephant in the room here. I think we all agree that abuse of the RD is inappropriate. But we talk about that as if that were the dispute. I think the real dispute is article-space or community space? I think it is community-space. Other might think it should more resemble article-space. I think if someone is trying to make the RD all serious looking, if they are trying to make the RD look like article-space rather than community-space, then I think they are fighting a losing battle.The best it will be is effective. I think we all agree that actions which seriously reduce its effectiveness are inappropriate. --Justanother 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't thought of it that way.  Why are you bowing out of the dialogue? -THB 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have other fish to fry and have said everything I have to say including my opinion on this "meta" topic. I will try to contribute if I have more to say later. --Justanother 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, when somebody looks something up in an encylopaedia, there's no conversation.  When someone asks a question at a reference desk, there's a conversation.  I think responses are usually tailored to the questioner, to the age, tone, nature of the question, although once I did accuse a 60-something year old woman of asking a homework question. -THB 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes I remember that one 8-)  We all make mistkes! Oops--Light current 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that too. Usually I just answer homework questions anyway, or at least provide perhaps too-useful links. Sorry! --⁪frothT C 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a page for the general public, not specifically for Wikipedians—or rather, a place where the former come to the latter for help.  And it's linked from the main page.  Ergo it is public space, although not an article, much as the main page itself is.   Disagreements on this may be the core of the issue... but I don't know what arguments exist that justify calling it "community-space"... or for that matter, what is community space, and what are other examples? -- SCZenz 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a very important point here- this needs to be more public-friendly than project space typically is, due to its nature as the reference desk- we all need to understand this well. Friday (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Mm yes very good point. It's definately not article space but it's not community space either. It's a delicate balance to strike. --⁪frothT C 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's clear from convention, usage, and (obviously) naming that the RD is project space, not article space.  I've not heard of anythign called "community space" so I assume you mean project space. However we should keep in mind that the general expectation in project space is that you're discussing some aspect of the project, not just chatting.  I don't think people are objecting to any and all humor- saying that we need some standards at the RD is not saying we need to be ultra-strict. Friday (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By its very nature, it's a place where people interact, asking and answering questions. -THB 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Its community space. --Light current 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No we've just invented a new space: Community space: like the foyer of the library where everyone mixes and chats.
--Light current 02:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is an issue. The terms "community-space" and "article-space" are mine. I think we all know what they mean. See Wikipedia:Community Portal link right off the main navigation box on the left - the RD is there. Also see WP:NOT for the distinct difference in rules applicable to the two "spaces". --Justanother 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual spaces that people agree exist are discussed at Wikipedia:Namespace.   The spaces listed there will have an agreed-upon meaning.  Newly-made-up ones will not.   Friday (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, REAL DISPUTE: Article Namespace vs. Project Namespace. Take a look then, it is project namespace (starts with "Wikipedia" prefix). So let's stop talking semantics and discuss what this aspect of the project namespace should look like. I think it should look like most other parts of project namespace, irreverent but effective. Others may think it should look like article namespace, encyclopedic. I think my view is more defensible since it is, after all, project namespace, not article namespace. --Justanother 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly cannnot be considered encyclopedic!--Light current 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The important distinction from other project pages, as pointed out above, is that the RD by its nature needs to be more friendly and accessable to new users or the general public.  I've added language to this effect to the purpose subpage. Friday (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks more like portal namespace to me: "meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia, and should promote content and encourage contribution", though which wiki prefix the desk is under should not matter all that much. Maybe "promote content" should go as the #1 item on Friday's purpose subpage?EricR 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be onto something- I think the RD predates portals?  If it's really more like a portal, maybe it should move.  Friday (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Portal namspace for the entire project? I don't think so. "Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas." We have a portal: Wikipedia:Reference desk but the real question is what should the RDs "look like"; informal forum for asking and answering questions or formal forum for asking and answering questions. If the latter, we may want to consider making it entirely moderated. All questions and answers submitted to a moderator that will vet them, edit them, and post them. Cause it is either that or keep it very light on the delete key, IMO. --Justanother 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, but talk pages have well-defined topics that they stick to, right? -- SCZenz 08:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article talk page is limited to discussion of the subject of that article.  The subject of the Ref Desk is the sum of all human knowledge, however, so talk only needs to be limited to that. StuRat 08:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A page whose only limitations are to discuss "the sum of all human knowledge" is a discussion forum.  Wikipedia does not host discussion forums. -- SCZenz 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes a page a discussion forum is not so much the topic as the method of discussion.  For example, if I have a 3-legged cat, it's not appropriate for me to just announce that and list some pics so everybody can see.  However, if a question was asked about 3-legged cats ("is it safe to let my 3-legged cat outside ?"), then, an answer in the form of "yes, I let mine out all the time, and it's done fine for 10 years now" is appropriate. StuRat 10:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that last sentence sounds right. -THB 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. StuRat 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "real" dispute? 

message: As there is considerable disagreement on which Wikipedia policies apply to the Ref Desk, and which do not, I feel we need to build a consensus, then write up the interpretation of those Wikipedia rules, as they apply to the RD, on a Ref Desk Policy Page.  While there is a minority that feels no consensus is needed, and they may act alone based on their own interpretation of the rules, I feel the majority believes that consensus is needed.  The problem we've had in building a consensus is that, as an issue is brought up, it's discussed, but we never "decide" anything, we just go on to debate the next issue.  Instead, we need to take the issues on one at a time, build a consensus (and yes, that means saying we support or oppose each specific proposal), then document that consensus on a Ref Desk Policy Page, then move on to the next issue under dispute.  As a first step, we need to identify the Ref Desk policy issues under dispute.  StuRat 08:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan, insofar as the decisions made are consistent with Wikipedia policy. It wouldn't have been my first choice—you're proposing a very bureaucratic procedure—but if a discussion of issues one at a time helps people figure this out, then so be it.  Except that I don't really think a "support"/"oppose" structure is consistent with making good decisions or even helpful for determining consensus; I'd propose instead that we discuss until we have some sort of agreement. -- SCZenz 08:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply don't understand how you can ever form a consensus (or know what the consensus is) by viewing pages of discussions, with various opinions offered (except, perhaps, on easy issues, where 90% of the opinion is in one direction).  How could that ever lead to a uniform set of rules if you never actually ask people specifically if they support or oppose those rules ?  StuRat 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It happens all over Wikipedia, all the time.  One way would be to work on the purpose we could collectively use the wiki process to edit Wikipedia:Reference desk/purpose until we reached wording we all liked.  Then, with an agreed-upon purpose in mind, we could perhaps make other pages to tackle other issues. -- SCZenz 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe Wikipedia encourages people to edit policy pages until after a consensus has been reached, to avoid constant rule changes and edit wars. StuRat 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia encourages to be bold, but not reckless.  That means you can edit pages without pre-established consensus, but that you shouldn't push things too hard or you'll just get reverted.  Sometimes people do edit policy pages out of the blow, and this sometimes results in much changing-and-changing-back with simltaneous discussion; the result, sometimes at least, is that eventually someone introduces a compromise wording that everyone can accept.  That is the wiki process. -- SCZenz 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference that says it's OK to directly change a policy page without consensus ?  I don't think you're right, there. StuRat 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a movement towards stricter regulation of policy pages of late, as for example is reflected in the current wording of :Template:Policy, but it remains the case that edits are made and reverted on policy pages all the time.  It's certainly okay to change a policy page without a straw poll, if you believe it reflects consensus, and there are some users who still follow the school of thought that a bold edit to a page is an important starting point for discussion.  In any case, it is a foundation issue that the wiki process is (with few exceptions) the final arbiter of content.  Besides, Wikipedia:Reference desk/purpose is hardly a major policy page; it's just a useful page to edit and come up with something we can agree on. -- SCZenz 09:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. When does a draft policy page become a real active policy TITQ 8-(--Light current 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a wide variety of editors have looked at it, and there's consensus on its talk page. -- SCZenz 09:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that we need to build a consensus on what the RD function is an which policies should apply. Discussion is fine , but at some point, decisions need to be made 8-|--Light current 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Certain behaviors that have occurred are simply not acceptable to the majority of editors and consensus has to be reached on their acceptability. -THB 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do people agree or disagree, that the starting point for the RD "rules" should be our standard Wikipedia rules?  If we can agree to start there, this would save lots of time.  Friday (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PS.  SCZenz is right- Wikipedia:Reference desk/purpose is meant to be edited.  This is a page that was started yesterday, people- it's not like it has years of discussion already put into it.   I've not worried about slapping a policy or guideline tag or anything on it- it's too immature right now.  If it turns into something useful, we can label it later.  But first it needs to turn into something useful. Friday (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I don't think friday would confuse the pages of RD talk comments for consensus on /Purpose. --⁪frothT C 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process to clarify the Ref Desk rules 

message: Naturally nothing must interfere with Rds or cause disruption there. Its the defn of interference with operation that is difficult. For instance, from our page:
Disruption is the art of asking better questions, challenging conventional wisdom and overturning assumptions and prejudices that get in the way of imagining new possibilities and visionary ideas.
 --Light current 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're kind of muddying the waters here... Surely we can all agree that things which interfere with the purpose of the reference desk (whatever that is, exactly) are to be avoided? -- SCZenz 09:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was just looking for a definition of this commonly used term on WP. I was surprised to find that one.--Light current 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, until we have defined the purpose of the RDS I dont see how we can agree on what interferes with that purpose 8-)--Light current 09:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, that should be given a higher priority. StuRat 09:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, we don't all agree that "avoiding disruption" is a justification for ignoring the consensus and deleting anything we personally find to be "disruptive".  For example, since we agree that non-prurient sexual questions are allowed, no editor is permitted to decide that such questions are disruptive and then delete them, unilaterally.  For example, if the question was "what is the average age of onset of menstruation in Norwegian women", nobody can decide to delete that because such talk offends them. StuRat 09:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're generally correct, yes—I don't propose to remove questions unless they constitute clear trolling.  But we're getting ahead of ourselves in any case.  All I was saying (in response to LC's somewhat counterintuitive definition of "disruption") was that we can agree that things that interfere with the purpose of the desk ought to be avoided; if we're going ahead with your point-by-point discussion idea, we can get to what to do about such interference at a later step. -- SCZenz 09:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not my definition at all. Its from our page. I dont know if its someone trying to disrupt that page, or a proper defn . It looks like interference with the page so Ive disrupted (erased) it 8-(--Light current 09:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to identify categories of behavior which constitute disruption, and write rules against them, once a consensus exists that such behavior is disruption, and disruption worthy of removal.  Otherwise, there is bound to be disagreement over what is disruptive and what is not.  After all, without such rules, every user will follow their own definition, with some thinking any humor is disruptive, some thinking any opinions are disruptive, and others thinking any facts they disagree with are disruptive.  We can't just say "if you find something disruptive, then ignore all the rules and delete it", or we will end up with no rules at all, once again. StuRat 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Light current, towards the bottom of your list I think I'm guilty but with no intent of criminal behavior.  Disruption must have ill intent.  -THB 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah lots of people do this without thinking, but it reall does make the page hard top read and some comments are effectively buried, or atleast overshadowed by others.--Light current 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Because one persons view of disruption is not necessarily the same as others views.--Light current 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Light current was accused of disruption to make a point for making a post that said "chit chat" or something similar.  He was making a point but that was hardly disruptive.  The outcome of this whole discussion won't necessarily be rules or policies but obviously some discussion and consensus is needed.  -THB 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No amount of rule-making can replace human judgment about what is or is not disruption.  This is why, when cases come up, we discuss them.  Making rules for everything ahead of time is not how Wikipedia works. Friday (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your judgment was sound, we might trust you to decide for yourself what disruption is.  However, you have demonstrated a singular lack of judgment that means we no longer trust you to decide what constitutes disruption.  I suggest you read WP:DIS, and listen to what they say.  Almost nothing which you call disruption actually qualifies.  StuRat 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Must agree with StuRat, Friday.  I know you mean well.  It is possible to have "good sense" (thanks Clio) about some things but not others.  Strengths and weaknesses, we all have them. -THB 05:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with StuRat, Friday, as to your sense of disruption not tracking 100 % with mine. Edison 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with the idea that, if one person finds something offensive, then it is.  There are people who would find any talk about sex to be offensive, others who find any discussion of evolution offensive, etc.  Therefore, we can't let one individual dictate what is and is not offensive, this should be decided by consensus. StuRat 13:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with that. The ref desk isn't about freedom of speech, it's about answering questions. And if off-topic contributions offend people, even one person, then it's detracting from the quality of the ref desk. People shouldn't have to be offended by off-topic comments on a helpdesk. Even on LOTS of public bulletin boards, like IMDB, Yahoo answers, etc, contributions are deleted if they are offensive. Why would you want to have off-topic contributions up on the ref desk that offend people? That's the fundamental thing I don't understand. Is your freedom of expression in this particular way, on this particular board, so important to you that you don't care if it turns other people off reading or contributing? Or makes people uncomfortable? Anchoress 13:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Science answer about a fossil being 65 million years old may horribly offend a fundamentalist Christian who believes with all his heart that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. A discussion about the age of Mohammed's youngest wife, or the number of wives of Brigham Young, or the scientific truth of "clearing" may horribly offend Muslims, Mormons, or Scientologists. Discussion about the tenderest cuts of beef and how to cook them may offend vegans and Hindus. Discussion of the rights of Palestinians may offend Israelis. Discussions of 9/11 conspiracy theories or the problems of the Bush Iraq policies may offend supporters of the administration. What is offensive to one may be on-topic and encyclopedic to another. No one should get a veto because a question asked and answered from reliable sources offends them, if it is otherwise in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Edison 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put, Edison. StuRat 10:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Were you responding to me? Because none of the examples you gave would fit under my personal suggestion/assertion. Anchoress 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a good answer to this issue IMO at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/purpose#.22must_offend_most_viewers_to_be_inappropriate.22.  Friday (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disruption" 

message: I dip into this page from time to time to see how matters stand.  Well, it grows; my goodness how it grows.  
I was trying to think of the most appropriate way of illustrating how I feel about coming here, and I imagined myself as a young subaltern who has been reassigned from the front line trenches, where a great offensive is in progress, back towards general staff headquarters, a comfortable French chateau, several miles to the rear.  The guns are now no more than a distant grumble.  Inside, the senior officers are arguing over maps, tactics and points of strategy, that bear no relationship at all to what is happening some distance to the north.  Much of the discussion here, safe behind the lines, seems to proceed in the same fashion, argument about argument, theory about theory and rules about rules.  Meanwhile, the RD proceeds with the offensive, ignorant of the debate.  The point is there are seem to be two quite separate worlds, which some manage to cross, and others hardly at all.  Despite the alleged faults the RD works, not in the same fashion as the desk at a library, which it can never do, for the simple reason that the talents and levels of competence of those who choose to participate vary too widely.  It works rather like a Roman forum, where information is sought, given and exchanged; and it works in a reasonably effective manner.  There is no need for more lists, and rules, and guides, and codes of conduct, which few, if any, will ever read.  Quite frankly, I myself ignore some of the existing guidelines. I will always answer questions where I feel able, and I will never hit people over the head with 'do your own homework', which I am glad to see is appearing less and less as a response.  Even the fullest answer I give will only ever be a sketch, a guide to greater research, which would not serve on its own as a completed assignment.  I come back to a point I've made before: all that is really needed here is good sense, good faith and a reasonable level of knowledge, maturity and insight.  Answer, where answer you can, and ignore the rest.  I have no problems at all with debate and exchange which may arise from a question, where this is pertinent to the point under consideration.  Dialectics, properly constructed, are, after all, the very basis of wisdom.  I also have no problems with administrators removing offensive and impertinent remarks.  I do not wish to be part of a 'gang' or a 'cabal', and I am also happy to see that this dimension, all too evident in the not so distant past, is also beginning to disappear.  I have only one rule, the only one that is worth following, and the only one that I will ever obey: act always with sincerity.  
Well, what have I achieved by setting all of this down? Probably nothing at all, other than making this page even longer than it was when I set out on this brief journey.  Well, on you go, guys; more rules about rules, pages about pages. World without end. Amen  Clio the Muse 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I generally agree with the above, I don't agree that "common good sense" is all that's needed, because "common good sense" can lead reasonable people in quite different, and contradictory, directions.  After all, that "slaves are inferior and meant by God to serve their masters" was once "common good sense", at least to some.  We do need to decide on what rules we should live by, to supplement "common good sense", but not replace it. StuRat 09:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have the goodness to read over again what I have written.  I used the term 'good sense', a quite different and much rarer quality.  Common sense is all too often common nonsense, something I would never commend.  Clio the Muse 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed my post accordingly, but my opinion remain the same, only the terminology has changed. StuRat 10:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My own sentiments are basically with you on this one, Clio. I would prefer having no rules beyond WP:CIVIL, WP:AFG, and WP:BITE, and I would prefer having no process enforcers patrolling the pages. But Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) care about my preferences. The reality is that different understandings on what the RD should or could be exist in the community's multiple heads, and these differences have led to heated and not always rational discussions and actions in the recent past. Though I appreciated your trenches-vs-staff-HQ simile, I don't believe it's entirely accurate. Some of the anger and frustration has slopped over to the reference desk pages as well. I have now come to believe that the RD itself can benefit from a participatory rational discourse and a getting-to-yes approach regarding its purpose and rules (as much as I hate typing this).---Sluzzelin 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK that slopping-over was an isolated incident. Anyway I think he's talking about whether some policy makers actually contribute to the RD. SCZenz has a couple hundred edits at the science desk. Friday has less than 20 but FWIW he said he's trying to get involved. The "ref desk regulars" of course by definition have hundreds (or thousands in LC and stu's cases) of edits on the RD. --⁪frothT C 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was just one isolated incident, Froth. There was a sock puppet qualifying other editors' answers, there were several comments at various RD pages alluding to the whole discussion on deleting posts, blocking editors, and guideline ambiguity, and, lately, the atmosphere has become frosty at times. ---Sluzzelin 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent. -THB 14:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be common sense that the earth was flat and that the sun and stars revolved around it, (didnt it?)--Light current 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly you have either not read or, more likely, you have not understood what I have written above.  I did not use the expression 'common sense'.  Do try to slow down and think a little more rationally.  And I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain the difference between 'common sense' and 'good sense' to those who are misguided enough to believe the terms to be interchangeable.  I'm quite sure there are enough people here who understand the difference.  Clio the Muse 19:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at my indentation on that post. Do you know what indentation means?--Light current 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right: you keep your eye on the 'big picture'; after all, it's what you are good at.  Clio the Muse 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also this isn't an argument of fact, "common" sense might work just fine as a policy, and in fact it does. --⁪frothT C 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Im Westen Nichts Neues