Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice

message: The original rationales for banning legal and medical advice at Wikipedia were Wikipedia's legal liability and Wikipedia's "reputation".  I don't believe either of those apply to answers offered at other sites. StuRat 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, we're doing readers a disservice by providing questionable amateur advice to potentially important questions.  Now you're just ruleslawyering over which site hosts your inappropriate answer?  Don't be ridiculous.  Cut this out immediately.  Friday (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As both Wikipedia and Wikiversity are projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, are there any over-riding Foundation concerns, guidelines, requirements that pertains here? Bielle 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original rationales 

message: Looks like I missed the party on this. One thing Wikipedians might want to keep in mind when trying to get attention from Wikiversitans is that it's much better form to ask on the Colloquium, rather than leaving messages on the talk pages of the support staff: we don't have the level of heirarchy there you're accustomed to dealing with here, and the Custodians are not necessarily responsible for making policies.
As far as "linking out" to circumvent rules on giving medical advice, I agree that this is a really bad idea. "Everyone can edit" is a good way to write an encyclopedia, but not necessarily the best way to operate a medical clinic :). OTOH, Wikiversity would be a good place for collecting subjective data and looking for patterns (for example, I always notice that it seems to feel colder at first light than it does 15 minutes before first light, and would find it interesting to see if other early risers experience the same thing). 
As to the worries of the RD becoming the target of XfDs, I don't imagine that having much to do with Wikiversity (though intuitively it makes more sense for a reference desk to be at the university rather than built in to the encyclopedia ;p). --SB_Johnny | PA! 09:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "XfD" mean ? StuRat 11:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'X' for deletion. It's a way of refering to all the different pages for deleting things (AfD, MfD, etc). At least, I've always assumed it is :) Skittle 12:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was more of an algebraic thing (X = "something-or-other" and X is up for deletion), but yes, that's what it means. --SB_Johnny | PA! 18:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not provide mathematical advice. For mathematical advice, see a mathemetician or other qualified personnel --LarryMac | Talk 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: /me hugs LarryMac, and hopes he isn't terribly embarrassed :). --SB_Johnny | PA! 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL (although I should point out that we aren't qualified to offer disclaimers, and that they should have been referred to a professional disclaimerer). :-) StuRat 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just an interesting link to ponder from this morning: b:Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Technical_Chat#pinched_nerve. --SB_Johnny | PA! 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well then 

message: You know, this "compromise" subheading seems to be about nothing of the sort, though I'm really not at all sure what parties are seeking a compromise, nor what the issue is exactly that needs to be compromised on. Whether medical questions are answered on Wikiversity is a problem for the Wikiversitans... there are plenty of adults there (perhaps a much greater proportion of us if this discussion is to be taken as an example), we know about liability, and we have a lot more at stake in that while Wikipedia is unlikely to be cut from the Foundation, Wikiversity is still very much on probation.
So since I don't know what we're compormising about (or maybe "y'all" is better than "we", since I'm still not sure who's supposed to be making a compromise), I'll just offer my advice:
#If a question is asked that can't be answered by citing reliable sources, but rather entails some sort of dialectical conversation, co-operative learning, or a research project, send it to Wikiversity.
#If you're concerned about possible kookiness on Wikiversity, either get involved with the project or stop your bitching.
Wikimedia is an endeavor worth supporting folks. All the projects are wikis, and if you want to change something, you can change it by getting involved. --SB_Johnny | PA! 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that advice. A.Z. 05:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good advice for good sleep... no compromise needed 

message: Just wanted to get one thing clear here- I have not seen anybody suggesting that any and all discussion of health or medical issues is "medical advice".  I think any reasonable editor will agree that it's a bit of a judgment call.  So I don't know where this notion of some mythical "ultra-strict" definition of medical advice is coming from- I see it as a straw man, a disctraction from any useful discussion. Friday (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just read through this torturous discussion it is quite obvious there are a massive number of strawman arguments causing a thick fog.  As well as blind allegiance to a rule book. All I can say is what ever happened to common sense? David D. (Talk) 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... that's why I'm still confused about who is compromising over what :). --SB_Johnny | PA! 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, yes.  We've seen this trouble before.  Here's a hint for anyone who cares:  if editors start telling you "I don't think you should do what you did here, and here are my reasons why", it is never appropriate to respond with "Oh yeah?  Well, show me in the rule book where it says my actions are illegal!"  This is simply not how Wikipedia works.  Friday (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I just wish users would have the good sense to say, "I'm playing a game of trivia, and was wondering: should a person recently bitten by a viper go to the emergency room?", rather than, "I've just been bitten by a viper ..."  --Sean 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If users had good sense, they wouldn't be interested in the medical opinions of a motly crew of random webmonkeys in the first place! Rockpocket 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's at least be clear on one thing.. 

message: I picked up this thread late (from a tip-off in Wikiversity), and have just read it through. In general, I applaud StuRat for the tireless (and mostly thankless) work he puts into the Help Desk on Wikiversity, and I think this thread has often been out of proportion to what StuRat has actually done (eg. see diff below). On this general topic, however, giving any genuine medical advice makes me nervous. I think Tagishsimon (in a comment @ 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Late arrival

message: Seeing the continuing flamewars and tug-of-war regarding what, if anything, constitutes an acceptable answer to questions which appear to be soliciting medical or other professional advice, I'd like to propose a change to the guideline on dealing with such questions:
Questions that appear to be soliciting medical, legal or other professional advice, including any answers so far provided for them (regardless of their nature), should be removed and replaced with a neutral boilerplate message informing the questioner of the removal and pointing to the reference desk guidelines.
This ought to rather neatly sidestep the contentious issue of how such a question may and/or should be answered, while sending a clear message that the question itself is inappropriate and should not have been asked in the first place.  It also rather effectively deters any imprudent editors from trying to answer the question regardless, unless they're actually willing to dig through the page history for the original question, while still clearly informing the original questioner of what happened to their question.  It's also rather simple and straightforward compared to the methods currently used for dealing with such questions, which seem to range from plain old stern warnings to collapsible tables and hidden comments.
I've put together a quick first draft of such a boilerplate message at User:Ilmari Karonen/sandbox/rd-deleted.  It looks like this:
Feel free to edit the page if you have any improvements to make.  Should there be support for this proposal, the template can be moved to a more convenient title such as .  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems reasonable, but I don't know how much it will help.   The same few folks who currently enjoy giving out bad medical advice may end up digging though history and putting the inappropriate question back, despite the template.  But it's probably worth a shot.  Friday (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This idea has surfaced a few times.  User:Hipocrite was using them regularly for a while but it did not really solve the problem and fizzled. I'd guess it is documented in the archives about six months ago.  Someone else might have a link to some examples. David D. (Talk) 19:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember having seen anyone "soliciting professional advice", but I think that removing good faith questions is not needed. We can just reply saying that we are not professionals. A.Z. 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way to link not just to the "NOT" section, but to the third of the five points which specifically relates to professional advice?martianlostinspace email me 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice feature. A.Z. 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Reluctant Support: I was against doing this kind of thing because it could be abused by people deleting questions that don't fall cleanly into this category - but given the new trend to game the system and skate close to the edge of the guidelines...I think we have to start doing this.  It would certainly fix the problem at source.  It's not OK to ask these questions - if we remove them then we have circumvented the entire issue of the acceptability of answers.  Be Bold: Let's make a template and start using it. SteveBaker 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support Concept I am not sure why all this drama need be given to a "Don't ask for professional advice" reminder, and reminding is all we are doing, not punishing, correct? The text of the third guideline copies-and-pastes quite nicely as an "in-line" message: no bold, no boxes, no colours, and thus nothing of the "naughty you" about it. I just tested that on my user page and it works easily. It is simple to do and doesn't require endless discussion about the exact wording. If someone feels a need to edit, he/she can just remove the names of the professions that do not apply in any specific instance.  However, with all the names left in, it remains just a general, and relatively gentle, reminder of guidelines and has little personal weight. Put a "please" as the first word; that would be a better use of editing time, in my opinion. Bielle 17:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Martianlostinspace's idea is even simpler, if it is technically possible. Bielle 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The editing of the guidelines, prompted a question/remark I posted at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines#Examples_of_.22legitimate.22_medical_and_legal_questions_removed_from_guidelines. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I know I'm going to be watching closely how this guideline gets applied, and I don't expect I'll be the only one.  I'm certainly not going to shy away from reverting any grossly inappropriate deletions, nor of bringing the matter up on the talk page if I spot any questionable ones.  (Incidentally, I see this new rule has had its [ first application]; while I don't feel that specific question was anywhere near as inappropriate as some I've seen, I think we can all agree that it did pretty clearly fall under the definition of medical advice as given in the guidelines.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me. As long as it is used responsibly and using good sense, this should function nicely. Rockpocket 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Reluctant support, per SteveBaker.  I urge caution and discretion in applying these templates; there have been occasional problems with editors misidentifying questions seeking information on a medical topic as seeking medical advice.  That said, our guidelines and instructions for identifying such advice requests have evolved quite a bit since that problem cropped up.  As always, I'm open to alternative strategies as well—but anything that encourages participants to try to game the guideline is not on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Replace questions soliciting professional advice with boilerplate 

message: There seems to be in some, an irresistible urge to play doctor. Most of us probably did it to some extent but what the heck, we were after all, curious children. Perhaps what we are seeing here is the result of either never having done it as a kid or having done it as a kid were unable to quit. ;-)  - hydnjo talk 03:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section enlightens on StuRat's motivations. A.Z. 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of us could provide advice based on personal experience or anecdotal evidence but it is also true that many of us believe that WP is not the place to provide that advice. I'm not singling out anyone with these remarks but only calling attention to intentions which I'm sure are admirable but don't, I believe, belong in this forum. The RD is a noble, helpful and interesting sideshow to the WP project but it should never compromise or even appear to compromise the project itself. These ancillary (the RD for example) services should, I believe, be provided without even the appearance of controversy with respect to the issues being discussed here. - hydnjo talk 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Addendum: I don't understand how we RD'ers  can be so strict about  suspected homework questions, duplicate postings on other desks, SHOUTING, or unsigned (we got the bot for that thank goodness) postings and yet be so mixed about the seriousness and potential problems of offering even the most mundane of professional advice.  It seems so simple; don't do it.  - hydnjo talk 06:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we shouldn't be strict about homework questions. My position on this is further explained here. A.Z. 06:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A.Z. that's a subject for another day. Any user is free to provide any level of homework assistance even though doing someone's homework is discouraged. That is, I believe, a far more benign transgression of the spirit of the RD than even comes close to crossing the bright line of professional opinion. - hydnjo talk 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The urge to play ''doctor''

message: :Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#heart_attack.21
As I'm a strong believer in the empirical sciences, I've decided to probe for myself the sensitivity to supposed medical questions, by asking a perfectly reasonable biochemistry question on the science desk, consisting of a quote from a biochem text, but containing several red flag words such as "heart attack!" that may cause people to overreact and view it as a medical question.  I'm simply trying to probe whether or not the science desk is still open to non-medical biochemistry questions, or if this is no longer possible.  And if anyone is interested, the question is actually answered in the textbook, so I have no actual stake in whether the question is actually answered here on wikipedia.--VectorPotentialTalk 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like everything is working as it should.  Of course, by posting this notice here, it's going to draw the attention of the people who have most closely followed the development of these guidelines.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  empiricism 

message: (This question has been moved to the Computing Reference Desk -  --LarryMac | Talk 14:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to disassemble the HTC Touch smart phone? 

message: I think the guideline stating we should delete medical and legal questions may be based on a misconception.
I am not a lawyer (as we say), but I cannot imagine that simply giving medical or legal advice is against the law anywhere in the United States.
If a co-worker comes into the office complaining of a cold, and I suggest that she have some chicken soup, am I breaking the law? I can't imagine so.
My guess is that it would be illegal to charge people for medical or legal advice without a license, or to give medical or legal advice under the false pretense of being a doctor or lawyer.
If I'm right, we should not warn against asking for "regulated professional advice," since the guideline would not be a response to a legal concern.
We still may want to avoid giving out medical or legal advice for ethical reasons, but the guidelines should be written accordingly. -- Mwalcoff 04:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Regulated" advice 

message: Are there any agencies who will be requiring hospitals to convert to an EMR system?  If so, when and which agencies?  
Thank You  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvzgrl (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic Medical Record (EMR) 

message: I removed a question from the Science desk because it was asking for a prognosis on a medical condition. See it here. Another editor reverted my removal. I don't know what to do next. I'm reluctant to start a ping-pong game, but you could say the game has already started. It seems to me that it was "pointy" of the other editor to revert like that. Shouldn't such a reversion be discussed first? --Milkbreath 22:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a question very plainly not requesting medical advice, but biological information.  Further, the question has nothing to do with a medical condition. It's no less innocuous than asking how long it takes hair to grow back after nairing yourself. Yet further, the OP gives no hint of concern about even a possible medical condition. The medical advice ban exists so people don't mistake us for doctors, not so they can't learn about the human body. If the OP had expressed concern that what was happening to him wasn't normal, this would be an entirely different story, but he didn't. Someguy1221 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion. My opinion is different. I'm hoping for a third party to provide a third opinion, and to let me know if an edit war is the only way to handle this. I've never been in an edit war, but I've heard vague things about them. They sound unpleasant, and I'd always imagined that they were the result of either one person's being malicious or both people's being wrong. Since I'm right, and I don't think you are malicious, I'm in a quandary. By the way, "no less innocuous" makes my head spin—nice one. --Milkbreath 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't expect to change your mind, I really just posted here so that yet-to-arrive third opinion could read the first two. And I believe that edit wars result from each side possessing different definitions for one or more words without realizing it (or both sides being composed of idiots).  Someguy1221 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal revert 

message: Dear colleagues—This week, the article concerns how reviewing at these locations are critical to maintaining WP's high standards, and the other advantages of being a reviewer. Here's the link:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches
I'm posting here in the expectation that this site is teeming with experts; we'd be delighted to have more reviewers, so if you have a mind to review, please drop in at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, the engine rooms of WP's standards. TONY (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''WP Signpost'' on FAC and FAR/C reviewing