Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 2

message: It looks like this paragraph below is saying that the Reference Desk does things that are not its purpose:
"Within our capabilities, we do try to help answer scientific, semantic or historical questions, help explain concepts, and point the questioner to possible sources of solutions or further information."
Now, look at the alleged purposes of the desk:
"The primary purpose of the reference desk is to help the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by encouraging article contributions, additions and improvements.The secondary purpose of the desk is to help the readers by facilitating access to the information contained in Wikipedia."
And there only two purposes listed, so... where does that in the first paragraph fit? A.Z. 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph doesn't say where these sources of information are.  Ideally, they're Wikipedia articles.  Friday (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wikipedia contained all answers, there would be no need for a Reference Desk nor for us trying to improve Wikipedia nor for any other source of knowledge. I suggest we take out the words "contained in Wikipedia". A.Z. 21:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are here as a Reference Desk for Wikipedia. way.  Many other parts of the guidelines already indicate (or imply) that we will point people to external sites to supplement (and to complement) the information in Wikipedia. Though we are available to everyone, we should not state our secondary purpose to be as broad as "to facilitate access to sources of information" (by your suggestion, "contained in Wikipedia" has been removed). This would imply that we are a universal reference desk, regardless of whether or not the problem relates to Wikipedia in any way. No no. That would certainly be a hindrance to the first purpose. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would never think of the Reference Desks of Wikipedia as being a "guide to Wikipedia". I have been asking and answering a few questions here for a year now and I never thought of it this way. I thought the Reference Desk provided reference and that's it, no matter whether it had to do with Wikipedia or not. Now, if you admit that many other parts of the guidelines imply that we will point people to external sites, then I think you agree there is an explicit contradiction between the two guidelines there. A.Z. 01:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: I have just made several changes throughout this entire document.  Many of these changes clarify the guidelines, either by rectifying ambiguous phrasing (as in the very last bullet), or by removing idioms (which the guidelines themselves discourage!), or by using more precise—and more accurate—language (e.g. proper use of 'and' and 'or'; replacing 'seriousness' with 'sensitivity' and 'diligence').  I have also added the important point that questions should be presented concisely and clearly, rather than long-windedly or vaguely (to the best of their abilities, of course, since we are not all native speakers of English).
I must also acknowledge that User:Friday has a couple of edits in the midst of that diff link I provided above. These were additions to "Removing others' posts" (), and to "What the reference desk is not" (), the latter of which I subsequently consolidated into a very similar guideline. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by Twas Now 

message: I feel that some questions with seek an opinion regarding a large social generalization should be permitted. This should be distinguished from asking a question about PERSONAL opinion. In practice this often already happens and I think it is not harmful as long as it does not turn into a debate. In fact I think it is one of the things that make the reference desks so useful. For instance, let’s say I’m a prospective foreign exchange student who will be going to Germany soon. Not wanting to stand out as an American in Germany, I ask the reference desk what is generally considered normal street clothes in Germany. This sort of question about a fairly well excepted social standard seems like it should be distinguished from “asking for personal opinion.” Any thoughts? S.dedalus 06:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason to worry much about that type of question.  It seems less likely to degenerate into an ugly, useless debate than a lot of the questions we see on controversial topics.  It's not a reference desk question, per se, but I don't see that it's very harmful either.  Friday (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had written a response to this earlier today, but I somehow lost it.  My thought was that "what kind of clothes should I wear in Germany?" is not a question that one would ask a real live reference librarian in your local public library.  If one did, then the librarian would probably, at best, redirect you to an appropriate resource.  Bring the analogy back here, then, the response would be something like "check the discussion forums at Expedialocitibitz.com".  Perhaps, however, the real live ref librarian had just been to Germany, and so can directly answer the question.  In that case, the interaction becomes a discussion, or a "chat" if you will.  The discussion can continue, but not actually at the reference desk, since that is not the purpose.  --LarryMac 19:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel that the Reference desk guidelines should make a clear distinction between these types of questions.  After all there is a very great difference between asking “How can abortion not be considered murder.” and asking “What is generally considered to be one of the best representation of film noir? In the first case the discussion is likely to degenerate into an ugly flame war. In the second case the answer is likely to be something like “Well according to the American Film Institute's 100 Years, 100 Movies  blah, blah, blah, etc.” I think we have an advantage in some ways over a traditional public library reference desk in that here people can ask questions of several thousand people who may be able to provide unique information that a “traditional” library might not have access to. S.dedalus 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of “How can abortion not be considered murder ?”, a strictly factual answer can be given: "Those who don't consider it to be murder don't consider the embryo/fetus to be a live human at that point, based on the lack of a heartbeat, undeveloped brain, etc.".  Now this could develop into an argument, but doesn't have to, so the question itself should be allowed. StuRat 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: personal opinion vs. social opinion

message: Should we enforce some sort of ban on questions about perpetrating illegal acts (e.g. murder, rape, etc.)? I was going to add this directly to the guidelines, but I'm not sure about other people. bibliomaniac15 01:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it's a tossup whether we want to mention this or not.  It might be asking for trouble.  It's certainly the sort of thing that would make a question more likely to be seen as trolling, though.  Friday (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could create a template for use in this situation. Something to the effect of “Thank you for visiting Wikipedia! However, we cannot provide you with advice on the best way to rape and murder your Aunt Sally. Sorry.” S.dedalus 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could just put a disclaimer instead of enforce a ban. bibliomaniac15 01:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal Practices? 

message: I would like to propose that the use of Chatroom language be discouraged and kept to a minimum, especially when posting queries. Reading queries that begin with 'OMG', or 'WTF', and having 'LOL' or 'LMAO' and stuff like that makes me not want to answer them, and I am sure I am not alone in this. I may not be the Brain of Britain, but including language like this reduces the chances of a poster getting an answer from a serious professional. ScouseMouse - スカウサーUK! 23:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't noticed this as a serious problem. Is there a specific desk on which you see this?  --LambiamTalk 00:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Givnan, how do you propose that chatroom language be discouraged when we can't even get folks to type four tildes? ~ hydnjo talk   18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  As we've all seen from experience, getting reasonable editors to agree that a certain thing should or should not be done is the easy part.  Getting unreasonable editors to actually do or not do what's been agreed on is the hard part. Friday (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Givnan, I recall the first times that I went on-line and thinking that it was cool to say "i" and "OMG!" and "lol" and other "chatspeak".  My own experience suggests that the example of others was extremely influential in realizing that that dumbed down language wasn't "cool" at all. If "chatspeak" is a problem for you then just skip over to another inquiry, don't let it bother you. Let me illustrate in another way, do you really think that giving the middle finger salute to a rude driver will decrease the number of rude drivers?  ~ hydnjo talk   20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I can't see anything wrong with netspeak. often words like "lol" and "OMG!" express something that is difficult to express in any other way. I don't think we want to risk appearing snobbish by discouraging certain forms of language that may be more natural for other people than for us. It could appear to be categorising people by their language and creating a heirarchy. Storeye 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netspeak 

message: I agree with most of the what the reference desk is not-section, but I don't think that last entry about controversy and debate should be included specifically. It might send the wrong message and make people think they cannot ask questions about it. It falls square in the "not a soapbox-rule" we already have established. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I liked that bit.  To me it made it clear that the answer we should give is not our own opinions, but rather to pointers to information about the debates on these topics.  But, yeah, it's a bit redundant.  Merging might be good but IMO we take care to retain the full meaning.  Friday (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer we give may not be our personal opinion on the subject of the question, but certainly whatever reference we cite will be our choice based on our own personal opinion of which references are credible or not. If you assume that the people who ask questions here don't know how to separate the good from the bad when it comes to our explicit personal opinions, then you can't possibly defend that they have the ability to decide on their own which references were good and which ones were bad. A.Z. 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point, POV is inevitable, even when using reliable sources.  This reminds me of a US news station which was accused of having a liberal bias for broadcasting names, pics, and brief bios of every soldier killed in Iraq.  They said "we aren't biased, everything we say is true and verifiable".  But then it was pointed out that they choose to list soldiers killed in Iraq, but didn't list civilians killed by Saddam, or people killed in any other way, like accidents or disease.  They chose to focus on that one aspect exclusively, and in that choice lies the POV.  StuRat 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debates and controversy 

message: Any chance we could get a plug in for Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration somewhere in this section? I don't wish to spam it though, so I'll leave it up to someone else to decide. Rockpocket 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RDAC took an early break and could use some refreshments. I like the suggestion, but don't wish to spam the guidelines either, plus it's too early to write coherently.  ---Sluzzelin talk 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I was thinking a bit of a revamp might be in order. Rockpocket 09:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Use external links from answers as sources to improve our articles 

message: The recent fracas between myself and another contributor over what (in my view) was a 'joke gone bad' highlights the problems with understanding when something said in an online communication is intended as a joke or not.  Whilst I agree that an outright ban on humor would be a bad idea, I believe we do need to have somewhat stronger guidelines than we currently do.
The problem comes about when a respondant answers a question ironically or with sarcasm and the result is harmless when interpreted as a joke - but disasterously bad advice when not construed as a joke.   This kind of thing is dangerous because:
# Our readership may not have a strong command of the english language and be therefore unable to realise that this is a joke.
# Even with a strong command of the language, if you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, it might easily be that a totally outrageous suggestion intended ironically becomes understood as real advice.
I don't want to rake over yesterday's events again - so let me give you a 'real world' example where I made this very mistake.   Many years ago, back when computers ran MS-DOS, I was working with a not-very-computer-literate co-worker.  He phoned me up one day saying that he was running out of space on his hard drive and did I know what he could do about it?  I jokingly said: "Well, you could always type "DEL *.*" (which deletes all of the files on the hard drive - including the operating system).  I went on to try to explain where he might find files to safely remove - but as I was doing so, he said "No - that didn't work - now my computer has locked up"...he'd gone ahead and actually typed what I suggested.
This kind of thing can happen so easily - and is yet more likely to occur in an online conversation where one's tone of voice is missing.
So - I'd very much like to see some kind of concrete rule that says "Thou shalt not give bad advice - even in jest."
Aside from that, the guidelines seem perfectly fair.  Thanks! SteveBaker 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you sent by Friday?  Or did you join the dark side of your own choice. By the way, i agree with your sentiments. David D. (Talk) 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you think up a joke then try and find some way, however tenuous, of making it relevent to the question? Bang bang. You're dead. Rockpocket 01:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh boy, so i'm a goner for the above :-) David D. (Talk) 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For jokes, no. Support on the spot executions for the inclusion of any "smileys" in a response.—eric 19:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are there specifically to ensure that everybody knows the statement is not to be taken seriously, thus they are critical. StuRat 19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm convinced—nicely demonstrated.—eric 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But smiley faces are not universally understood.  My mother is 70 years old and occasionally consults Wikipedia - she has no idea what :-) means...much less :)  or =P it's very easy to miss such things if you aren't hip to the Internet culture.  I'm not saying don't make jokes - I'm saying that when a joke could be misinterpreted as untrue information - don't do it. SteveBaker 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could add "just kidding" to make it absolutely clear. StuRat 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)  I agree with the thrust of that, Steve.  I'm as guilty (if that's the right word) as anyone of adding humorous asides to threads.  In principle, I not only can't see the harm in this, but also think the occasional bit of humour helps to maintain the friendly tone we have here.  As long as it's not done gratuitously or insensitively.  Very often, jokes are appreciated by the questioner and other responders, although sometimes they fly swiftly over their heads (or appear to, based on lack of comeback) - which is as good as falling flat (to mix a metaphor or two).  What I don't usually support are in-jokes, where the questioner is effectively excluded.  I say "usually" because sometimes the temptation is just too great to resist.  Such is the lot of a punster.  JackofOz 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anyone who makes in-jokes should be attacked by a flock of ravenous seagulls. StuRat 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *We say: "Having a bit of humour in your answer is almost always a good thing but...". Really? I can think of many, many examples of questions where humour is pretty innapropriate (for example, in questions about death and diseases). As it is phrased it reads like we are suggesting one should attempt to add humour to improve an answer. I suggest we change "is almost always" to "can be" to reflect this. Rockpocket 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely don’t want to come across as not having a sense of humor here. But we don’t want people to accidently take us seriously. Couldn’t we just have a template to use on non-serious posts? Maybe something similar to the “This page is intended to be humorous and does not reflect Wikipedia policy. . .” one? 71.112.23.141 22:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading sarcasm or irony 

message: Under whose authority was it decided that a consensus had been reached on these guidelines ?  I see no consensus discussion, or even announcement, made here on the talk page.  I've only today found out that somebody did this. StuRat 23:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stu, please take the time to read Wikipedia:Consensus as, based on your recent comments, i think you don't really have an understanding of this. Nobody has any "authority" to declare that a consensus has been reached, it is normally "reached as a natural product of the editing process." Also, nothing is ever "finalized" (as you asserted in an edit summary), consensus can change and bold, revert, discuss is the right way to try and make that happen. But please, a little moderation eh? You've not shown much interest in this page during the months it has been developing, to show up now and try and make major changes by edit warring is not going to work.—eric 23:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't agree that there is a consensus, so I'm going to remove the template that says it's a guideline reached by consensus.  And I've shown plenty of interest, count the number of edits I have on this page, it's dozens. StuRat 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just counted my name 72 times on this page.  Those aren't all edits, but I'm sure most of them are.  I'm also the one who started the whole process. StuRat 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How many of those are reverts to your preferred version ;P Rockpocket 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand.  My name is on this talk page that many times, not in the history. StuRat 09:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because EricR, unilaterally, decided to declare the discussion period over and a guideline to now be in force: , with no edit summary as to why he thinks a consensus has been reached, despite there having been daily changes to the guidelines and several ongoing discussions on this talk page.  No discussion or even announcement of this change in status was made, and the links asking people to discuss the proposed guidelines were also quietly removed from the Ref Desks.  I can't think of any more inappropriate way to go from a proposal to a guideline than that. StuRat 17:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take the time to read my comment above, that i "decided to declare the discussion period over and a guideline to now be in force" is quite contrary to my attempted explanation. I think you are making things here altogether too personal, and wonder you didn't comment when this document was moved to  status back in January or when i thought there was  back in March? Erroneously ascribing opinions and motivations to me is not at all advancing your cause and certainly setting back the overall process. If you have such a problem with my edits in particular, as you have implied on a number of occasions, then please, take your concerns to RFC so we don't further drag down this discussion. Otherwise, make at least some attempt to read and understand my comments.—eric 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any explanation above, just that you apparently think anyone can just change it into a guideline from a proposal whenever they want.  Look at what Ten did below, as far as actually asking people if it's ready to become a guideline, and then actually waiting for replies, and hopefully listening to what people say. StuRat 02:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely, now you're catching on. Anyone can (if they think it improves Wikipedia) just change it into a guideline from a proposal whenever they want (as long as they are not edit warring.) It's called the "wiki process" and is the method which will ultimately determine whether this document is a guideline or a failed proposal. See the bold, revert, discuss page i linked above for a more complete explanation.—eric 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, you shouldn't "be bold" with major changes like that, you should first verify that a consensus exists. StuRat 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Saying "you don't have a clue what you're doing here" is a blatant personal attack, please stop immediately.  As for what NPOV means, it clearly doesn't mean, even in an article, that each editor must only make NPOV contributions.  For example, in articles with "advantages" and "disadvantages" sections (or "support" and "criticisms"), an editor is allowed to only contribute to one of the sections without being reverted for POV.  On the other hand, if they went and deleted the other section, that would be an NPOV violation.  Similarly, on the Ref Desk, each editor is allowed to present a single POV, so long as they don't delete the POV of others.  Thus, the total response will hopefully be NPOV.  Only by deleting one POV and allowing another to remain do we violate NPOV. StuRat 04:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are in danger of confusing representing a POV in a NPOV manner ("white extremists think blacks are inferior") and simply representing a POV ("blacks are inferior"). Stating only the former is perfectly acceptable, even though it is simply representing only one POV. Stating the latter is not even if contrasted with the opposing view. A statement saying "Blacks are inferior" countered by "Blacks are not inferior" is not NPOV, even though we are "expressing "all" points of view". This is what WP:NPOV is about in this context: representing positions in a neutral manner. It doesn't imply any editor has to represent all positions equally, simply that the position they do represent should be stated neutrally. Rockpocket 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Racism goes well beyond POV.  Multiple POVs are valuable, but racist statements are not. StuRat 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus ?  

message: I like the guideline suggesting people don't use the Desks as forums for their own opinions, but I wonder if we could also suggest that answerers address the question itself. Too often, my queries are answered with, in effect: 'Well, I have no idea what the answer to your question is, but I hate to say 'I don't know', so I'll tell you this instead' - and give some piece of irrelevent info instead. I admit, very occasionally the info given is kinda interesting, so the guideline would have to be carefully worded... Adambrowne666 23:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a good point. However, often the querent will as a very non-specific and general question, meaning you have to interpret what they actually wish to learn. Different people will interpret such questions in different ways, leading to tangential answers. Rockpocket 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, in response to "What's the best car", we might get some commenting on value, some on mileage, some on looks, some on popularity, some on safety, some on profitability.  Also, some may mention specific cars ("the car that won the Indy 500 in 2003"), some might mention models, some may mention platforms, some may mention brands, and some may mention manufacturerers. StuRat 00:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a bit in there under Guidelines for responding to questions: "...responses to posts should always attempt to answer the question..."—eric 00:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with all your points, but I still think a guideline could allude to this, as long as it was very carefully phrased so as to include the provisos you guys have mentioned. I am thinking of something a bit more specific than the line you point out, Eric - I'd love to be able to weed out that kind of contribution from the desks by quoting something explicit from the Guidelines. Adambrowne666 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the desk is not 

message: Some of the lists in this guideline use serial commas, some do not, and this inconsistency presents an appearance of amateurishness.  Although I am (as you can see) a fan of such commas, my main concern here is consistency. Matchups 12:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to you making the comma usage consistent.  Have at it ! StuRat 04:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serial commas 

message: * TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks good.  (Minor tweaks are bulleted.) 

message: RW reference librarians have never totally agreed about the relative role of direct information-providing and instruction. There's a somewhat different attitude at public libraries than at academic, where the librarians see themselves as primarily instructors in library use. WP of course is closer to a public library, but most public librarians too often blend in some instruction about how to deal with future questions--at least indirectly by explaining where you're finding it--and I think that the practice here actually is to do this, not just give the answer and the source. My own experience is in higher education exclusively, but we also answered questions from anyone, and I made a distinction between questions that the inquirer would never have to address again, and those where here would be a point in teaching. 
::Librarians also work in the public, just as WP editors. Except for removing any personal identification provided, I think absolutely nothing should be deleted. It can be marked strikeout, but not deleted. Professionals are responsible for their mistakes, and are expected to admit them and correct them, and those trying to work like them should take such responsibility also, just as they do in other areas of WP. 
::(This is a comment on the interpretation of the guidelines--I think the text as it stands is acceptable)  DGG 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that only strikeout should be used, and I would restrict that to your own text, as well. StuRat 04:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: diversity of roles

message: *Support. StuRat 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (possibly with tweaks)

message: *I don't think we want to explicitly say to remove or not remove an answer.  Sometimes it may be appropriate to remove a very wrong answer, but we certainly don't want people removing other editors' posts lightly.  I believe in cases where an answer has been seen as very misleading or dangerously incorrect, there's sometimes been consensus for removing them.  Hopefully this happens rarely, if at all. Friday (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *In that case, we could say "don't delete answers you believe to be incorrect unless you first gain a consensus to do so on the talk page". StuRat 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, in cases of very bad answers, it's often better to remove it sooner than later.  If an editor uses good judgment and does this only when he believes consensus will support him, I think this is good enough, whether or not he explicitly gets consensus ahead of time. Friday (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I strongly disagree.  If we provide proof that an answer is wrong, that's good enough until we have time to gain a consensus that the answer should be removed.  Leaving it up to each editor to delete things based on their own judgment (including their own judgment as to whether others will agree) leads to bad deletions and edit wars. StuRat 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's a problem we already have.  Editors already need to be able to reasonably guess what will or won't be controversial.  This is how you know whether to just boldly make a change, or take it up on the talk page first.  Friday (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I oppose the deletion of answers just because another user disagrees with them, even if the original answer is demonstrably wrong.  Discussion of opposing opinions is what the Ref Desk is all about.  This is not like getting one answer to your question from a librarian on a library ref desk.  There are many of us here, and opinions differ.  Finding out why a genuinely held view is wrong is a learning experience - and you can bet that if one person holds such a view, many others do too.  Deletions should occur only in the most compelling of cases, such as gratuitous insensitivity perceived to be designed to cause gross offence to some group; or libellous statements that could bring Wikipedia into disrepute or legal difficulties.   JackofOz 06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for "discussion of opposing opinions is what a Ref Desk is all about"- no,no, a thousand times no.  That's exactly the point we're making with "The ref desk is not a forum".  It's not for you and me to debate our opinions.  This leads to all manner of trouble and doesn't further the goals of the project in any way so we want to avoid this.  We can point people to articles about controversial issues but rehashing the controversy on the ref desk is not productive.  The only debate we want at Wikipedia are the unavoidable debates about what's best for the project.  Debates about the world at large have no place here. Friday (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, we very much do want to see all the different POVs on a topic, like the biological and psychological POVs on the causes of psychosis, for example. StuRat 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main issue here is to be objective and have a balanced response. This might entail adding other sources (let's forget the RS argument for now) but should not entail one fighting for ones own POV. In other words soapboxing should be discouraged. David D. (Talk) 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe in a balanced total collection of responses, but firmly believe we should allow a biologist to only give the biological POV, if they wish, and let the psychologist only give the psychological POV, if they wish.  If they feel confident enough to stray from their own area, that's fine, but they shouldn't be forced to do so. StuRat 05:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @ Friday - I'm not talking about debating the world at large, but the question under discussion on the Ref Desk.  The undeniable reality is that we're not robots but humans.  Humans talk about things.  If someone asked "Does 1 plus 1 equal 2?", it would be fine if someone answered with "Yes" and nobody else said anything at all.  But the very fact that someone would ask such a basic question suggests that they are searching for a deeper understanding of why it is so.  It's not inappropriate to proffer some thoughts on the basic concepts involved.  And it's not inappropriate for other editors to pipe in with related thoughts.  Even with such a question, difficult concepts can arise, and opinions start to vary.  You might well argue that any further discussion would be going well beyond the bounds of what we're supposed to be here for, and going well beyond the question, into irrelevant and complex areas of mathematics and logic that a person who asked such a question might be unlikely to comprehend.  The question then becomes: where does the line get drawn, and more importantly, by whom?  I'm certainly not advocating that all Ref Desk questions should be followed by a long discussion - but equally, I'm never going to be the one to say "Guys, this debate has gone on long enough".   When I said "discussion of opposing opinions is what the Ref Desk [not "a" ref desk, btw] is all about", I meant that as a description of the way our Ref Desk actually operates (and imo operates very well in the vast majority of cases) - but I never intended that to be written into the guidelines.  JackofOz 01:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Many questions are not true vs false. I would (for example) never give a definitive answer on the causes of psychosis. Even if a brief answer, I would mention that the great majority but not quite all psychologists agree. it's only fair that the person asking a question gets some idea of the degree of certitude.  If you know there is anything controversial, you have to say so. Example: Q. "are UFOs real?",  A." nobody really knows. Most scientists think not, but here's our summary page UFology and you'll see all the different things people have to say about it." -- I may think the odds of them being real are about 0.1% and you may thing 50%, but we should give the same answer. Even if you thought 99%, you can say "I personally think they are, but I know most scientists say otherwise. Here's our page..."  DGG 02:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: In my opinion what is at issue here is the removal of potentially dangerous and not cited material, and responses for which a source is requested but the editor refuses to provide one. Framing these issues as the removal of "wrong" answers really doesn't move us any nearer a resolution.—eric 08:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am proposing changing it to: "However, do not remove the incorrect answer, solely because it is wrong, even if you can prove so with reliable sources".  This makes it clear that this can't be the sole reason for removal, but something can be removed for other reasons, like being dangerous.  However, answers with uncited sources are allowed, so not having sources isn't a justification for removal, either. StuRat 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd rather see us say what to do than what not to do, but this may be small beer. Friday (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This is the sort of utter nonsense  that a guideline supporting freedom of expression would legitimise. Plain wrong in so many ways, and considering the potential damage it could do if taken at face value by the OP, I can think of no good reason whatsoever one could argue against its removal except for "freedom of expression". Rockpocket 00:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're so damn afraid of the bad things that could happen that you don't even bother to take the time to look the other way and see the wonderful things that inclusionism could produce. By the way, this diff that you are linking to is utterly legitimate and definitely pertinent: it was completely on-topic. In fact, I really don't know why something like that would be considered plain wrong! I thought at first that you would have linked to something rather difficult to justify, like someone posting a photograph of another editor naked or something (a case that would truly be hard to deal with), but that edit right there is just plain normal. The guy is just saying his opinion on the matter, as all other editors are. I for one didn't find it particularly interesting or instructive, but I won't ever argue that just because something isn't interesting for me it should be deleted. A.Z. 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as posts agree with WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, there shouldn't be a problem --h2g2bob 07:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Stuff like that is one reason many of us are hesitant to encourage giving our own opinions here.  If we're talking about which brand of toaster we like, it's less likely to upset anyone.  But when you get into a sensitive topic, and you get rants like this.  I too have seen a couple of people repeatedly assert that all opinions are welcome here and any opinion is as good as any other.  This view is not compatible with Wikipedia.  If we were running a forum, I might almost agree.  But, we're a reference work- some random editor's opinion on who should be maimed or killed and in which specific way has no encyclopedic value.  You want a forum, the Internet is over there, and it's full of them.  Go find one.   Nobody's trying to tell anyone what they can't do- we're only saying that Wikipedia has a scope, and certain things are outside of it.  Friday (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we should not be supporting the concept of "freedom of expression" 

message: *I prefer A.  We need to establish which Wikipedia policies apply to the Ref Desk and how they apply.  With respect to deletions, the Ref Desk behaves more like a talk page than an article. StuRat 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer version a

message: *I like B better.  We don't need to reinvent core policies here.  Friday (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer version b

message: Hi. I've seen this a lot, people often write "(edit conflict)" when they answer a question. Is it used when someone dissagrees, or when they actually experience an edit conflict, or something else? If it's for when dissagreeing, why would it be called edit conflict, and if it's an actual edit conflict, how come I haven't seen "edit conflict" written on other talkpages? Is this in the guidelines, but if not, should it be mentioned? Please mention this as I see it a lot. It would be helpful if I knew what it meant. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just means the editor tried to "save" their post, only to discover someone else had edited the same page in the meantime.  In order not to have to change their post in light of what the other person just posted, they sometimes write "edit conflict" to indicate this new post was written before they saw the one that just preceded it (if that makes sense).  It's usually a response to the post 2 threads ago, or earlier, not the one that's just been posted - so it neither agrees nor disagrees with it.  It does appear on other talk pages, but not as frequently on any one talk page as it does on the Ref Desk, and on some talk pages not at all.  Maybe you've only been reading the latter ones - stick around, you'll encounter some more in due course.  It's not in the guidelines afaik, but since it's entirely informal, I don't see any need for it to be.  JackofOz 04:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Edit conflicts are far more common at the Ref Desk than most other pages due to the high volume of changes on Ref Desk pages.  StuRat 08:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  when someone writes "(edit conflict)" 

message: Okay, this page was getting to be unmanageably long, so I've archived everything up to around the beginning of April.  We could probably do with an even more aggressive pruning, but I didn't want to step on any toes.
If there's an important thread to which anyone would like to refer, see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 1, or copy the thread back here.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived