Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 1

message: What is going on here: A lot of work was done (in large part by StuRat) in developing two pages; /rules and /guideline. There was accusation of POV-forking. Then TenOfAllTrades developed a draft based in the previous work and discussions. There was consensus that that draft would be an appropriate continuation. To that end, and to prevent discussion of the same topic, proposed RD policy, taking place in multiple locations, I am bringing it all here. The /rule and /guideline are archived here for reference only. Please do not edit those. The Ten draft can and should be edited.
Please discuss edits only on the associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines. --Justanother 15:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Just wanted to urgently request that everyone do their best to stay on topic here.  This page is for talking about Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines and has no other purpose.  Complaints about users can be directed to their talk pages.  Discussion of the reference desks in general belongs on WT:RD.   Thank you all for your consideration in this matter.  Friday (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: We need to be clearer about what kind of "sense of community" we're trying to promote.  Enhancing the Wikipedia community mostly means being good to newbies and showing them how we do things here, and of course that's great.  However, conversation and chatting mostly just promotes camraderie for a subset of the ref desk regulars—and I'm not sure the ref desk should be for that purpose.  Consider the recent issues with Wikipedia:Esperanza, which was strongly requested by outside users to modify their structure, because they were developing their own community to the exclusion of the Wikipedia community. -- SCZenz 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this addition of language talking about the goal of developing a sense of community is relevant here.  I think there is or was something called Wikipedia:Esperanza that had a goal relating to that.  In the interest of harmonious editing, I won't remove it myself, but I don't see that promoting a sense of community is a core goal of the reference desk.  Individual editors who want to promote community can do so as they see fit, of course, but I don't see how this is related to the reference desk specifically.  Friday (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point about showing newbies how things work here.  To some extent, the reference desk has been actively harmful to that goal, by giving new editors the idea that Wikipedia (or, one part of it) is for general chatting, free speech, or giving our personal opinions.  I think we can mostly agree that there've been some unfortunately big conflicts due in large part to different expectations and culture at the reference desk.  Anyone who wants to start a wiki-based "anything and everything" question-and-answers website is welcome to do so of course, but as long as the reference desk is part of Wikipedia, it should be part of Wikipedia.  It follows logically that the goals of the reference desk can't be outside the goals of the project as a whole.  Friday (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't only apply to the Ref Desk, it also applies to other talk pages, as well.  However, it needs to be said here, because there are those who think that any efforts to build a sense of community at the Ref desk should be suppressed. StuRat 18:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We got into all kinds of misunderstanding before by jumping to conclusions about what people want to do.  Nobody's talking supressing it.  At least, no more than it's "suppressed" anywhere else.  But, it is not one of the core goals of the reference desk, and thus should not be mentioned in the guideline.  There's plenty of middle ground for things that are neither encouraged, nor suppressed. Friday (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But again... why should Wikipedians in general endorse the page as having a purpose of creating a "sense of community" among a small group of ref desk regulars? -- SCZenz 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misrepresenting me again, SCZenz, I never said it was only to develop a sense of community "among a small group of ref desk regulars", it's to develop that sense of community among all Wikipedians, new and experienced. StuRat 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not misrepresenting you.  I'm describing the actual effect of the kind of "community"-promoting conversations that you want to be enshrined in reference desk policy.  Not everyone on the ref desk feels more part of any community because of them—some feel excluded and irritated—and it certainly doesn't include newbies or help them feel more involved in Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 18:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not endorse this at all, and neither, I suspect, do most others.  Individual editors who want to do so can, provided they're not getting in anyone's way, of course.  As suggested above, I suggest that everyone who thinks "community" is of key importance here should probably review the history of Esperanza.  Friday (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need anything special about sense of community. Sense of community is a natural development in an, eerrr, community. --Justanother 18:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you seek to legitimize a degree of chat then that is best done by noting that the atmosphere is informal. --Justanother 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not "expanding its scope needlessly", building a sense of community is a Wikipedia goal which is directly relevant to the types of questions and answers which are allowed on the Ref Desk.  As such, it should be mentioned here.  StuRat 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some precedent for the notion that building a sense of community is one of the goals of Wikipedia?  The policies and guidelines I can think of either don't mention "community" at all, or they say things like "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end,  an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia..."  I can't think of any established tradition (or a guideline) that says that building a sense of community is itself, a goal of the project.  Friday (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first time I've heard that building a sense of community should not be a goal of Wikipedia.  I would expect that it's accepted so universally as a goal, that it doesn't often need to be stated, except for when somebody suggests it's unimportant. StuRat 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know what to tell you, other than what I said above: check around.  The places that mention community at all mention it specifically to say that it takes a back seat to the encyclopedia.  If you want to encourage a sense of community, that's fine- but this isn't the place for it.  See Esperanza- that's what they're about.  Friday (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community? 

message: This is going to be a big point of contention, but we might as well start.  I disagree with this addition.  Personal opinions should certainly be avoided on clearly factual questions, and it is better to turn opinion questions into factual questions whenever possible.  I'm not interested in focusing on what's "permitted," but this guideline should not say anywhere that giving opinions is "encouraged." -- SCZenz 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I tweaked the guideline a bit to better reflect the notion that opinions should be discouraged.  Friday (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit of tweaking the first para - how does that look? No need to mention community-building or beat the horse too much about opinion. --Justanother 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that wording very much, although we may yet quibble down the road about the implications of the last sentence. -- SCZenz 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Outstanding.  Love it.  Whoops, it's gone now.  I really think it was tons better as you put it.  Friday (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I only meant to change what Friday did, I didn't even see your changes.  Perhaps this is more of that weirdness that's been happening over the last few days.  If you want to put your changes back in, I'll only take out the parts I disagree with, not the whole thing. StuRat 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell you what; I will revert to mine and you bring up any issues you have here so we do not edit-war. --Justanother 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about if we leave my version there, and you bring up any issues here, so we do not edit-war ? StuRat 19:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone NOT think that the primary purpose of the RD is to serve the Wikipedia project? That seems to me a no-brainer but perhaps I am missing something.--Justanother 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Agree that this is a no-brainer) Friday (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, I think the primary purpose should be to answer questions, whether doing so serves Wikipedia or not.  For example, if there is a better source outside of Wikipedia, we should refer people there, not to a poorly written Wikipedia article. StuRat 19:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are not mutually exclusive. We should direct to the poor article, mention it is poor, and then send them off-site for the answer. That way we encourage improvement of the article. That is how it serves both the project and the public. --Justanother 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, and I'm not disputing that "serving Wikipedia" is a purpose of the Ref Desk, only that it's the primary purpose.  To me, at least, the primary purpose is to answer questions. StuRat 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Friday, please try to follow WP:AGF. StuRat 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, obviously.  You think your content was removed accidentally, then?  From reading the talk page, I came to a different conclusion.  Friday (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused, has someone claimed my content was removed accidentally ? StuRat 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you did, with this edit.  Misunderstanding is, of course, a possibility.  Friday (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions 

message: Here's my take on opinions.  (This is a continuation of some thoughts begun here and here.)
In general, I think we should discourage matters of opinion, both in questions and in answers.  Wikipedia tends to favor objective scientific fact, and it definitely disfavors P's OV, and opinions are obviously P's OV.  If nothing else, discussions about matters of opinion tend to degenerate into long debates, not the succinct, fact-based question-answering that the RD is supposed to be.
Now, with that said, and before someone takes my head off, I hasten to add that I do not think we should disallow all opinions.  I do not think that our discouragement to questioners should be as harshly worded as the "While we have opinions, we're not going to tell you what they are, so don't ask for them", which once appeared on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guideline.  And I think that, under some circumstances, answers which merely supply opinions, or which speculate in a sort of armchairey way (i.e. by doing something other than coldly citing elsewhere-published factual answers) are perfectly appropriate.  And I think it's useful to explore when opinions aren't and are useful (which I will now do, in an opinionated, armchair-speculationey sort of way).
First, some questions just clearly aren't worth trying to answer.
* What is your favorite color?
* Which is better, PS2 or Xbox?  Mac or Windows?  Red Hat or Debian?
* In a fight between Neal Stephenson and William Gibson, who would win?
The Reference Desk, I think it's safe to say, is not an opinion poll.  Reference Desk contributors are valued (and queried) for their knowledge and expertise, not for their random opinions.  There may be places on the net to debate these imponderable questions, but the Wikipedia Reference Desk is not it.  (Although with that said, it turns out that my third hypothetical question does have a definitive answer, which you can read about on slashdot.)
One reason pure-opinion questions aren't appropriate for the Reference Desk is that there's nothing special about Reference Desk answerers which qualifies them to answer such questions.  You could walk down the street asking random strangers what their favorite color was, and you'd get the same selection of answers with precisely the same authority.
Contrariwise, I think it's acceptable for Reference Desk answerers to offer opinion when doing so definitely adds something of value to the discussion, when the opinion has some value beyond "I'm a person and I have it".  If the question being asked doesn't have a definitive answer, and you know that it doesn't, your informed opinion may be valuable.  If the question being asked involves some particular aspect or nuance of an otherwise objective fact, such as "how do I explain X to someone who believes Y", speculation on the Reference Desk may be appropriate.
Two examples, one con, one pro:
* There was a question on the Humanities desk about "Holocaust guilt", which sparked a big talk page debate about the propriety of posting opinions on such a question.  In a case like that, I personally would not post my opinion.  I do have an opinion, but since I am (a) not German and (b) not a WWII historian and (c) under 60 years of age, I really don't think that out of the 6 billion people in the world, or even out of the smaller set of people who ever post to Wikipedia's Reference Desk, that my opinion is worth posting, especially since there are plenty of people who are (a), (b), or (c) and whose opinions on this sort of question are much more valuable than mine.
* On the other hand, whenever there's a question about the scientific method, or about evolution versus creationism or (lately) "intelligent design", you can almost always get a rise out of me.  (The latest example is here.)  And while I've been criticized for contributing to these threads (e.g. here), I'll defend myself on the grounds that (d) the question is topical, and (e) I am reasonably knowledgeable about it, and (f) I'm always looking for better ways to explain it, and (g) it's an important enough issue that I think we owe people individualized answers, especially if their question is along the lines of "how do I explain X to someone who believes Y", and as long as they're not trolls.
You may disagree with the specific criteria or examples I've suggested here, but the broader issues I've raised are, I think, relevant.  Even so, though, the "guidelines" I've suggested here are quite loose, and require quite a bit of thinking and (possibly opinionated) interpretation themselves.  (Which is why they're not even guidelines.)  But I don't see any way around this.  If opinions are going to be tolerated at all, and if their use is not going to regularly trigger long, rambling, speculative, opinionated debates, people have to be circumspect about posting them, have to really think about their particular opinion and its relation to the particular issue.  People can't just say, "Oh, I'm an intelligent person and this is an interesting question and I'm in a posting mood today so I'll just spout whatever's on my mind."  You have to know enough about the issue to know whether or not there are people who know more about it than you do.
In the end, the guidelines for posting opinion may end up being quite similar to the guidelines for posting humor: "in moderation, and only when it contributes to the discussion".
—Steve Summit (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: opinions in general

message: If someone adds something, and someone else disagrees strongly enough to remove it, it's generally bad form to just re-add it.  So I ask everyone to edit conservatively in this regard.  Friday (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're suggesting we should only make changes based on consensus or supermajority, I thought there was great objection to that and that "the wiki process" allows anyone to edit the guidelines as they think is best. StuRat 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suggesting nothing other than what I said.  It's poor form to use "brute force" editing- disagreements should be resolved on the talk page.  Friday (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if we are premature in removing the "sense of community". I think 3 of 4 of us here now don't want it there perhaps for different reasons. I see the statement as unnecessary and potentially divisive. But we are only a small part of the interested parties, --Justanother 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You both seem to be talking about using supermajorities and consensus to determine the content of the proposal.  Friday, didn't you explicitly reject this approach when the supermajority was the other way-around ? StuRat 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is the ONLY way things get done here if they are at all controversial. The trick, Stu, is knowing what the consensus is and also being willing to negotiate your position to get what you essentially want from the consensus. --Justanother 20:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (This is off-topic for this page, but I'll reply here this once) I do not, and likely will not,  condone using votes of any kind for determining content.  The notion of "supermajority" is thus largely irrelevant.  Friday (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3 out of 4 discussion above looks very much like a supermajority discussion, to me. StuRat 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's be more conservative 

message: Do the schmucks who go around deleting good-faith questions and answers not realize what major pricks they are?  --Nelson Ricardo 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not but if you give us an example we can then agree or disagree with you. --Justanother 19:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (ec) The talk page is for discussing things in an adult manner while assuming that others are here to improve the project.  If you wish to contribute appropriately, please do so.  Friday (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can understand being upset but this was a glitch, see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Disappearing stuff --Justanother 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glitches there may be, but there are also intentional deletions of material which oughtn't be deleted.  Some people just get a big head and think they can quash others' questions or ideas.  If a questions is stupid, have the balls to tell the questioner, rather than just making the question disappear.  Disagree with a response or comment?  Don't erase it; tell why you feel it is wrong.  Blanket deletion of whatever you disagree with is censorship or just plain childish. --Nelson Ricardo 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been bringing contested deletions to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk for discussion.  Such discussions go better when we refrain from jumping to conclusions about why material was deleted.  Friday (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From a policy-writing standpoint, I agree with Nelson. Deleting questions unless they are totally inappropriate and/or from a known troll is rude. So this is a valid discussion for this talk page. --Justanother 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. StuRat 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletionism on the Reference Desk 

message: Realised that we should split these as it is responses by RD "staff" that are deserving of full user talk page process, not inappropriate questions. Questions would only go to the RD talk page if there is a dispute about inclusion in which case it stays in until settled. --Justanother 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split "Rules for deletion" 

message: I've got a problem with the latest draft of this page... the line "Something like half of people in the United States still go online using a dial-up modem. This fraction is lower in Western Europe and Canada, and higher in many other places." is completely unsourced. This is Wikipedia, we have to cite sources for everything. And "Something like" is a weasel word too, I think. This is horrible writing for Wikipedia and has no place here! [The preceeding comment is meant to be taken entirely tongue in cheek... I think the current draft is great, and hopefully we can get enough people to agree to it to put all this debating behind us] --Maelwys 13:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Draft 

message: The guidelines as I write these words are very, very lengthy. The result of much wikilawyering, I guess. I absolutely cannot be bothered to read them... and I'm actually interested. Which leads me to ask what is the purpose of them. Is it to help newbies understand the Ref Desks (in which case, IMHO they currently fail utterly and completely) or is it so that regulars have a stick with which to bash people should they contravene the guidelines (in which case, they're probably succeeding beautifully)? --Dweller 13:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the first section ("Summary") is to help newbies understand the Ref Desks (and as such is a very short and easy read), and the second sectioned ("Detailed explanation") is a stick for regulars to bash people over the head. ;-) (or to put it in better terms, it's just a long exposition on the first section, so that we can stop nitpicking over different interpretations of the first section, and to cover the small and rare issues that the newbies don't need to worry about, but the regulars apparently do worry/fight about) --Maelwys 13:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Can I suggest that the contents box (or whatever it's called) is hidden or moved to below the Janet and John bit for newbies, as currently it's the first and only thing one sees on accessing the page. --Dweller 14:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please be aware that this first section (purpose and detailed explanation etc) is just my rewite of the long prose paragragh that was in the version by Ten (I think). It is possible that there may still be some duplication here. Whether we need duplication in the explanation section , Im not sure. I would prefer a minimisation of duplication personally.--Light current 00:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of these guidelines 

message: I am aware that they are too long. At the moment I am still trying to itemise and clarfiy all the points that were inclued in Tens version. Once we have completed clarifiction, it will be easy to see redundancies and eliminate them, but I dont want to start chopping things out just yet in case I throw out the baby. 
I suspect the last section is where some major savings can be made, but I have not really started to clarify that bit yet! Bear with me, and of course please leave any comments on my edits here. 8-)--Light current 14:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of guidelines 

message: Am I the only one? The only one that thinks that this entire process is pretty much about whether or not the below exchange (from here) is appropriate?
:: I think it's simply a matter of choosing the most healthy option available. As Doritos are non-perishable, cheap as borscht, and available everywhere, it's a reasonable choice, despite the fact that they are not as healthful as say, fresh sushi. Vranak 02:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is borscht cheap ?  I've never checked out the price (because the thought of it just leaves me cold). StuRat 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is borscht cheap? Heck, its price can't be beet! Atlant 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you red too much into my reply. :-) StuRat 01:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think it's simply a matter of choosing the most healthy option available. As Doritos are non-perishable, cheap as borscht, and available everywhere, it's a reasonable choice, despite the fact that they are not as healthful as say, fresh sushi. Vranak 02:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sidebar at User_talk:Justanother#Chips --Justanother 02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My take on this is that simply being unhelpful and off-topic puts an edit somewhere in that "uncertain" range.  Call it 50%.  There's no particular reason to keep it or remove it.  If the comment could also plausibly cause harm, this tilts the scales by some amount, depending on circumstances.  This is where we use individual judgment.  If people joke around elsewhere, I'll think they're silly but I really won't care.  When people joke around on the reference desk, I'll want to keep a close eye on it to be sure it's a "sensible sense of humor".  The reference desk needs to be an accessible, newbie-friendly place.  Notice the amount of irrelevant chattiness that goes un-commented on.  When someone goes to the trouble to remove something, it's usually been because there was a plausible case for it being harmful.  Friday (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It also depends on whether any jokes are potentially offensive.  I wouldn't have worried much about the exchange above.  So I don't think the fundamental issue is quite what you describe.  -- SCZenz 05:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only one? 

message: I don't quite agree with this:
:Is "just Google it" a good response ? No, you should do the search yourself, verify that it provides useful results, and provide a link to those search results, instead.
While I agree with the principle, I don't agree with the suggestion. Usually, when something is particularly easy to find, I don't provide a direct link to Google. I only offer a or several search term I used, which found the results. I do this because I feel when IMHO people are either being lazy or would gain something from learning that it's easier doing things themselves, it's better to provide an extra barrier so that they are more likely to read what's been said, and find out it's easier to do it themselves rather then waiting for people to provide them links so they can just happily click and get what they want. I know everyone is not going to agree but IMHO, there's nothing wrong with making it harder then it would be if they searched themselves.
To a greater extreme and this is going to be controversial, I have once or twice not provided any search terms. Instead, I just mentioned I searched and found the result (with perhaps some commentry of how easy it was). I only do this when the contributor claims to have spent a while searching, but the search term is so simple and obvious that the contributor is either lying or really, really doesn't know how to search. An example would be if the contributor asks, what's ABC and I search ABC and the result is the first or second result. (Actually I can only remember one specific example and in this case, the person claimed to be a college student as well so I felt there was no reason why they would have such greater difficulty searching and it was a homework question.). Some people would suggest it's better to ignore such people, IMHO it's better to basically tell them we read what you have to say, but we're not going to help you when you apparently can't be bothered helping yourself. Obviously this should be done with care keeping a decent level of civility but IMHO it's otherwise ok
Nil Einne 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An answer that says "You could have found this yourself, here's how" is good as long as it's polite.  The bit you quoted about just googling is it in the old, "rules"y part of the guideline.  The newer part addresses the google issue somewhat better, I think.  Friday (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google 

message: I keep hearing that "we need guidelines" to tell us specifically what's OK or not, because there's been such disagreement.  Well, if we're miles apart on specific, actual cases, how the hell are we going to generalize this to a guideline that we agree on?  I don't see how it can work, except by leaving the guideline vague.  We already have the "have a sensible sense of humor" part of the guideline, which is good as far as it goes, in my opinion.  So, I have a suggestion: for those that say it's not specific enough, I invite you to read that part of the guideline and think about it.  And, whenever you're tempted to post a joke, read it and think about it again.  I'm sure we're all reasonably smart people, and I'm confident that with only a little bit of effort, a reasonable adult can indeed display a "sensible sense of humor", if only they just try.  Friday (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm reading the comments by SCZenz and TenOfAllTrades at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#an idea correctly, we're not "miles apart".  If "the desk is mostly on-topic, unquestionably", and "by far the bulk of responses are polite, helpful, and useful", it seems to me we're probably all in good agreement on most of the issues already. (This is not to say that there are no other issues, but perhaps they're not so crucial as the volume of discussion about them would suggest.) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I agree with you there- I meant "miles apart" with respect to a few disagreements about removals.  If one editor removes something, and another disagrees so strongly as to put it back, I call this "miles apart".   But, as you said, maybe the appearance of disagreement is greater than the actual disagreement.  Friday (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing is, some users believe that the very small number of inappropriate comments have a potentially large effect on reference desk usefulness, while others believe that any removal of comments (except death threats and similar) without the permission of the author requires an extended period of consensus-building and that any removal short of this effort is offensive.  There's a lot at stake for everyone in what are done with the small number of comments, and we are indeed "miles apart" on how to handle them. -- SCZenz 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UNfortunately there is little or no evidence for your view. You could be right, but you could also be wrong. If we had some evidence that even one or two words in the wrong place could cause people to stay away in droves, I might have some sympathy with your view.(But we dont - do we?)--Light current 04:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I urge you to review the discussion linked above by Steve Summit.  It's a misunderstanding of my argument to state that people believe offensive remarks will drive readers away in 'droves'.  The question is one of whether an unfettered ability to post risque remarks (that don't answer any questions) is more or less harmful than offending (and possibly losing) at least some of our readers.  I personally find it very easy to decide which side of that balance we should come down on, but different strokes for different folks, I guess.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "We need guidelines" 

message: A lot of people come to the Maths RD to ask for help, but they're not familiar with the TeX formula system we use so they put their maths into normal HTML. This is, however, horribly difficult to read. Are we allowed to edit the posts of others to convert complicated formulas to TeX so everyone can read them easier? Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 03:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A major reason that editing question-askers' comments is of concern, in general, is that it may give other answerers the wrong idea about how much the user knows.  For example, wikilinking words in the question may lead others to believe the user has already read the relevant article.  I don't see offhand any equally severe problems with reformatting math, but I'd personally feel better about leaving the comments as they are; it would probably be better to repeat the formula beneath their question.  -- SCZenz 03:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll register a 'me too' to SCZenz's remark.  We don't want to run the risk of inadvertently replacing an ugly but correct formula with a pretty formula containing a small typo.  By putting the pretty formula right below the original HTML, it allows other readers to verify the copy is accurate.  It also saves the original poster from a bunch of undeserved responses along the lines of 'well, of course you're not getting the right answer; there's an error in your formula'.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, don't change the original, just add a new, prettified version, below. StuRat 14:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathifying others' questions 

message: What do you'all think of the below for inclusion in our draft?
While some degree of off-topic banter is permissable, but not encouraged, in the responses to a question on the Reference Desk, any off-topic comment that might be offensive to the original poster or to a particular gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., e.g. jokes based on stereotypes, may be deleted if egregious or moved to the poster's talk page if not. Legitimate on-topic responses that fall under the above categories of potential offense must be in direct response to the question asked and must be sourced and not presented as the poster's opinion. Such sourced views are not to be presented for debate but so that the asker can see the various positions and come to his own conclusion.I continue to try to fine-tune and find middle ground to what I consider the core debate. --Justanother 17:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs simplifying .I cant understand it! 8-|--Light current 00:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit good joke good; joke stay. Bit bad joke bad; joke go. --Justanother 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This looks good to me. -- SCZenz 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed text 

message: I hereby nominate "TenOfAllTrades" for draft co-ordinator. He would be responsible for making all changes to the draft based on the consensus(es?) that we reach here. I do this for a number of reasons:
1) It is disruptive to engage in edit-warring on the draft. We will never finish it that way.
2) Ten came up with the text that we are using as our rallying point.
3) StuRat was previously our draft co-ordinator but he seems to be involved in various disputes and, with due respect, seems to have a POV that there is a battle going on, and that POV is not conducive to developing consensus. I believe that Ten is a neutral party (or neutral enough) and sufficiently interested.
This is, of course, contingent on Ten's acceptance. If he accepts, he should probably work out the mechanics. --Justanother 18:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the Draft version that I  have been trying to translate into simple unequivocal English for the last few days single handed? 8-(--Light current 18:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unwiki. Editing is allowed by all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are replying to me, please indent properly. The above is not a reply to my question.--Light current 19:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If we respect his ideas (as I do, for one) this will be apparent as we edit.  No need for nominating someone for some made-up position.  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Friday (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was back on his user page then he could have this position with little dispute. I should have left it there. --Justanother 18:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with friday. And Just, there should be no such position, here or at his user page --⁪frothT C 19:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since WP:WINC I do not think my apparently subversive idea should not have been mentioned but I can easily see which way the wind blows so I withdraw it. --Justanother 20:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: V>Wise Justa! 8-))--Light current 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's your loss, LC, cause I was gonna nominate you for "Jokemaster of the Reference Desks" next. So now you will have to continue to content yourself with "Spacemaster". --Justanother 01:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: V kind. But Im sure I dont deserve it (blush) 8-)--Light current 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Nominate "TenOfAllTrades" for draft co-ordinator
 WITHDRAWN 

message: Here's a perminant link to what were entitled the "archives" . Please don't clutter up the guidelines with bits that have a 0% chance of ever being guidelines. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that those archives don't really add anything to the guideline.  Friday (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I added it to the talk page boilerplate --⁪frothT C 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The entire justification for removing the /rules page was that it's contents would be moved here.  If there is a broad consensus (not just among the few deletionists who hang out here) to remove them, then I will agree. StuRat 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of merging those "archives" into the proposal page was that they were drafted by StuRat and others out of agreed-upon points. Ten created his draft on his talk page and I believe that he drew from those agreed-upon points. The reason I mashed the archives on the proposal page was so that people could easily see if Ten's proposal adequately covered those points. I figured that once those points were fully integrated into the working draft that the archives would go away. Stu, what you might want to do now, is delete the parts of the archived /rules, etc. that are well integrated into the draft or no longer applicable and move any disputed bits to the talk page here. --Justanother 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: The following sentence was added to the "don't edit war" caution in the "Dealing with inappropriate questions and responses" section:
:Deleting a post, without the consent of the author and without consensus to do so, is how edit wars are started.
Not to put too fine a point on it or anything, but this could just as easily say:
:Posting inappropriate content and refusing to change or delete it when politely asked, is how edit wars are started.
I'd suggest we simply don't take sides here and either leave it the way it was, or say something a little more neutral like:
:Always assume good faith and bring any disagreements to the talk page rather than revert any changes (even once).
By "one revert" I mean don't re-add (without discussion) anything anyone deletes and don't re-delete (without discussion) anything anyone re-adds.  I'll admit this rule superficially favors deletes over adds, but I'm assuming everyone understands deletes are never to be done without a good reason.  IMO, if you add something that anyone feels strongly enough about to delete and you disagree, a discussion needs to happen.  I notice there's nothing in this section about using template:delcomment.  Do we want to suggest using this template here as well?  -- Rick Block (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does no comment mean agree or disagree?  If no one comments in a few days, I'll assume agree and change it how I'd like. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *It is important, as non-consensus deletions are how most edit wars seem to start. StuRat 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: **It takes two sides to edit war. You can't blame an edit war on only one of them. >Radiant< 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It only takes one side to start an edit war. StuRat 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **That is a fundamental misunderstanding. It takes two sides to edit war, and both are to blame. Any kind of language that allows one side to avoid the blame is therefore inappropriate. >Radiant< 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that we can get by with a small, generic statement.  People can argue about what constitutes an edit war elsewhere.  If people want to push their own POV about edit wars, they should probably do this in a user space essay, rather than here.  Friday (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: StuRat and I got into a discussion of how comments whose correctness is challanged should be handled.  I argue that if a question-answerer cannot provide a source for something they said upon request, they should either fix their comment or withdraw it.  He argues that, to the contrary, the onus is on others to claim a statement is false.
Well, I double-checked what we do for articles, and Wikipedia:Verifiability says that (for articles) the onus is on someone adding information to source it—ideally when added, but in any case upon request.  Is there any reason, given that we aspire to provide answers that are as accurate as the encyclopedia's articles, that Wikipedia:Verifiability should not apply to the reference desk as well? -- SCZenz 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That standard doesn't apply to talk pages, like the Ref Desk, where all views are presented and respected.  We've already decided against requiring refs for all statements. StuRat 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say it applies to the ref desk about like it applies to talk pages.  In other words, yes, we should pay attention to verifiability.  Saying "all views are presented" is not very accurate- I could have any number of bizarre, unsupported views, but if I start running around answering questions based on this made-up nonsense, this would be disruptive to the proper functioning of the ref desk.  So, while I think there's room for some leniency here, verifiability is a standard we should all respect and keep in mind.  Friday (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Verifiability does not imply everything needs a source immediately. It does mean that people shouldn't be posting wild guesses if they don't know the answer to a question. >Radiant< 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that if something looks like a wild guess, a reference should be provided for it upon request. -- SCZenz 11:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if a source is requested but not provided, what then?EricR 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the poster should remove or modify it.  You could ask, "if they don't, what then?", but I propose we work on that after it's clear we're in agreement on how things work ideally. -- SCZenz 18:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are sure the information is incorrect, then you should be able to provide a source that proves this to be the case.  Otherwise, if you delete anything without sources, you can get into petty little wars: "I don't like so-and-so, and to get even with him I will challenge everything he says and make him spend hours looking up everything.  And if he doesn't, I get to delete everything he says !".  Also note that many responders may be occasional users of Wikipedia, and may very well have been able to provide sources for their statements, but won't be back on for another week to do so.  StuRat 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The priority here is not making sure we can't "challenge" each other; there's no reason for disagreements to be so personal.  In fact, disagreements over content on Wikipedia usually aren't.  It's fair on the rest of Wikipedia—and it should be fair on the reference desk—to ask for sources for things that don't look correct.  The argument that a source must exist if something is false is simply bogus; I can think of plenty of potential speculation that would be so preposterous that no one would bother writing literature to contradict it. -- SCZenz 08:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where this idea that the Ref Desk is a "talk page" comes from, but if we're supposed to be providing reliable, intelligent answers to questions, then a sourced reply is essential. However I will concede that linking to a WP article that provides its own sources would suffice, but that may be difficult to police. Anything that approaches an opinion on RefDesk should have something backing it up besides the poster's personal experience. -- nae'blis 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: The purpose section really needs defining properly so that we can all work to achieving the stated aims. One thing i found was :
(REf librarians) primary duty when they are at the desk is to help library users find what they are looking for.
Would that be our prime purpose also?--Light current 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thts a bit inaccurate really. Im looking for a woman, but I dont think my library or even WP can help there 8-)--Light current 16:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Which part did you paraphrase to get number two? Your list of librarian tasks does not appear to have them answering questions without referral, however, I agree that is what often happens here. David D. (Talk) 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I paraphrased this:
The librarian can look up a brief, factual answer to a specific question. 8-)--Light current 16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK that makes sense, but is that without referral? David D. (Talk) 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i use the term 'referral' to mean that the librarian refers you to the book rather than gives you the answer herself! She may look it up for you but I dont call that referral. Do you? I use the usual meaning of the term refer.--Light current 16:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was thinking that if the librarians "look up" the info it would be strange for them not to show you the source. Without referral implies they give the answer off the top of their head, or head off into the stacks and come back with an answer while you wait at the desk. I have never seen a librarian do either. David D. (Talk) 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they may know things off the top of their head, but I presume they check before giving you an answer. The usual answer at my library is ; I dont know about that! 8-(--Light current 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. That would probably true for anyone doing such a job. David D. (Talk) 19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: List of things a real ref desk does (from our page)
Services that are often available at a library reference desk may include:
*A sign up sheet for reserving time to use computers that have Internet access, or word processing software.
*If a desired book has been checked out, one can place the book 'on hold', which prevents the person who has checked it out from renewing it, and the person who placed the 'hold' is notified when the book has been returned. (Some libraries provide this service at the circulation desk)
*Interlibrary loan of books and other material from other branch libraries in the same library system, or from a cooperating library anywhere in the world. (Some libraries provide this service at the circulation desk)
*The opportunity to recommend that the library purchase something for its collection that it doesn't have, which may be needed or of interest to other library users.
''
The librarian who sits at the reference desk can usually do the following by virtue of their professional training and experience:
*The librarian can look up a brief, factual answer to a specific question.
*The librarian can use the catalogue to find out whether the library owns an item with a particular title or author, or that contains a short story, chapter, song, or poem with a particular title, or to compile a list of books by a particular author or on a particular subject.
*The librarian can briefly teach the user how to use the catalogue and how to use its advanced features, or recommend the proper subject words or terms that are used in the catalogue for the topic the user has in mind.
*The librarian can often take the library user directly to the shelves with books on a certain topic without using the catalogue.
*The librarian is familiar with the contents of hundreds of reference books, and can recommend books that might contain the answer to a particular question.
*The librarian can teach the library user to use online databases such as magazine and newspaper articles, and recommend words and search strategies for the topic the user has in mind.
*The librarian can recommend reliable web sites, give advice on searching the Internet for information, and evaluate the reliability of the information on web sites.
*If the library doesn't have information on a given topic, or if the library user wants more information, the librarian can refer the library user to another library or to an organization that can be contacted by phone or mail.
''
I have struck out what we cant or dont need to do. So maybe we should be doing all the rest?
--Light current 14:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things a real ref desk does 

message: OK now translating the above into Wikipedia language we have:
#Instead of purchasing this would mean commisioning new articles
#We give direct answers to the question without referral.
#We look ourselves for the info and then refer the OP to the correct article.
#We tell the OP how to find the answer himself.
#We give a direct link to our page with no explanatory info.
#We recommend the OP searches in a number of places by providing links or categories.
#We recommend ext links to look at or say go Google
#Hmm! I dont think we're going to refer to another encyclopedia are we?
Anyway those are my translations of the Ref Librarian tasks. Now which ones should we be doing or not doing? Im not fussy- I just want to know what the purpose of the Rds is.--Light current 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part did you paraphrase to get number two? Your list of librarian tasks does not appear to have them answering questions without referral, however, I agree that is what often happens here. David D. (Talk) 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I paraphrased this:
The librarian can look up a brief, factual answer to a specific question. 8-)--Light current 16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK that makes sense, but is that without referral? David D. (Talk) 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i use the term 'referral' to mean that the librarian refers you to the book rather than gives you the answer herself! She may look it up for you but I dont call that referral. Do you? I use the usual meaning of the term refer.--Light current 16:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was thinking that if the librarians "look up" the info it would be strange for them not to show you the source. Without referral implies they give the answer off the top of their head, or head off into the stacks and come back with an answer while you wait at the desk. I have never seen a librarian do either. David D. (Talk) 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they may know things off the top of their head, but I presume they check before giving you an answer. The usual answer at my library is ; I dont know about that! 8-(--Light current 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. That would probably true for anyone doing such a job. David D. (Talk) 19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translating into Wikipediaspeak 

message: Why is Australia named Australia . What does the word mean. Where did it come from.
I have reposted this question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Australia where you are more likely to get a good answer.  David D. (Talk) 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: Unsurprisingly, the debate over Reference Desk guidelines is also raging on talk pages other than this one.  In particular, here are two "position statements" from elsewhere which probably belong here.  When I have time, I'll see how compatible they are with the evolving guidelines, and perhaps try to integrate them with the evolving guidelines (unless someone beats me to it...). —Steve Summit (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meanwhile, back in the jungle... 

message: [This is from Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#"on Holy Wars, and a plea for peace", and it's possible that further discussion on these ideas has occurred there.]
I think we all have to agree on five things going forward.
# What the Reference Desks are for, what the expected norms for participation are.  These have been extensively discussed, and I think there's pretty good consensus on them.  In particular, excessive speculation, Original Research, and humor are all discouraged, although limited amounts of all three of these are appropriate under certain circumstances.
# That the guidelines are not perfect, received on stone tablets, or all-encompassing.  None of the Reference Desks is ever going to be a paragon of what any one observer might wish it to absolutely be.  The guidelines are loose and subject to interpretation.  From time to time people are going to make mistakes.
# That when people do make mistakes, gentle reminders are appropriate.
# That good faith is the norm: gentle reminders will, in fact, be applied gently, and only when they're needed.
# That good faith is the norm: a recipient of a gentle reminder will receive it graciously, will not assume he's being ganged up on.  The appropriate response to a gentle reminder is almost always along the lines of "I'm sorry, I'll try to be more careful next time."  [Footnote: there's a delicate little diplomatic balance here.  The recipient should say this, without argument, even if he doesn't agree 100% with the reminder.  The issuer should accept the apology in good faith, should not insist that the recipient grovel contritely, should not evince fears that the recipient is only going to make the same "mistake" again next time.  We'll worry about that next time.]
If everybody can unreservedly agree to all five of these, I think we have a decent chance of putting all the acrimony behind us, and moving forward with Reference Desks we can all enjoy and be proud of.  The various policies and agreements do not absolutely guarantee perfectly harmonious success -- nothing on this vale of tears can ever guarantee that -- but they should be workable, and we should be able to understand and deal with any exceptions as they arise.
In particular, here are two exceptions that might arise, and how we might deal with them.
* If person A, holding some kind of grudge against person B, systematically issues "gentle reminders" about every one of person B's posts, that is probably a bad-faith action, and subject to RfC or other dispute resolution.  (The exception would be if all observers agree that person B's contributions are all inappropriate.)
* If the recipient of a gentle reminder treats it as a personal attack, and begins attacking the issuer of the reminder or otherwise raising an argumentative ruckus, that is probably a bad-faith action, and subject to RfC or other dispute resolution.
I've got some more to say on this, but that's enough from me for now.
—Steve Summit (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ideas from elsewhere by [[User:Ummit]]

message: [This is from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2#TenOfAllTrades' response, and it's possible that further discussion on these ideas has occurred there.]
Here's a quick-and-dirty sketch of where I stand. 
#'Censorship' is a loaded word rife with connotations, and is best avoided in good-faith discussions.  Once people start throwing 'censorship!' cries about, the discussion is only one or two steps from getting Godwinned.
#Nobody believes that they can or should remove every comment that they dislike; by the same token, nobody believes that every edit to the Ref Desk should remain there.  At Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#On_removal_of_answers.2C_or_even_questions, there is a short list of comment types that we can and should remove without question.  Other types of comments may be removed, in my opinion, after discussion.
#Edit warring is bad, whether to add or remove something, and particularly when one is standing on a stubborn point of principle rather than trying to improve the Desk or encyclopedia.
#Admins aren't infallible, but they have been vetted by the community.  Admins generally have a greater breadth and depth of experience with Wikipedia policy and practice than a randomly selected editor.  Dismissing an admin's good-faith opinion on policy out-of-hand does both parties a disservice.
#Straw polls are one method of many to attempt to assess community opinion on a subject.  When used appropriately – allowing adequate time for discussion and alternate opinions, and accurately representing the issue at hand – they can be a useful tool.
#Reference Desk answers with links to sources and background information are always preferred to answers without.  Editors who present their own opinions as assertions of fact without providing references or any indication of their own qualifications should do so with extreme care, and should be unsurprised if other editors request clarification or references for unsupported statements.  Editors should refrain from offering unsupported opinion after referenced answers have been provided.  Like everything else on Wikipedia, Ref Desk responses should be treated as suspect until supported by citation.
#The goal of any edit to the Ref Desk – or anywhere else on Wikipedia – should be to provide a net benefit, be it the addition of useful material or the removal of harmful stuff.  This may sometimes be a complex judgement, which requires weighing the value to questioners on the Ref Desk, the sensibilities of readers and answerers on the RD, editors' histories, etc.
#The purpose of the Ref Desk is to answer questions. Providing a positive experience to new editors (many people have their first Wikipedia experience on the Ref Desk) is a key part of that.  We can best accomplish these goals by keeping the Ref Desk a friendly, civil environment chock full of detailed, descriptive, and well-referenced answers (with a bit of a sense of humour).  Both Wikipedia and the Ref Desk serve the common goal of providing info to users.
TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ideas from elsewhere by [[User:TenOfAllTrades]]

message: This para in the guidelines is very weak ATM IMO. If we can get a consensus on the purpose of the RDs , then I feel everything else will fall into place. So... what do we want the RDs to do?--Light current 01:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm! everones too busy arguing to actually think what the purpose is of the thing the guidelines of which they are arguing about is. I think the prime purpose of the RDs is so it gives everyone a good place to argue with each other, and give Admins some practice in blocking skills. Am I right, or am I dead right? 8-)--Light current 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose is what we want it to do.  If we talked about what too frequently ends up happening, we'd say it was a place for hungry trolls to get handouts.  Friday (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you following me round again?--Light current 04:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen anyone object, so I'll go ahead and swap the order. StuRat 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I also added that we can answer questions with info from outside of Wikipedia. StuRat 04:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose(s) ... what do we want the RDs to do? 

message: Seems like editing has slowed down a bit on this proposal.  I know I was one who expressed initial skepticism that a guideline was needed or helpful, but what we've got here is pretty sensible in my opinion.  Thanks to everyone who has worked on this.  Friday (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprising since the only worker was blocked for 48 hrs recently 8-(--Light current 06:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe you will have to present evidence that this proscriptive, rather than descriptive guideline will be helpful to the encyclopedia rather than harmful. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a proscriptive guideline because the page wasn't evolving in a sensible way on its own, so there isn't (and probably won't be anytime soon) a fully sensible system to describe.  What I see on the guideline page now I rather like. -- SCZenz 11:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  All mention of NPOV and OR outside of the nutshell have been excised. Prohibitations on unverifiable answers have been weakened. The draft has been used to support bad behavior -> . Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hm, that's pretty bad, and should be fixed. People shouldn't make up answers, that's really not helpful to the questioner, and hurts our credibility. >Radiant< 12:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree.  Where is the best place to discuss Verifiability, NPOV, and NOR in the guidelines?  I think verifiability is the critial one—it insures that people who state facts know they need to be able to support them upon request. -- SCZenz 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's in the nutshell, which is a good start.  I also took a stab at adding a sentence about this under "What the reference desk is not".  I"m not saying this is the best place for it or anything, but it's one place that seemed appropriate to me. Friday (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Also, maybe a stronger statement towards NPOV? Something along the lines of: contributors should direct readers to the notable opinions of others, not use the desk as a place to express their own opinions?—eric 16:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *It was this issue that got me interested in this debate. Answering with hunches and guesses should be actively discouraged. People who love to answer all the questions on ref desk should be mentored to stick to areas in which they are knowledgable or do some research (and cite it) if they wish to answer in areas where they have little or no knowledge. David D. (Talk) 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It was just linked- but I'd never heard of this.  I don't see that mentioning it adds to the guideline, but maybe that's just because I didn't know what it was.  Friday (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it adds much either, because nobody knows the full range of real reference desk services.  I think the important point is that you cannot get the opinions of your reference librarian, and (s)he will not tell you penis jokes, and those services are not available on Wikipedia either. -- SCZenz 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do people think? 

message: The following is a proposed addition to the RD guidlines. Most of the proposed guidlines were originally compiled by TenOfAllTrades. I want to see if we have consensus on these issues before I post the guidlines on the policy page. The guidlines assume that we (at least most of us) agree that medical advice should not be allowed on the RD. —LestatdeLioncourt 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it- I see no reason this shouldn't go into the guideline.  Friday (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks good, let's put it in.  Once it's there, I might think about generalizing to cover other kinds of advice in some places—for example, bad legal advice or bad advice on handling fireworks is just as dangerous to the questioner, and the procedures for dealing with it should be the same.  Also, I'm a little concerned that the definition of "medical advice" is too rigid here, but that's for later—for now, this is a good start. -- SCZenz 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you like it. Generalizing to cover more forms of unacceptable advice should indeed be a goal, but right now I'm just aiming at setting up some much-needed guidlines for medical advice. We have plenty of time to improve any aspects of the guidlines to which you object :). —LestatdeLioncourt 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Realistically, though, we do need to draw some pretty bright lines to help people understand what constitutes 'medical advice'.  There have been recent problems with people interpreting the idea of medical advice both too broadly and too narrowly.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've struck the bit about there being other venues for this advice; nobody has provided me with such a location, and we probably don't even want to be in the business of referring people to unqualified laypeople on other sites anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Yahoo Answers tolerates questions of this type, but directing people there for medical advice is highly unethical. The only appropriate referral is a medical expert. —LestatdeLioncourt 18:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On the question of location, this might also make sense as a separate, ancillary document rather than as something incorporated whole into the guidelines.  The flavour of this section is a lot more prescriptive and specific than the rest of the guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TenOfAllTrades on two things: 1) the specificity of the definition is necessary to prevent misinterpretation. Having an overly general definition is just as detrimental as having none at all, and 2) This set of guidlines do seem to deserve their seperate document. I don't feel very strongly about this, but I think it would be more appropriate. By the way, thanks for all the effort you put in, TenOfAllTrades. —LestatdeLioncourt 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer they go on this page.  I suspect that, over time, this guideline will aquire other specific sections, as new forest fires crop up; better to set a precedent of having it on the same page than to eventually end up with a bunch of subpages. -- SCZenz 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on where this guideline is going to go, I suppose.  If it's going at the top of every Ref Desk to replace the current 'How to ask and answer', then we need be very conscious of length.  If it's going to be a separate document included only by reference, then we don't need to be as concerned about size. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should retain the header as a summary of the guideline, and link to the guideline for more information. -- SCZenz 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal for medical advice guidlines 

message: Are we also going to have guidelines for:
*legal advice
*electrical safety advice
*rewiring your own home advice
*gas advice
*nuclear warning advice
*cold weather advice
*warm weather advice
*anything that uses chemicals in the home advice
*walking down the street advice
*driving advice
*accountancy advice
*tax advice
*personal relations advice
*using stairs advice
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
?--Light current 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should generalize guidelines for dangerous advice, but I do think medical advice is a special case with special (and frequent) problems. -- SCZenz 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Medical advice issues are the most frequent and problematic. We need to have a policy concerning it. Other forms of advice should be discouraged and dealth with too, but that's no reason for us to not have a medical advice policy. —LestatdeLioncourt 13:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we stop? 

message: The RD talk page has a link to these guidelines, with the line "We are currently drafting a proposal".  Is this still correct?  Are these guidelines still in draft form?  If not, someone should remove the line. --Richardrj talk email 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RD talk page cross-reference 

message: I made a change to reflect what people do in real life, and what was being said on the talk page.  It was reverted.  IMO the requirement of notifying people on user talk page is 1) never going to be followed in real life and 2) not a reasonable demand to make anyway.  Now, hopefully people will get the idea what the ref desk is for, and removing people's comments will not be common, but we should do it like it's done on the entire rest of Wikipedia.  This means people may explain in the edit summary, on the ref desk talk page, or in user talk.  I see user talk as mainly for people who do this regularly and therefore it's a user conduct issue.  Thoughts?  Friday (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what's best here, the last thing i want to do is start edit wars on the desk, but editors are restoring content simply because not everyone in the thread was notified of the removal, and refusing to be drawn in to any kind of discussion on the quality or appropriateness of the content. I created a user warning template for notification, but am not to sure whether to use it or not.—eric 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I (partially) reverted that change, also to reflect what was being said on the talk page. Looking at this contribution from one of the more reasonable and considerate RD regulars, I think we're not going to get a consensus for anything less. The situation can't be compared to an article; the edit rate at most of the desks is much higher, and finding out what happened to your disappeared pearl of wisdom accordingly more difficult and time-consuming. But removal of another user's contribution should be an exceptional thing, and leaving a note on their talk page is not a heavy burden.  --LambiamTalk 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who feel strongly that authors should be notified are free to do so.  Do we need something more than this?  Friday (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do. Key point here is "deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time" (see WP:EQ), and so it is a matter of simple courtesy to explain to your fellow editor why you have deleted their contribution. The edit summary is not sufficient space for a polite explanation, and is easily misssed on high traffic pages such as the RDs. In article space you can reasonably assume that an interested editor is watching the article, and so they will see a note on the article's talk page, but an RD contributor is not necessarily watching the RD talk page. So leaving a note on a user's talk page is the simplest and clearest way to ensure that they see the explanation of an RD deletion. Gandalf61 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't do this in article space or (sometimes) talk space.  Why should we do it on the ref desk?  I agree that a signed comment is a bit different than an article edit.  What if answers were unsigned?  Then, surely they'd be considered fair game for normal wiki-style editing.  To me, someone who gets too upset that their edit was edited is in the wrong place- this is Wikipedia.  Surely our interest in providing good answers outweighs our interest in not upsetting people?  Friday (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notified on user talk 

message: I propose that we simplify the (draft) guidelines by considering them to be guidelines for the volunteers who are answering the questions. Rationale:
#Most of the issues where guidelines might and – one should hope – would have been helpful appear to have been issues with the responses.
#In whatever form, guidelines cannot prevent trolling questions.
#New questioners will not (and should not need to have to) familiarize themselves with a long set of guidelines. Half of them appear not to read or to disregard the instructions on "How to ask a question" already.
What do people think?  --LambiamTalk 18:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to me. A.Z. 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what we've been aiming at all along, as I recall.  It was pointed out that we shouldn't assume the questioners will read a guideline.  Friday (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus on respondents