Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 4

message: Shouldnt there be some gidelines for asking the questions as well?--HappyEater 12:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, What about question guidelines?.  --LambiamTalk 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for asking questions. 

message: I've archived the page up to around the beginning of May; see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 2.  --LambiamTalk 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: The guidelines page can now only be edited by Admins.  This change was made, of course, after it was reverted to favor the POV of the Admins here.  Any attempt to get a change made so it no longer favors the Admin POV, will now require an approval from those same Admins, which obviously isn't going to happen.  I therefore consider these guidelines to be invalid, as there is no mechanism to ensure that they reflect the consensus. StuRat 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no admin POV here. There are opinons from many users some of whom are not admins. Admins are users too, they do not always wear their admin hat. The fact the guideline cannot be edited at this moment in time does not prevent further discussion on the talk page, although it sounds as if it might prevent you from participating.  That would be a shame but your choice. Why do you consider that the current guideline does not reflect the current consensus? David D. (Talk) 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to look at speculation, most people here engage in it, although some deny it.  To have a guideline which bans this current practice is absurd.  Yet, we can't fix the guideline.  Changing a page to favor one POV and then locking it down is also not allowed. StuRat 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you consider that the current guideline does not reflect the current consensus? David D. (Talk) 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just gave you an example.  I suppose it's a bit like Prohibition, where many politicians claimed that they didn't drink alcohol, and voted to ban it, much to the detriment of the US.  I fear the hypocrisy of those who claim to oppose speculation, when they really support it (at least when they engage in it themselves or somebody they agree with does), has now led to the same Prohibition era here, much to the detriment of the Ref Desk. StuRat 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If the evil guideline eats some of your speculation, let us know and we'll take it out back and flog it.  Friday (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you start tossing around unfounded allegations, StuRat, you should remember WP:AGF. Both the request for protection and the protection itself was made independent of "the admins here." Therefore these allegations of conspiracy are to suggest Majorly, in particular, abused his position. Secondly, you should note that you appear to be alone in countering the edits of, at my estimation, 4 other people. If you are unhappy the page was protected, perhaps you should have thought of that before edit-warring. Finally, when was the last time anyone removed anything from the desk just because it was speculative? Yes, speculation is inevitable sometimes due to the nature or phrasing of the questions asked. Is that a problem? Not particularly. Is it something we should be encouraging? No. In other words its tolarable for the questions where its unavoidable, but not when it is avoidable. Thats were common sense comes in. Rockpocket 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current guidelines say that speculation is not allowed.  This is simply incorrect, as you seem to recognize above.  Where is this request for a lockdown, anyway ?  User:Majorly hardly seems independent, as he recently tangled with A.Z., I believe.  And there likely would have been more balance in the reverts had the lockdown not been timed to take effect while the balance favored one POV. StuRat 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines only say that we expect respondents to provide answers that are factually correct, and not just based on guesswork or speculation. It does not say verboten. If you try to understand what the intention of this sentence is – I know this is difficult, but if you try really hard, who knows, you might succeed – then perhaps it will dawn on you that this simply means that if a questioner asks what the capital of Nigeria is, you do not blurt off "Lagos" as if you know it just because you know it is a big city in Nigeria and most capitals are larger cities, or similar ill-informed and incorrect responses. Too many responses that are given are plain wrong, most of which could easily have been checked by the respondent before responding. The text you have a problem with is in the lead paragraph, which – as is usual in articles – aims to give a concise overview of these guidelines, establishing context, and summarizing the most important points of what is handled in more detail later. Do not read this as if you are a lawyer, please. It is just a corollary of the overarching aim that we strive to give the answer that best provides the information sought by the questioner. We keep the Wikitrout at hand, to be promptly used in emergencies.  --LambiamTalk 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not being "concise" to say something that is simply wrong, in this case that speculation is not allowed, when it clearly is. StuRat 20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only "simply" wrong if you insist on interpreting it in an unreasonable way. Do you really not understand the intention? Do you really want to change this into: "No speculation is allowed except for the cases listed in §§1213–1225, 1460a and 1462"? Or are you trying to show that the new tag near the top of the page is "simply" right?  --LambiamTalk 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can anyone read "refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork or speculation" and not see this as banning speculation ?  StuRat 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We may understand one another, now. I suggest and I will accept that the guidelines say: "If a questioner asks what the capital of Nigeria is, you do not blurt off "Lagos" as if you know it just because you know it is a big city in Nigeria and most capitals are larger cities, or similar ill-informed and incorrect responses." This should be written instead of the current sentence. I will not interpret this to mean that it would be, for instance, OK to say that the capital of Brazil is Rio de Janeiro, only because it wasn't the capital of Nigeria that people asked for. I think this is a really good opportunity to achieve real consensus. I think everyone can abide to that phrasing and everyone will be happy. A.Z. 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you the same person who wrote:I think it's rude to say "this is not a chatroom". It looks as if people needed someone to be telling them what to do, because they would start talking about their mom's and cat's if no one told them "hey, this is not a chatroom!"? I think A.Z. forgot to change his easily guessable password, and now some rude person has hijacked his account.  --LambiamTalk 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that what you wrote now is rude. A.Z. 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed on both counts. StuRat 15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and it looks like they're set to expire in a couple hours anyway. Friday (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines locked down to favor one POV 

message: For the users here to be able to decide whether the "trolling" tag is necessary, I request that the diffs of the alleged trolling cases be presented. A.Z. 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: Unfortunately it looks like we have to follow the procedure JackofOz gave above:
:What I'm suggesting is that any future changes (other than obvious typos, of which there don't seem to be any at the moment) be discussed at the talk page first, not just made unilaterally. I'm just thinking aloud here. Maybe this wouldn't work, because we can't physically prevent people from just editing the guidelines. On the other hand, changes sometime get made and then get reverted by the next editor who doesn't agree with them. So, if we agreed to flag proposed changes first, and then make them only with consensus, it might help avoid some of the hostility that has occurred during the recent past. Maybe a message on the guidelines page telling people not to change them without prior discussion would be useful.
But, as we all have seen, again and again each discussion point gets bogged down in a mist of pettyfoggery mixed with (sometimes thinly) veiled personal attacks, which is exhausting and irritating to the participants. I'm not participating here because I like it, but because I want to see guidelines established that allow us to move on and not run indefinitely in the same rut. Unless we come up with some discussion protocol, discussion on proposed changes will not make the hostility any less, I fear. Perhaps each proposal for change should follow a format similar to AfD debates: (1) a header ==PfC : Some Label==; (2) a description of the proposed change with a succint rationale; to be followed by (3) a succession of argued Support or Reject statements. Someone non-partisan should close after say 5 days. (Just trying.)  --LambiamTalk 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me.  I vote for Jack as the "non-partisan". StuRat 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having been out of town for a day and a half, I've just seen this.  I disagree that any one editor should have the power to have the final say about these matters.  I certainly don't want to be in that position.   I want to have the freedom to make own, at times highly partisan, comments on whatever the issue is.  Prior to the early 1960s, whenever the British Conservative Party needed a new leader, there was no formal process involving anything so tawdry as canvassing support for candidates or actually voting - the new leader would simply "emerge" and, if they were in government, present himself (it was always a him back then) to the monarch, who would then choose him as the new Prime Minister (although he/she had the discretion to choose another person).  How the party could tell exactly who that person was, I have no idea.  And neither did they in the end, which is why there was a debacle when Harold MacMillan resigned (see Alec Douglas-Home#Appointment as Prime Minister), and they changed their system.  However, consensus on Wikipedia seems to operate on much the same lines as the Conservatives did back then.  Sorry for this digression, but it seemed strangely relevant. JackofOz 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's an unreasonable approach, but I'm not convinced it solves the problem we have.  If people write on the talk page with the intention of arguing endlessly rather than with the intention of reaching a workable solution, no amount of different formatting will make their contributions constructive.  Friday (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would have a cut-off for each debate of 5 days. Now the average discussion period required for each change is about 18262 days.  --LambiamTalk 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I can see the benefit there.  Not sure where we'll get the steady stream of volunteer discussion closers, but it could be worth trying.  Friday (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not surprising you would favor this, Friday, after having reverted to your version (in violation of your RFA promise to follow the one revert rule), prior to the lockdown.  You must have felt this revert was quite important to violate your promise, knowing that it would be locked down soon and thus you had to ensure that your version was current when this occurred StuRat 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic.  If I really controlled some vast conspiracy, do you think I'd bother usnig it on Wikipedia?  Friday (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "vast conspiracy", it only takes one Admin, who cares more about "winning" than about their RFA promises. StuRat 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you must pick a fight with me about my RFA, please keep it at User_talk:Friday#I_thought_you_promised_to_follow_the_WP:1RR_rule_in_your_RFA.  This page is for constructive discussion of the ref desk guidelines. Friday (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly "picking a fight" (reverting to your version before the page is locked down is "picking a fight"), but I will keep the discussion there, as it may distract from setting up a process to discuss changes to the guidelines. StuRat 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused about your comment, StuRat.  Unless you're seriously arguing that Friday, Radiant!, and Majorly all colluded and conspired to modify the page, request page protection, and actually protect the page just to stymie you, your parenthetical remark above has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.  I'd like to add my support to Friday's request that you keep such off-topic, unrelated comments off this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 9 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. David D. (Talk) 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there some procedure for reaching consensus in cases in which a small but active minority keeps raising objections based on the demand that every sentence in the text can only be interpreted in one way and can withstand even the most malicious interpretation violating all common sense, and that each sentence on its own has to tell the full story to boot, instead of being interpreted in context, and rejects all explanations by coming up with more such petty objections? I am not here to be part of a high-school debating club. There has to be some way for getting this to some form of closure.  --LambiamTalk 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Requesting that the guidelines not say something untrue, like that speculation is banned on the Ref Desk, is hardly a "petty objection". StuRat 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggested something constructive above, and no-one did even comment. A.Z. 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfortunately 

message: What is this repeated talk of "ban" here? There seems to be a disconnect in the mind of some participants between the purpose of these guidelines and their interpretation. They are here for the benefit of respondents who want to see what is expected of them. Wikipedia has many guidelines that are formulated in a prescriptive way. An example are the Talk page guidelines page, which states: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. It is hard to maintain that a contribution like this one is conducive to that purpose. In fact, the Talk page guidelines state emphatically: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views, as well as Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Does that mean that expressions of personal opinions as above are "banned"? No, but they should be discouraged, the point being that they become a problem when they start interfering with the purpose of the talk page – as they sometimes do.  --LambiamTalk 08:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's just a vocal minority of editors who tend to interpret things in the most extreme way they can, so that "such-and-such is discouraged" comes out sounding to them like "such-and-such is completely forbidden and you will be banned if you ever do it."  This bizarre extremism has gotten in the way quite a bit, but there's nothing for it.  I think all we can do is let it disrupt our work as little as possible.  Friday (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't talking about the word "discouraged" here (although it still wouldn't be correct to say that unsourced answers are discouraged in all cases), we are talking about the word "no" as in "no speculation".  That doesn't mean some speculation, or occasional speculation, it means none whatsoever.  This is just plain wrong, as just about all of us engage in speculation and many questions can't be answered without it. StuRat 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And nowhere can I find the phrase "no speculation."  The word "speculation" appears in the current guidelines exactly once, in the following - "refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork or speculation."  This does not say "if you speculate you will be shunned, ostracized, and held up as a figure of ridicule for all to see."  It's a simple line in the introductory paragraph of the  guideline.  When will we stop with these Through The Looking Glass semantic games?  --LarryMac | Talk 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define "semantic games" and link to the policy which says they are forbidden.  Sorry, couldn't resist. Friday (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you think "refrain" means if it doesn't mean "don't do it" ? StuRat 05:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, I think the phrase "refrain from" means "avoid," "eschew," "resist the temptation to".  Yes, I cherry-picked those synonyms from dictionary.com.  Because I'm trying for a common-sense interpretation.  We are not working on a legal document; again, it's a  guideline: "By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory."  So you know what?  Do what you want.  Insert whatever language you want.  "The reference desk is like a library ref desk, but it's bigger, better, faster, and there are chocolate fountains and the walls are made of sponge cake and nobody grows old and nobody ever has to die."  I give up.  --LarryMac | Talk 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that text.  I'm sorely tempted to replace the entire guideline with that quote – along with external links to WP:DICK and WP:SENSE – and be done with it.  It's pretty much how the Desk has always been run, and it's prone to a lot less of the silly semantic bickering going on now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban? 

message: I've protected the page due to edit warring. Come on guys, you all know that discussion is better than edit warring especially when the page has already been previously protected, please get consensus on this page before you act when the protection expires. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need this.  The problem right now is a single disruptive editor, not a general edit war.  Friday (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is getting ridiculous, did we learn nothing from the last time it was protected? I strongly suggest everyone refrain from editing this guideline at all until the content you wish to add or remove is discussed here first, and at least some support is garnered. Rockpocket 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see voting. Voting would be if someone were going to make the changes over objections. What I see is everyone who commented saying "sounds good" or "don't care." If someone has a concern in one of the below sections, I suggest they state such concern. Discussions without structure have demonstrated that they do not work with this group of folks. It has also been demonstrated via actions that WP:BRD fails here, as "discuss" becomes "revert more." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I too have reservations about this "suggest everything first and get feedback" approach.  But, maybe it's the best thing to do for a little while.  At some point we may have to decide that we should not let a single stubborn editor render our normal editing practices unusable.  Friday (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Proposal after:
An individual editor is not required to provide a fully comprehensive answer - a partial answer may be improved on by subsequent answers. 
ADD 
Responses must not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute. 
This seems obvious, but it has been made clear that NPOV requres additional emphasis. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Err.  If we pretend certain words aren't there, we can pretty much change the meaning of anything.  Do you have a problem with the entire sentence as written, or only your edited version of it? Friday (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have a problem with it as written, as I've stated quite clearly.  I propose a compromise version: "While each response is not required to present every POV, try not to intentionally skew answers toward one POV." StuRat 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So the only difference is "try not" versus "must not"?  If we're talking about intentionally skewing answers, "must not" is much better than "try not".  Friday (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, "must not" sound like if anybody says something that may be misinterpreted by others as "intentionally skewed" they will be "punished", this isn't the impression we want to give at all.  StuRat 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I meant that they shouldn't select data to only support one POV.  For example, if they knew about a set of poll results, they shouldn't just select those which favor their POV. StuRat 07:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is accepted that people will from time to time omit significant views from their responses. While not an ideal state of affairs, this is unavoidable. Sometimes this will be out of malice or zealotry (hence the soapbox provision) but usually it will be because someone didn't have time to write a full treatise on the Desk, or because they weren't familiar with all points of view, or because they didn't feel comfortable discussion some topics. Like an article on Wikipedia, an answer on the Desk can (and often does) evolve and expand with time, as new individuals with different knowledge and expertise contribute wherever their particular strengths might lie. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ? You can't really blame your headache on the brick wall if you go out of your way to beat your head against it.—eric 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Come over to my version of the desk, Ten, we have chocolate.  --LarryMac | Talk 17:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PFC: NPOV 

message: Please read the box at the top of the guideline page- particularly the part which reads "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page."  A consistent failure to do this is an example of disruptive editing, which we do not appreciate. Friday (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it means you, too, Friday. StuRat 06:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Your abusive, insulting Admin routine ran thin soon after I met you. StuRat 07:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please note the box at the top 

message: I just reverted the following compromise.
::"In a nutshell, we expect respondents to provide answers that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork, although speculation, so long as it is clearly labeled as such, is often required. In many cases, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources."
Back to:
::"In a nutshell, we expect respondents to provide answers that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork. Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources."
Differences are shown in bold. I don't see how this is a compromise based on all the discussion above? The whole point is that speculation is NOT "often required". Personally, I will not support a guideline that has a statement that says speculation is often required. David D. (Talk) 11:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  When speculation is "required", it's because someone asked a question that wasn't a reference desk question, and people answered it.  While often not harmful in any way, I agree that we don't need to encourage this either.  Friday (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation is NOT "often required"

message: Please. The lead section is intended as a concise overview of the guidelines, establishing context and summarizing the most important points. It should not be used as a dumping ground for casuistic clauses. I understand that the temptation may be strong for people who have been trained to be a lawyer, but nevertheless, it should be resisted. Here is a test that additions to the introduction should meet. (1) The material that is added must summarize a point that is made in more elaborate form in the body of the text (following the TOC). (2) It must be of greater value in giving an idea what the guidelines are about, than all other issues that are treated in the main text but not summarized in the lead. But please do not "summarize" every last point; the introduction should consist of no more than two or three short and easy-to-read paragraphs; otherwise it is better to just scrap it.  --LambiamTalk 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section