Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 3

message: Is there some rule in the notion of building consensus that we should indefinitely keep taking account of the arguments of editors who insist on argumentation in a style that is virtually indistinguishable from trolldom? Perhaps we should not feed them either.  --LambiamTalk 11:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to ignore unhelpful talk page contributions.  This is difficult for me because I tend to be optimistic and assume that people can be reasoned with.  But it may be time to cut our losses in some cases.  Friday (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see anticipaton of disruption at the desks (edit wars) and indignation on the talk page (endless) as one reason why a few editors choose to not ignore the argumentative style. I have only the highest respect for this approach, but it does focus a lot of attention on one single "conflict" not too many editors seem interested in dealing with anymore (the conflict is specified in the next section below). Yet I know no alternative, since the edit wars in particular seem to be unignorable. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not feed the hand that bites you

message: I have an idea! We should paste here real questions, answers and diffs of other kinds (including diffs of content removal), so we have something real to work with. Then maybe we can better understand one another by talking just a bit less about abstractions and a little more about the real cases. A.Z. 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean use real examples on this talk page or in the actual guidelines ? StuRat 02:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he is referring to real questions, quips or anwsers, from the ref desk themselves, that were deleted. David D. (Talk) 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean: we take a question from the reference desk and we discuss whether it is appropriate or not. We take an answer from the reference desk and we discuss whether it was appropriate or not and why. We take some diffs of content removal and we discuss whether they were legitimate or not, so each one of us understands better what other people consider allowed and not allowed on the desks. This would sound promising to me, but I really don't know a reason not to make a fork of the desks on Wikiversity to compete with these ones here and see who wins. A.Z. 05:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think "self-image" is something that Friday, Ten, Eric et al are worried about. And their concept of a good self-image for the reference desks is something utterly formal, unhuman, short answers, concise posts, cold, uninteresting, unbold, etc. They'd actually rather build a computer to answer the questions if they could. A.Z. 05:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inventing opinions that nobody holds is a large part of what has made our progress here so painfully slow.  This is not helpful; please desist.  Friday (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at the desks! 

message: I really hope everyone participating here is trying to reach a workable solution, rather than just trying to fight.  Comments like this one are unhelpful in the extreme, and really make me question what StuRat is hoping to accomplish here.  
Keep in mind, if your goal is to disrupt this process so that later you can point to it and say "Look, no consensus was ever reached" this may not have the effect you wanted.  In absence of a reference desk specific guideline, standard project expectations apply.  So, StuRat, if you're hoping that lack of a guideline effectively means the reference desk is a "free for all", this simply isn't going to happen.  So, please, either be helpful, or get out of the way.  Friday (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of misleading edit summaires is a demonstration of disruptive behavior. note that this comment has been edited since my initial comment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  But on the chance he is trying to cooperate, we should give him an opportunity to change his approach before he gets completely disregarded.  Friday (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guees there's a chance that he reverted to his personal preferred version while he was merely attempting to remove the second reference to the core NPOV policy per his edit summary. I went ahead and removed the second reference, but removed his mistaken reversion to the individual opinions version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tried to hack together a compromise version.   It's got 'should strive to' rather than just 'should'; it conveys the importance of NPOV and RS, but leaves some wiggle room for the questions that may well require a bit of OR or professional judgement.  I've trimmed the wikilink for WP:NPOV down to just 'fairly'; I found the 'fairly and without bias' bit to be redundant and clunky.  I've fiddled with the last sentence a bit, too.  Here's the total diff: . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you change it from saying editors aren't required to "represent" all views to them not being required to "be familiar" with all views ?  This seems less clear, to me.  Also, we should explicitly say that personal views are allowed, as in the language example I give in the following section. StuRat 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  While I prefer my version, I can support yours. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like a bit of wiggle room.  We do get a share of questions that aren't really proper reference desk questions but don't hurt anything either.  If people can give useful responses to them, so be it.  Friday (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try to cooperate, not fight.   

message: A dense person might look at speed limits in a town, and notice that at some point it changes from 50mph to 30mph. The dense person might then say, "Well, this is completely stupid! They're saying I have to slam on my brakes and instantly go from 50 to 30!" If we're lucky, the dense person will then storm off in a huff, never to be heard from again. In practice, the dense person is more likely to stick around and protest loudly, perhaps even obstructing traffic in the process.  Friday (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Parable of Density

message: I tried adding information about a recently trashed "One Life to Live" storyline. The storyline involved a high school hostage situation. It was trashed out of respect for the Virginia Tech massacre victims. Apparently, I also added in incorrect references. Plus, someone deleted it. If anyone out there can add the correct information and references, please feel free to do so.72.229.130.76 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should probably be posted on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk instead of here (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines).  I agree, however, that a poorly worded question or one with errors/mistaken assumptions should not be deleted, but should rather be interpreted in a way that it can be answered. StuRat 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no question from that IP address was deleted from the Ref Desk.  As far as I can tell, all of his posts to the Desk are intact (though it would help if he had some guidance in section editing rather than creating a new section for each edit).  The edits removed were (apparently) made in article space.  Perhaps this (probably new?) editor would be best served at the Wikipedia:Help Desk? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, it was a matter of having an unclosed <ref> tag at the end of what had been added to the article.  As I noted (in one of the sections) on the Entertainment Desk, one editor removed the rogue tag, and another removed the entry by Editor 72.  --LarryMac 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storyline trashed 

message: Anon I/Ps also have a right to have their opinions known here.  If you are concerned about Light Current making comments here, then continue to delete his comments, but that's no justification for banning all anon I/Ps from participation. StuRat 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see the extent to which he disrupted the page earlier today? Moreover, him excepted, how many anons have edited this page? I count two, and both appear to be logged out regulars. The page will be unprotected in due course, but if you disagree you can always take it to WP:RFP#Current requests for unprotection. Rockpocket 08:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither my talk page nor StuRat's is protected at this time.  I encourage any legitimate IP participants who are inconvenienced by the temporary semi-protection of this page to notify one of us.  Due to persistent vandalism by a banned editor, we are temporarily unable to allow anonymous edits on this page.  I would be pleased to forward comments and suggestions to this page.  Note as well that by establishing a Wikipedia account you will be able to participate fully and normally. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they happen to read this, how would they know to do so ? StuRat 06:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to this section, there is also a template providing instructions at the top of this page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template doesn't tell them whose talk page they should go to have their views presented here. StuRat 08:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't recall seeing a lot of IPs editing this page, so I don't see that it's a big problem.  Friday (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody should be excluded from editing, that's the issue, even if it is only 2 people. StuRat 06:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider that next time you encourage the troll by reverting on sight efforts to deal with his disruption. Three admins have independently declined to unprotect it at this time because there is no evidence of anons wishing to contribute. If you don't like it, there is a place for such requests. Rockpocket 06:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the semi-protection from this talk page 

message: *I've seen lots of responses, but they seem to be mainly semantic arguments and weird examples of perverse ways that the guidelines could be read.  No matter how good they get, someone can always misinterpret them- we cannot prevent this.  Also some of the problems appear to be English comprehension issues.  All I can suggest is that we can't teach people how to understand English here- the guidelines must be written with the assumption that those reading them have the language skills to understand.  I also note that StuRat has twice simply reverted rather than fixing whatever was wrong, and has yet to list a single objection here.  Friday (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still have many objections, such as no prohibition on argument from authority or ad hominem attacks, the current assumption that only services provided by a library ref desk can be provided here, and the lack of requests for due diligence before challenging a question (recently deleted).  StuRat 04:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *My response is the same as before when you brought this up.  We already cover it with telling people to be civil, and telling people about verifiability.  The due diligence issue has been changed a bit, since some people objected to it as seeming to discourage people from wanting sources.  I'd say we're ready to call this a guideline, then.  Friday (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't, and won't, so long as you just ignore my objections, and the objections of others. StuRat 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I will keep that in mind, for when the day comes that I do ignore your objections, rather than patiently answering them, even repeating myself if necessary.  If it's important to you to have things in there, it's up to you to make an effort to work them in such that other editors agree with them.  Friday (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still can't agree to this without...

message: There was a fleeting smell of consensus about one small point earlier today, when at least Friday, David D., RockPocket and I seemed to agree that it would be good to have firmer encouragement for responders to provide references, and less discouragement of people from requesting references from earlier responders. I was hoping to get even more confirmation about this, but since the discussion has now veered elsewhere, and seems headed towards "let's just make it official as is", I've gone ahead and made an edit. I have broadened the "Link to Wikipedia..." section into a "Provide source information" section, and I have edited the "Factual disputes.." section to remove excessive discouragement of reference requests. Comments? --mglg(talk) 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  --LambiamTalk 23:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Very good, altho I'm still not crazy about "Do not delete an incorrect answer, solely because it is wrong, even if you can prove that it is."  It's not a showstopper for me tho.  Friday (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. Rockpocket 00:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm on board David D. (Talk) 01:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Stu, the treatment of reference requests is effectively identical to one I suggested earlier (at 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is the edit being discussed here. I'm glad you find it acceptable. --mglg(talk) 07:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing of responses vs. due diligence by doubters 

message: "The Wikipedia reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to a library reference desk." (the proposal as of Saturday morning) 
I think this is rather silly. I think that the reference desk should be the Wikipedia Reference Desk, and we should forget about real world reference desks altogether. It's like the village pump: it's not a real village pump, as we know, but it can still have this name! The thing is that no-one complains by saying: "hey, we are a village pump, so stop doing things that are not usually done around real-world village pumps!" I respect the good intentions of the people who still insist that this is some sort of real world reference desk, but I think it's just... silly, as I said. A.Z. 04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, where we get upset at the village pump is when people do treat it exactly like a real village pump. One day a few years ago, someone drew water there, and it royally messed up the servers.  Friday (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think its fine, as it gives those not familiar with the project a comparison with something tangible. The statement itself it entirely correct (we do attempt to provide comparative services) and its worded in a descriptive, not prescriptive, manner. All good. Rockpocket 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, doesn't the name "reference desk" already give a comparison with something tangible, just like the "village pump"? I'm not trying to change the name of the project, I think that "reference desk" is fine, as long as it's treated the same way that "village pump" is. I bet there are no guidelines for the village pump saying "we try to provide gatherings comparable to those of a real village pump". A.Z. 06:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see the wiki-link to the library reference desk article as adding value, as it provides an overview of the scope and purpose of a reference desk for those not familiar with the concept. Some people might think the Desk is a forum or place to chat - the link is a quick way of dispelling those misguided ideas. Rockpocket 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the reference desk is a forum, just check the dictionary. A.Z. 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify, I meant internet discussion forum. Rockpocket 07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only a matter of semantics. It's all subjective here. Don't say "they'll think it's an Internet forum". Say what you mean! Say what is it that the reference desk should not be for, otherwise I'll just say "well, it is an Internet discussion forum as far as I'm concerned". Accordingly to the article, "An Internet forum is a facility on the World Wide Web for holding discussions and posting user generated content, or the web application software used to provide this facility." All it takes is for me to say that everything on the reference desks right now I shall label "discussion". So, instead of using loaded terms like "forum" and "discussion" which could mean basically anything, strive to be more objective. A.Z. 07:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, its somewhat beside the point. You clearly know what I meant, therefore arguing the semantics is no more than wikilawyering. One is a forum for discussion of topics on the internet, the other is a virtual desk manned be people who volunteer to help provide references. They have similarities, but so do cats and dogs and it doesn't take a genius to tell them apart. Please, A.Z., can we avoid the meta-discussions over every single minor issue and try and stick to the point here? Rockpocket 07:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really good to read, Rockpocket. I wasn't expecting you to say that. The thing is: I have no idea about what you mean. I mean it, Rockpocket, and you may not believe it, but I'm not playing with words here: I do not know what you mean and this is not a minor issue, that's the entire issue. If you write "this thing is not a forum", I don't have a clue what you're saying. I'll just probably be scared and run away, afraid of the arbitrary removal of content by people who judged my posts to be "forum-like", whatever that is supposed to mean. A.Z. 08:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, then I'm sorry. Let me make myself clear. By internet discussion forum, I mean a website where people will leave messages for each other in threads, thereby having a conversation, either for the purposes of simple social interaction or to carry out a debate/argument on a specific subject. An example might be Popbitch a gossip forum  or Politicalhotwire, for political debate. Hopefully you can appreciate that there are similarities between these and an online version of a library reference desk, yet agree that they are also inherent differences. Rockpocket 08:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand what "this is not a forum" means beyond "this is not a chat room".  Can you explain the diff ? StuRat 08:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where did you get the quote, "this is not a forum" from, and what diff are you referring to? Rockpocket 08:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I see what you mean now (I though you meant diff, rather than difference). Compare and contrast Internet forum with Web chat site. Rockpocket 08:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you send me to two articles to try to figure out what you mean, instead of just telling me ?  Or, perhaps I should have sent you to compare and contrast articles on plain talk and beating around the bush. :-) StuRat 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because I have more constructive things to do than provide trollfood. You really wanted to understand the difference, you would read them and move on. If you wish to argue for the sake of it, you can find someone else to humour you. I bid you adieu. Rockpocket 09:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, this is a fair question, which in the interest of preserving the world's dwindling supply of colons, I'll take up in a new section below. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't that a bit like the thin edge of the wedge, though?  It's fine that we say "the reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to a library reference desk", because that's true, and reflects its core purpose.  Once we start talking about possible other functions, the question arises - what other functions?  and that demands answers.  Once we start to enumerate them, we're in trouble.  "Comparable" doesn't mean "identical".  The sentence doesn't prevent users from asking us to check their maths homework, but neither does it invite such questions, nor, imo, should it.  JackofOz 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the analogy is imperfect (which it is), and we aren't willing to explain where the analogy breaks down, we shouldn't use the analogy at all, it just causes confusion. StuRat 08:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So, we should not invite these kinds of questions at all. This way, we don't have to deal with the problem to determinate what the reference desk is, as we would be in trouble. But we shouldn't stop the users from asking for us to check their maths homework either, because, well, that's a good thing that the reference desk does. A.Z. 07:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That pretty much sums up my opinion, A.Z.  No matter how expansively we might list all the things we have done in the past and would be prepared to do in the future - and it would be a very long list - someone will come along and ask a curly question of a type we've never had before.  It's a futile exercise, because people in their illimitable uniqueness will find ways of regarding a Ref Desk in a way that was never anticipated, but which may be something we take on board.  Or not.  JackofOz 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, don't list them. Don't list any of them. Let's stop engaging this futile exercise once and for all. Or do you suppose that we are trying to do anything different from what you just described? Yes, we are, I admit it. We are being even more futile. We don't want to list all things that we have done in the past: we also want to determine which ones are good and each ones are bad, which ones fit and which ones don't, which ones will be allowed from now on and which ones won't, and all of that summarized in just a few paragraphs. Well, if we do use just a few paragraphs, people will be able to interpret it as it pleases them (yes, the guidelines as they are now can be interpreted to allow everything or to disallow everything, as they are highly subjective). If we start to use a lot, a lot of paragraphs to explain everything in details, here comes the original futile exercise again...  A.Z. 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Leave it. The wikipedia ref desk is functionally like other reference desks, and this statement is therefore informative. I don't buy the argument about the village pump, yeah there is no pump, but there is no desk either, these things are besides the point. At the level of description we are talking about it is appropriate to talk about village pumps and reference desks. -- Diletante 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would write a response myself, but StuRat speaks better English than me, so I'll just copy his post: "We shouldn't limit the services which we provide to those provided at a library ref desk.  For example, I can't picture any reference librarian checking a student's math, but that's exactly the type of thing we do at the Math Ref Desk.  If we include the comparison at all, we should say "The Ref Desk offers a superset of the capabilities of a regular library Ref Desk, offering those services and much more." A.Z. 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the statement in its original phrasing; I feel that it encourages and discourages just what we want.  The proposed "superset" turns it into something meaningless.  I don't see it as the purpose of either ref desk to check math homework (and thus we should not encourage it), though neither do I see it as so far out of bounds that we should actively attempt to prohibit it, just as I would not expect library management to encourage students to ask for this at a brick-and-mortar ref desk, nor to chastise a librarian who nonetheless did this. Matchups 11:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would, indeed, expect a real Ref Desk librarian to be chastised for checking a student's homework answers, which is one reason why there is a difference here. StuRat 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogy 

message: This guideline says it is about defining guidelines for appropriate responses. Where are the guidelines for asking questions appropriately? -- Diletante 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far our assumption has been that askers won't find or read a large guideline.  So, we get by with the headers, which contains the nice and brief Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoask. Friday (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By and large there are two kinds of questioners: those who read the headers but don't really need to, and those who really need to read the headers but don't. :(  --LambiamTalk 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, we'll be saying the same thing about this guideline in a few months, too.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about question guidelines? 

message: I'm so used to having my words twisted and perverted by a shabby little cabal that I though I would resurrect the Korea thread that Mr. Rat is referring to and let people make up their own minds.  I have never argued 'from authority', though I think it far better to draw on informed sources than to speculate in a mindless and solipsistic fashion on this, that or the other, whether this be elephant's graveyards, pigeon genocide or the cleaning of 'skid marks', and other such joys.  I have never removed anything from Wikipedia, but I propose to remove this superflous and silly addition to the guidelines to the limit of my 3RR.  I will continue to do so day by day if necessary.  Before doing so I would appreciate guidance from an admin.
Anyway, here is the thread in question.  I will, of course, discuss any of the issues raised by this with those whom I respect.  Clio the Muse 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A US invasion is silly, NK can't possibly think that's a possibility.  A Chinese invasion on the other hand, seems quite plausible to me.  It would allow China to expand with very little world opposition, unlike when they invaded Tibet (or if they were to invade Taiwan).  They could then govern it like Hong Kong, allowing a degree of independence, keeping the economy from collapsing, thus preventing a flood of refugees into China.  China might also benefit from increased trade with South Korea.  And, maybe in a few decades, NK could be united with SK. StuRat 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest that you actually visit North Korea, or at least read around the subject a little more before making blanket declarations of this kind.  For whatever reasons, silly or not, Pyongyang perceives America as the greatest threat to its security, a fear made all the worse by the invasion of Iraq, the first link in Bush's Axis of Evil.  The best guarantee of North Korean integrity is not Kim Jong-Il's weapons programme, but China, which would never tolerate either serious military or economic actions against the regime.  Also you might care to look a little more deeply into the whole course of Korean history.  Then you might really begin to understand why China would not in any light sense consider invasion.Clio the Muse 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that only people who have visited NK are qualified to comment ?  Have you ? StuRat 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; I have.  But you entirely miss the point.  To make the kind of sweeping assertion you have you either need direct experience, or you need to have looked into the question in some depth. Your statement is so far removed from the facts that it is patently obvious that you have neither the experience nor the insight.  Your observations in the matter are therefore fatuously incorrect.  Clio the Muse 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Clio did not, but I did.  See the full discussion here (note that Clio gave the wrong date): Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_January_6#North_Korea_Solutions. StuRat 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't revert war over this, Clio. Since StuRat inserted this, not one person has expressed support for it (not even A.Z.), and at least four have expressed that they think it is not required. The consensus is looking very much like there is no support for its inclusion, if this doesn't change it will be removed. Rockpocket 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Rockpocket.  I do take your point, and I hate revert wars.  But I see this addition as nothing more than a paper thin attack against me, confirmed by Mr Rat's subsequent elaboration.  I would prefer the hate fest to be confined to Wikiversity.  Clio the Muse 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Support for what? What is it over which she wants to revert war? A.Z. 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. Clio is also against forbidding arguments from authority. I am against this as well. We have to assume that any and all logical fallacies are inherently forbidden, and we should not have to state that anywhere, as they are no more than lies. A.Z. 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a major diff, you think it's not needed because such arguments are already forbidden on the Ref Desk, while Clio thinks they are perfectly fine and apparently plans to keep on making them. StuRat 23:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How amusingly eccentric of her, to defend her right to use logical fallacies on the desk. A.Z. 00:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And your "evidence" that I didn't do those things is apparently that you disagree with my answer.  This is not acceptable evidence, nor should you even be commenting on the fitness of other editor to offer a response.  Your arguments should be backed up by facts, not ad hominem attacks and argument from authority.  The fact that this type of argumentative style is still defended shows how badly we need to say that this is not permitted on the Ref Desk. StuRat 23:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to say that, because no-one is taking her seriously. You disprove her argument by showing that it is fallacious, and that's it. A.Z. 23:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe some people do fall for such logical fallacies.  And, even if they don't, it still wastes time and energy to debunk each occurrence. StuRat 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, you wish to delete her posts everytime she resorts to fallacies? If someone falls for it, then that is a huge problem that should be dealt it. No-one should fall for fallacies! Every human being is capable of knowing on their own how to identify a fallacy when they see one (though they may make mistakes), so there's no need to patrol what they are going to be able to see or to filter the logical fallacies. Let them be; you may be the one that is wrong about them. If you are really right, you should be able to prove it: no sources are needed to show that an argument is logically fallacious. A.Z. 00:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't wish to delete them, I wish her, and others, to stop using such faulty logic, and instead provide actual evidence. StuRat 00:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish the very same thing that you do, then. I only think that your suggestion will not be effective at all in convincing her and others to do that. A.Z. 00:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If some Admin would have pointed out to her that personal attacks are not allowed, perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to restate it here (she ignores it when non-Admins say it).  But, they don't, so it is. StuRat 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The dialogue between you two makes me think of the kinds of relief the Bard intercalated in his most tragic plays.  --LambiamTalk 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché! It certainly provides me with some comic diversion, Lambaim.  Clio the Muse 00:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe you should ask him to marry you, since you both have the same tastes. The Humanities desk is but a click away. A.Z. 00:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Lambian and Clio can be our new Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. StuRat 00:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have archived this because, I feel, it reached its natural conclusion and, further continuation is not constructive in establishing guidelines. Rockpocket 07:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea thread 

message: I have never understood this feud between Loomis and Clio, I have never understood how StuRat (and now apparently A.Z.) got sucked in, but one thing I thought I understood was that you two were supposed to stay away from, and stop baiting, each other!  So why are you here baiting and debating each other?!?  This is a huge waste of time and energy, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!  Drop it, please, drop it! —Steve Summit (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, I would certainly be pleased if you, or some other user, decided to send this whole 'Chilling Effect' thread into the oblivion where it belongs.  Clio the Muse 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have archived this because, I feel, it reached its natural conclusion and, further continuation is not constructive in establishing guidelines. Rockpocket 07:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough!  Give it up!

message: I agree with Friday that the words italicized in "The Wikipedia reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to, but not limited to, those of a library reference desk", the first sentence of the lead paragraph, are an unnecessary complication and do not belong there. While working hard to keep assuming good faith, but fearing this may be a losing battle, I cannot help observe that insistence on presenting an extended view of the RD services, even in this very first shot at an explanation of what the RD is, fits a pattern of trying to subvert the purpose of the reference desk by morphing it from an information service into a discussion facility.  --LambiamTalk 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an attempt to change the Ref Desk, but to accurately describe it as it currently operates.  We clearly do many things beyond what a brick and mortar Ref Desk does, like checking math homework, giving computer programming advice, identifying insects, interpreting song lyrics, etc.  To state otherwise is simply incorrect. StuRat 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the guideline were to state: The Wikipedia Reference Desk never does anything beyond what a brick and mortar Ref Desk does, that would, indeed, be incorrect. But it does not state that. If you do not state everything that may possibly be true, it does not mean that what you state is incorrect. For example, our article on Wikipedia does not mention any function beyond that of an encyclopedia in its lead paragraph – in fact, not at all in the whole article, although it goes into considerable detail on how the project operates. Does this mean the article on Wikipedia is incorrect, because it does not mention the occasional checking of homework at the Reference Desk (and, in fact, not even the existence of a Reference Desk)? Of course not. Our article on the New York Public Library also does not mention their reference desk, although they do have one, and even an on-line information service. The issue at hand is: is the lead sentence better with or without the parenthetical phrase? I say: it is better without. The phrase conveys absolutely no useful information to anyone reading the introduction. If they already know how the RD operates, they don't need to read the introduction. If they are new and are trying to figure out its function from this sentence – which is only the very first sentence of a much longer text – then it is a complication that does not tell anything about how the RD operates. Would you really, truly, be in favour of changing the lead sentence of our article Adze from "The tool known as the adze (adz in US) (IPA: ) serves for smoothing rough-cut wood in hand woodworking" to "The tool known as the adze (adz in US) (IPA: ) serves, among other possible uses, for smoothing rough-cut wood in hand woodworking", because (as the article states itself) the adze can be used for other cutting operations? Or to complicate the lead sentence of Telephone because it only mentions sound, and not the use of the telephone for transmitting images? Let us keep these guidelines simple and focus on useful advice to respondents.  --LambiamTalk 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many of those cases, the answer is yes, I would widen the articles:  I would say that Wikipedia strives to exceed the limitations of a paper encyclopedia, I do think the addition of sections on the New York Library's ref desk and on-line information service would improve that article, I do think the opening sentence from the adze article should hint at them having multiple uses, I do think the telephone article should mention that they can be used to transmit sound or other information.  A newbie reading these guidelines (or just scanning the first few lines) should not feel discouraged from asking a question which would be discouraged at a brick and mortar library, such as any of the examples I gave previously. StuRat 09:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let me simply note that we fundamentally disagree on the best ways of presenting information.  --LambiamTalk 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. StuRat 10:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's about giving information as clearly and as precisely as we can.  The rest is silence.  Clio the Muse 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I fear the "but not limited to" phrase would be used to justify all kinds of nonsense, despite the subsequent information on "what the ref desk is not."  --LarryMac 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Friday, Lambiam, LarryMac and (if I interpret her correctly) Clio: To muddle up the lead sentence with an unclear phrase that could be read as opening up the desk for almost any other uses is a really bad idea. --mglg(talk) 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with those above. The lead phrase, out of any, is the one that should be most clear and succinct.Highlighting superfluous weasal words simply muddies the water, in my opinion. Rockpocket 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "not limited to" is not weasel words, it's quite clear, meaning the online Ref Desk does more than a brick and mortar Ref Desk. StuRat 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. Its not specific, so it tells us nothing except provide a handwaving get-out clause for whatever anyone wishes to use it for. Rockpocket 02:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm a little confused at the type of examples the catch all " but not limited to" is trying embrace.  StuRat mentions homework but I think i missed the specific discussion, is there a diff? For me this phrase does nothing but cause trouble and I disagree with its insertion in this guideline. Technically anything goes under such wording and it will lead to wikilaywering in the future rather than a preferred common sense approach. Besides, an anything goes clause makes the whole guideline void. If without this wording answering potential homework questions was somehow banned i might see the point but this is far from the case. David D. (Talk) 19:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone only refers to the homework example, while I gave several other examples as the 2nd response for this section.  Here they are again:
"This isn't an attempt to change the Ref Desk, but to accurately describe it as it currently operates. We clearly do many things beyond what a brick and mortar Ref Desk does, like checking math homework, giving computer programming advice, identifying insects, interpreting song lyrics, etc. To state otherwise is simply incorrect." StuRat 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose this gets us into the question of "Are the guidelines meant to be a description of how the Ref Desk currently operates, or are they meant to be guidelines for its future operation?".  And are the two things substantially different?  If so, what is it that we currently do that we wouldn't be prepared to do in future?  And vice-versa?  It's obvious that we do more things than a brick and mortar ref desk might be prepared to do (although I'm sure most of them would receive just as many unanticipated requests as we do).  If we left the "not limited to" in, would that give carte blanche for questioners to suddenly expect us to do ridiculous things such as organising a job interview for them, or intervening for them in some legal battle?  Of course not.  Well, they might ask, but we'd be fully justified in telling them to go away.  On the other hand, would leaving it out stop people from making crazy requests?  Again, no.  As we in fact do more than our basic function, and would always do so to a degree that we have total control over, I don't see any harm in leaving it in.  I also wouldn't have a problem if we left it out.  Call me a fence-sitter, but I think it's really of little moment in the overall scheme of things, which is why I haven't been involved in this thread up till now.  JackofOz 02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sitting on the fence can be quite an uncomfortable position, especially in the case of a barbed wire fence. :-) StuRat 03:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  , but not limited to,