| Revision as of 20:54, 14 December 2006 editRick Block (talk | contribs)Administrators31,124 edits →Trying again: what the problems are← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:07, 7 July 2009 edit undoAmphBot (talk | contribs)4,582 editsm Robot: Fixing double redirect | ||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" id="talkheader" align="center" style="background-color: #FFFFFF;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA;text-align:center;" | | |||
| {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk| | |||
| This is ]'s ], where you can send messages and comments to {{PAGENAME}}. | |||
| | | |||
| This is the ] for discussing improvements to the ] {{#if: {{SUBJECTSPACE}}|page|article}}. | |||
| }} | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="background-color: #FFFFFF;" | | |||
| *''']''' using four tildes (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>). | |||
| * New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; <span class="plainlinks"></span>. | |||
| *'''New to Misplaced Pages?''' ]! ]. | |||
| {{#if: {{SUBJECTSPACE}}||*This is '''not''' a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.}} | |||
| | style="background-color: #FFFFFF; width: 35%;" | | |||
| <div style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 3px; "> | |||
| <center>''']'''</center> | |||
| <span style="font-size:smaller"> | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *]! | |||
| </span> | |||
| |}</div> | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="width:100%;" | |||
| |style=""| {{{image|]}}} | |||
| |style="padding-left:.2em;"| {{{text| | |||
| Just wanted to ''urgently'' request that everyone do their best to stay on topic here. This page is for talking about ] and has no other purpose. Complaints about users can be directed to their talk pages. Discussion of the reference desks in general belongs on ]. Thank you all for your consideration in this matter. ] ] 21:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)}}} | |||
| |} | |||
| == Similiar to talk page? == | |||
| The point has been made repeatedly that the RD, while in project space, is similiar to a talk page in many ways. So, I wonder what we need here that's not already covered at ]. Or, at the very least, should the talk page guidelines form a basis for the reference desk guidelines? ] ] 04:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, after reading it twice, that would be a good start. Good idea. -] 05:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Probably. Looking over this proposal, my first thought is that it should be renamed to "guideline" instead, because it lacks the scope and magnitude used for official policy pages. Second, the main point of this page appears to be a lengthy procedure that needs to be invoked before other people's comments can be removed. While I don't support removing comments in general, I could imagine this being sometimes necessary on a reference desk to avoid nastiness (e.g. ] and such). At any rate, the lengthy procedure itself seems overly bureaucratic. (]) 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's been the exact consensus of some <s>experienced</s> editors so far. However, this policy was created in a rather unique way by some well-meaning folks <s>quite unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages works. </s> ] ] 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ummm .. without wanting to getting into a "I'm a more experienced editor than you" contest, it is clear that the balance of experience and familiarity with Misplaced Pages is not as one-sided as Friday presents it.] 22:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Such a contest would produce no useful result. Remarks amended. ] ] 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The consensus was clearly in favor of inclusion of the rules for deletion: ]. ] 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, there wasn't clear consensus. There were 11 editors expressing support and 4 (maybe 5) bringing up significant objections on a proposal on which comments were not solicited from the broader community. It's fine to characterize this as "support from numerous RD regulars" or some such, but it's not consensus. -- ] <small>(])</small> 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see any actual '''oppose''' votes, just some Admins complaining that they don't like us voting at all. But, even if I accepted your 4 claimed '''oppose''' votes, that's still 11/15 in favor, or over 73%, which is well within the supermajority guidelines for determining that a consensus exists. ] 22:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per the comment below, "consensus" for adopting guidelines requires more community exposure than these proposals have had. A small clique of editors can agree among themselves all they want, even unanimously, but this is not consensus. In particular, the editors you seem to be most interested in being bound by the deletion procedure are admins and as far as I can tell you have very little agreement from this set of editors (Durova is an admin). The chances that you'd get any admin to enforce guidelines established under this sort of consensus (which is I think what you're trying to achieve) are nearly non-existent. I'm all for making progress on this, but please don't delude yourself that what these votes are doing is establishing consensus. -- ] <small>(])</small> 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All due respect but I think that this is a valid first step. Who is going to develop a proposed policy or guideline for the RD if not the people that are interested in developing it? I thought I saw Durova support efforts here albeit with a heavy heart that it had come to this (or do I have him mixed up with another?) I say let StuRat alone, or better yet, assist him as you see fit, and when/if he/we come up with something then put in the pipeline for more general consensus. For my money, I think that the only new policy/guideline needed for the RD is clarifying the place of OR, and deciding if we are going to have a more formal deletion policy. I think general wikipedia "rules" and the existing RD header covers a lot of the rest. --] 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It may not come across this way, but I am attempting to assist StuRat. The first step is for all concerned to understand what this page (]) is, which is that it's a ''proposal'' for a set of guidelines for the RD with general agreement from some of the regular RD responders. It is not a set of enforceable guidelines adopted through the Misplaced Pages consensus process. For a group of interested people to propose guidelines for the RD seems like a good thing. This group of editors cannot, by themselves, establish something that could be called a guideline. After these are fleshed out and fairly finalized by the working group, comments need to be solicited from the community at large. That's the way the process works. -- ] <small>(])</small> 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Cool. It is clear to me that no small insular group should set policy for the entire project. A year from now a whole new group of editors may be working the Desks and they need to know that the policy has been endorsed by the community not just the few of us. But for now I commend StuRat's effort. Once he has something roughed out he should put it to us for comments/revisions and then to the community through the proper channel. --] 03:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, once completed, I'd like to get final consensus to add a link to these guidelines from the templates at the top of each page. I would bet there is far more consensus on the guidelines we've set up here than there was when the page top templates were originally set up, which is what we are currently using as guidelines. I would suggest we seek a broader consensus of Ref Desk users, as opposed to just Ref Desk volunteers, as the next step after that, although I'm not yet sure how we should solicit their input. ] 10:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *There is no such thing as ''"supermajority guidelines for determining that a consensus exists"''. Consensus is not a vote, consensus is not a supermajority, and consensus is not 73% support. ] should make this clear. (]) 10:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Yes, there is: | |||
| "However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus...the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds." | |||
| ::And, if it's your contention that a consensus only exists when there is a 100% agreement on something, then there would never be a consensus on anything in Misplaced Pages. ] 12:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*That's not my contention. What I'm saying is that consensus is reached by debate and addressing objections, not by holding a vote and telling the minority to go away. Your quote lacks the context; the numbers you cite refer to RM/AFD/RFA, and the section includes such phrases as ''"simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate"'' and ''"there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines"''. 73% can be considered a supermajority, but it is not a consensus. (]) 12:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::do you deny that there is significant discussion behind those votes, and that the very thing we're voting on is the fruit of that compromise and discussion? --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*There has been a lot of discussion, but that doesn't mean we should be voting on the results, and neither does it mean the discussion has been conclusive. (]) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I'd like to nail down just how you define consensus. 73% agreeing isn't enough for you, apparently, but 100% isn't required. Would 80% or 90% be a consensus ? There has to be some provision for dealing with a few rebels who just won't agree with the rest, no matter how much discussion occurs, or almost nothing would ever be agreed to. ] 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::**I define consensus not in a numerical way, but by talking about it for a few days. Often, if people object to some phrasing, you can alleviate their concerns by wording it differently, or taking an alternate approach (e.g. if the initial choice was A or B, and people can't agree to that, after some discussion one might say ''C'' and that makes people happy). I fully agree that a few "rebels" should not be able to filibuster indefinitely; after a week or so it is usually clear what most people think, and the "rebels" are usually mature enough to drop the issue. This method works surprisingly well on a wiki. Incidentally, what is your opinion on the current wording of this page? (]) 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == This means verifiability and NOR apply to the reference desk, right? == | |||
| The proposed guideline says that in general, talk page rules apply at the reference desk. If we read ], the first sentences under "Central points" reads "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of ], ] and ]." So, I assume this page as written means that these 3 core policies apply at the reference desk as well. ] ] 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The difference between an article talk page and a Ref Desk answer is made clear by trying to say "A ''Ref Desk answer'' is research for the ?????" The analogy fails. ] 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I certainly hope not! Sound like we have made a bit of a bad analogy. The discussion on talk pages has as its end product material worthy of inclusion in the main article. We are trying to answer a question as best we can, OR and non-verifiability may play some part. --] 23:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That particular talk page guideline only applies to article talk pages ("A talk page is research for the article..."), not all talk pages, so clearly isn't applicable here. ] 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd say that WP:V is meant to apply to articles and talk pages thereof; the refdesk is obviously not an article. That said, people answering questions should in general give answers that are verifiably true. (]) 10:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well ''I'd'' say that people answering questions should give answers that are true. Verifiability would be great but it can't be required --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Since the page is part of Misplaced Pages, there are good reasons to observe WP:V and WP:NOR even here. However, that said, a fairly wide latitude can be given for answers that are geniunely helpful. We should be cautious about arguing over personal opinions since this has the potential to degrade the reference desk into a debate forum. I suggest language that discourages original research, but I do not suggest that we run around removing it with an iron fist. Such a solution could easily become worse than the problem it was intended to solve. ] ] 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If you pay a doctor, a lawyer, a chemist, or an engineer to consult on a problem, you can expect get an answer based on their many years of training and experience. They may not give you a citation to a textbook or journal article for every fact they state. In that sense, they are giving you original research. If you told the doctor, "I know you have made a diagnosis of appendicitis, but you must give me a reference to a textbook published by a respected publishing firm or an article in a peer reviewed journal," he will send you for a psychiatric consult. I will answer a question by characterizing trhe answer such as "In the early 1980s, Scientific American had a special issue on the question of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, where an author said that...." without jumping in my car and spending the morning at a college library finding the exact citation. The questioner can do that if they really want the exact article. My answer is close to o.r. I may also state things about electrical power system based on training and experience in the field. An answer which does not cite directly to a Wiki article, a publication or book, or a website, should be qualified as "If I recall correctly" or "To the best of my knowledge, having watched every eposide of of the XYZ show, the hero was never abducted by aliens." Someone might say "No, it is impossible for a 4 by 4 inch solar cell without a reflector or lens to concentrate the energy to power a 1500 watt space heater" or "No, a frog could not survive on the Moon without a protective enclosure" or "No, a World War 1 airplane could not perform aerobatic maneuvers in interstellar space" based on expert knowledge of the field of electricity, biology, or physics from their training and experience. Some questions are so absurd they are unlikely to have a specific answer stated anywhere, and must rely on synthesis of knowledge, which is also original research. An answer is NOT an encyclopedia article, although more answers should become or should add to articles than is presently the case, if the questions are of general interest and the answer is well sourced. ] 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. The no original research crowd can really get out of hand at times: "You ''claim'' that 1 + 1 = 2, but do you have an authoritative statement to back up your assumption ?", LOL. ] 10:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this not a proposal? == | |||
| This is a proposal, right? The proposed template got removed, so I put it back. ] ] 17:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hmm, there's no consensus even that such a guideline is a good idea, let alone that everything is decided and we shouldn't make any changes.] 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yah, the fine print saying not to change it is just plain bizarre. Those of you that are actively driving this- is there some reason that ''this'' proposal needs to be treated so differently than is common practice with such things? ] ] 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The fine print is a temporary measure, we will make a template for it eventually, but I'm too busy defending against constant attacks on the process to do so now. ] 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was a consensus both to create these guidelines and on each individual point. Therefore, the tag that claims we have yet to reach a consensus is incorrect and should be removed. ] 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Several people have pointed out that this has gotten nowhere near the kind of input we need to call something a guideline. Call it an essay if you like, but it's definitely not an accepted guideline yet. ] ] 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And even more people have said that it is a consensus, so we have a consensus that it's a consensus. ] 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think we may be talking past each other. There's perhaps a consensus among RD regulars that these should be guidelines, but that does not mean there's a community consensus about it. Guidelines require community consensus and that is the "consensus" that is being disputed. -- ] <small>(])</small> 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's circular reasoning, StuRat. Consensus is not a supermajority. (]) 10:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I never said that consensus was a supermajority, but that it a supermajority is used to measure whether a consensus exists, as our ] states. ] 10:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Rick has a good point, radiant you do not. But we're doing the best we can, the onus is on the people who are actually trying to change the desk (ie not me) to draw in people from outside the regulars --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*The onus is on the people writing new policy/guidelines to demonstrate substantial support for them. First, that is not done through voting, and second, a dozen or so of refdesk regulars is not substantial support if there are several other people coming in with arguments to the contrary. (]) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*Actually, the Ref Desk volunteers aren't trying to change things, but just record the current "best practices" already in use here, as a set of guidelines. This is especially important since we've had an influx of Admins, knowing little or nothing about the collaborative process used here to produce good answers, who want to make a Ref Desk response look just like an article. Due to this total lack of understanding of the process used here, they start deleting valid responses and blocking both those who provide valid questions and answers. This is quite disruptive. If the Admins want to change the Ref Desk to a process which won't work at all, the onus is on them to garner a consensus for this change. ] 10:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *But the "deletion" section of this page is obviously not a description of best practices in the past. (]) 11:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Discourage "Go Google" as an answer == | |||
| Please see additional discussion of my position ]. Personally, I think that just saying "go Google" is somewhat disrespectful to the asker. In general, I feel that it adds little to the answer stream as it could serve as the answer for ANY question. So, I propose that "Go Google it" be <s>outlawed</s> discouraged as a response unless you yourself go google first, refine the search, and then link to a specific useful search. And in that case I still do not consider it an "answer" but at least an effort worth adding to the answer stream. --] 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', linking to a list of search results is a good idea. ] 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Depends''' Bear with me, but I actually quite like Mathiemood's suggestion, i.e. "don't post smartass questions unless there's a clever smartass question asked first; don't give nonsense answers unless there's a silly question asked; don't give good answers unless there's a good question asked.". It seems to me that this could be expanded into a generally useful rule, which roughly boils down to "respond in kind". If the OP asks a stupid question, a stupid response seems OK to me. Of course, there are limits to this (rude questions should not be responded to with rudeness), but a question that could easily be answered with a trivial google search (implying the OP did NOT even take the time to do this) doesn't warrant anyone taking the time to do the google search for him/her. In this case "google it" seems like a fine answer (OK, maybe something not quite so curt). Insisting a link to a relevant google search be provided, unless the search is somehow unobvious, seems unnecessary. -- ] <small>(])</small> 03:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I kind like that Mathiemood bit also just becuase it has that irreverent wikipedia attitude about it I do not think it is appropriate for the RD where people are likely unfamiliar with that self-same attitude. I think that "Go Google" for an obvious "Go Google" situation is unnecessary. If you think the asker should do it themselves then just move on to the next question and leave it alone for someone else that may not agree with you. If need be we can put USE GOOGLE FIRST in bold letters near the top of the RD page but I am sure plenty of people are a bit put off by all the information google gives you. If you want them to google it then take minute and format a search - it is usually just a mtter of copy and paste from their question. No big deal and it may help someone out and that is supposed to be what we are about there. --] 03:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', C'mon, it's Misplaced Pages. ]]] <small><sup> ] . ] . ]</sup></small> 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's rude as ]. We should at least Google it for them. -] 21:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If some people ''do'' google searches for others, and some people don't, this is alright. I assume even people who don't think we should do this would not go so far as to interfere with someone who ''does'' wish to spend their time googling for someone else. So I think this is an area where it's alright to disagree. ] ] 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think Rick Block explained this issue well. We need to use judgment and make the answer fit the question. ] ] 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that if we're not willing to take 5 seconds to do a google search and 5 seconds to post the results, we shouldn't be taking 5 seconds to post an instruction for the OP to do the search themselves. Amazingly, not every single person in the world knows about google, not every single person knows how to do a reasonable search (reasonably specific, reasonably general, using reasonable search terms). I feel the same way about homework questions, FWIW. ] 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. Also, sometimes it seems like a Google search would work, but it doesn't. ] 22:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Unless more of a complete and polite response is provided. I remember years ago when I had first heard of "Google" and tried to use it by typing in WWW.GOOGOL.COM like the mathematical concept is spelled. Why BITE the newbie? I think it is both appropriate and educational, when someone asks "Did Thomas Edison ever develop something called a 'pyromagnetic motor'" and Misplaced Pages provides no answer,(actually it does) to say "If you Google Edison pyromagnetic you will find references such as the Edison Papers Project at Rutgers University, where it says ...." This is along the lines of "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him to fish you feed him for life." This is like a real librarian telling a person what reference might be useful, such as a terminal connected to a database, then showing how to do an initial search, and is not being a DICK like if they just said "Why don't you go look it up?" Edison 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Edison, don't you mean Support (smile)? As in support discouraging the "go google it" without doing a bit of work yourself first and getting the newbie started? --] 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I completely agree we should never ] (in fact, I've been responding at ] for over a year attempting to model how to respond without biting) and that "go google it" bites. On the other hand, the proposal here goes way beyond not biting. I'm fine with anyone providing explicit links if they feel like it, but I don't think anyone should feel compelled to add a google search link if the question is sufficiently obvious. This is a matter of judgement that I don't think can be reasonably instituted as a specific rule. The general rule should be don't bite the poster. We don't need to enumerate the ways that posters might be bitten and discourage each one - they're all discouraged (in fact, they're all ''already'' discouraged by the wikipedia-wide ] guideline). -- ] <small>(])</small> 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I concur with Rick. (]) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Consensus=== | |||
| OK, I think I see a general consensus that just saying "go Google it" is insufficent and has a ] feel about it. I will therefore add the following to the guidelines: | |||
| *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.''' <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| Hmm. On the surface I see supports from Justanother, StuRat, Dfrg.msc, THB, Anchoress, and Edison(?) and opposes from Friday, Rick Block, and Radiant. So it's a 2/3 majority, motion passed. However, none of the early commenters responded to my comment suggesting ] already discourages a curt (arguably flippant) answer like "go google it", and it's not clear to me Dfrg.msc, THB, Anchoress, and Edison are supporting anything other than what is already discouraged (i.e. answers that bite). I believe this is a case where the claimed consensus is not obvious (specifically the part about requiring a link to a google search), and further comments should be solicited. If we need such a guideline at all, I'd suggest a rewording like | |||
| *Is "just Google it" a good response ? '''No. Curt answers providing no real help arguably violate ]. You might consider doing the search yourself, verifying that it provides useful results, and providing at least a hint for how the user might replicate the search results (e.g. a link), instead.''' | |||
| This is much less prescriptive, allowing the responder to exercise some judgement about whether to provide an explicit search link or a non-biting answer more like "Please just ] for 'blarg'".-- ] <small>(])</small> 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's quite similar, just a bit weaker. If you want to propose that we make that change, I suggest opening a new section to discuss it. ] 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion Policy == | |||
| I think that the "speedy deletion" goes well beyond things on the level of death threat. Take a look at I deleted. I would not have been so quick but one bit was designed to upset the OP that was looking for a lost relative (yea, she is in my basement and freaking out). That is, to me, a no-brainer. What I would like to see is a deletion log where I could note my deletion. Comments? --] 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This deletion looks entirely appropriate to me. Others have argued that the RD pages are very high traffic, and thus the page history is insufficient. How about if deleted comments are simply replaced with a ''visible'', signed, comment, e.g. ''<small> comment deleted, see . -- ] <small>(])</small> 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)</small>''. Knowing who deleted the comment, and at what time, allows anyone who's interested to find the original comment from the page history quite easily. I'd be willing to create a template for use in such circumstances that could be given a single word argument for the deletion reason (offsensive, off topic, irrelevant, etc.). To use such a thing, you'd just subst it, providing the deletion "reason". -- ] <small>(])</small> 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Great! I am for a template rather than a log; something like <nowiki>{{RDdelete|inappropriate}}.</nowiki> I don't think we want to get too specific. --] 03:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good idea. A deleted question/deleted answer template looks good to me. Should also be accompanied by a polite note on the editor's talk page explaining why their question/answer was deleted - but the guideline already says this anyway. ] 09:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I still would argue that "quick deletions" should be limited to posts which qualify as "disruption", which is rather strictly defined (]). Also, new users aren't going to know how to find a deleted comment using History, so a link to the specific deletion should be provided for them. ] 09:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really really like that idea rick. Implement it! --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::What froth said. ]. -] 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK, Rick, it looks like there is sufficient interest in your proposed template to go further. Please create it and show it to us here, then we will gather consensus on when it should be used for "speedy deletions" and when the more formal process is required. ] 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed addition - not a chat room == | |||
| This guideline is sorely lacking from the page: | |||
| "The reference desk is not a chatroom. Humor for humors sake is not appropriate. If you cannot or will not add informative information, it is inappropriate to write just to be funny. Likewise, the reference desk should not be used by "regulars" as a way to get random questions answered. Unless you are truly unable to find the information you seek on your own, you should not ask questions just to spur jokes, conversation and activity." | |||
| I suggest this gets to the underlying dispute in play. ] - ] 16:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We've already reached consensus that humor is allowed. And regulars have just as much right to ask questions as anybody else. ] 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Humor for humor's sake is not acceptable. I suspect a strong consensus exists that it is not. I suggest we discuss what humor is, and what is not, acceptable. I also suspect that asking questions to spur jokes, conversation and activity is also not considered acceptable. I suggest that we attempt to gauge a wider subset of wikipedia by mentioning this in various locations including, but not limited to, the village pump and some of the more relevent wikiprojects (the academic ones). ] - ] 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :People who understand Misplaced Pages well will generally have little use for asking questions at the reference desk, I'd think. If it's a question about an article, it belongs elsewhere. I agree with Hipocrite that something like the above would be a useful addition to the page. ] ] 18:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::See - Hipocrite and "chat" - on the RD talk page. We can move that here if it is better discussed here. --] 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Remember ]. If you make that a rule, people might do something like that. Better not to mention it. -] 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That sounds like an argument against all rules, rather than against this particular one. Are you in the "let's not try to make RD-specific rules" camp? ] ] 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Beans is a good point and so is ]. Why not just a statement that "remarks and tangents that have little or no relation to answering the question are discouraged". Do we already have something like that? --] 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hipcorite has thrown another ball into play here - he has suggested that "regulars" should be discouraged from asking questions on the RDs. This is the first time I have seen this particular suggestion. I think we should discuss this. ] 10:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't think of why a regular would want to. They already know how to find information in Misplaced Pages, I assume. So while I agree with the idea that regulars are discouraged from asking questions, I'm surprised someone would suggest we need to say this explicitly, unless it's in response to regulars misusing the reference desk. ] 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Suppose I'm a regular, and I have a question, and my searches of Misplaced Pages and Google (and any other references I might have to hand) have failed to answer it. You're suggesting I should ''not'' ask at the Reference Desk, where my fellow regulars (who I admire and trust) might have some information, or a search strategy to try, that I missed? —] (]) 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Whoops, I said something other than what I really meant. I don't think anyone is suggesting that regulars be discouraged from legitimate use of the reference desk. Sorry, I should have said "regulars should be discouraged from asking irrelevant or silly questions". I'd be shocked if anyone had a problem with proper use of the reference desk, whether by a newbie or by the oldest oldtimer you can find. ] 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But shouldn't everyone "be discouraged from asking irrelevant or silly questions" ? Why should there be any distinction between what questions Ref Desk volunteers can ask versus everyone else ? ] 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Absolutely, everyone should. I would think that certain standards of decorum would go without saying to reference desk regulars. ] 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm finally beginning to get a glimmer of what might really be going on here. | |||
| ::A while ago, I remember that the "regulars" at the Reference Desk were getting very self-conscious in that role. There was all sorts of banter; there were certain code words and in-jokes being bandied about. ("Suitly emphazi", or however it's spelled, pops to mind.) I remember finding that somewhat distracting, and out of place, and even annoying. | |||
| ::If that's what Hipocrite is objecting to, I quite agree with the objection. So the question would then be, do we all agree that self-conscious banter is inappropriate, and if so, what's the right way to discourage it? | |||
| ::I suspect that, in this case, the right way would be a guideline, not some formal rule -- this is not the sort of thing you can make formal rules about. (Well, you can try, but they don't work, or they spin out of control and make things much worse.) And we might not even need a guideline: once the issue is out in the open, perhaps all that's required is a occasional gentle reminder -- right there in the running text of the RD -- that someone is getting excessively coy, and departing/distracting from the task at hand, which is supposed to be answering questions and advancing knowledge. —] (]) 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think I was very clear that this was a major portion of the problem, yes - the out of control chatting. ] - ] 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Is there a reason to make reference desk specific rules? == | |||
| This has been touched on here and there, but perhaps could use its own section. I'm in the camp of "existing wikipedia practices are sufficient, we don't need specific rules for the reference desk." One of the major problems pointed out is that there'll be no ''enforcement'' of such rules. This was discussed a bit at ] too. In short, while the RD is different from an article in many ways and different from a talk page in some ways, it's not an entirely unique beast. I think there are already customs for such pages that work well. ] ] 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, Friday, the problem is you choose to to enforce the "rules" yourself however you decide to interpret them. If it weren't for you, there would be no push for rules. The rules are to protect the RD <s>editors</s> lovable idiots from ]. You still don't see that. -] 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wow! I see too much fun going unpunished. Let's make some rules we can use against people contributing their time and expertise to Misplaced Pages. ] 00:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *There probably isn't a reason to make rules specific to the refdesk; what we're discussing here boils down to wikiwide issues like ] and ]. Note also that we're discussing (well, actually voting for some reason) on additions to this page, whereas it has not been established that the existing content is consensual. (]) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Been round this loop several times before. The reason we need RD specific rules is that different editors have very different views on what are acceptable questions and answers on the RDs, how existing policies and guidelines apply to the RDs and how unacceptable content and behaviour should be handled. So we need to try to reach consensus on as many specific topics as possible, and then document that consensus. Without this, every incident will continue to be endlessly and inconclusively debated from first principles on the RD talk page. The endless debates are divisive, waste time and energy, and do not benefit the encylopaedia. ] 10:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well said, I concur. ] 10:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, it's a sad day we've come to. -] 11:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Can Ref Desk volunteers ask Ref Desk questions ? == | |||
| Added per statements by ] to the effect that such questions should be prohibited: | |||
| *'''Allow''' Ref Desk volunteers to ask questions. We are people, too, and also have things we've wondered about, especially those outside our areas of expertise. ] 10:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Allow''' "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others". See also: ]. -] 11:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''speedy allow''', what a nonsensical poll. ] <small>]</small> 11:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Consensus=== | |||
| OK, there doesn't seem to be much dispute here, even ] seems to now agree that Ref Desk volunteers may ask questions, too, so I'll update the guidelines accordingly. ] 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Describing the issue as "can regulars ask questions?" is missing some important points of what Hipocrite said at ]. ] 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Broken mechanism makes this page worthless == | |||
| The broken mechanism of constant proposed "votes" for polemical statements designed to advance arguments rather than guide individuals to what we have reached consensus on makes this guideline useless. I intend to ignore it. ] - ] 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, that would make sense if you're the one who proposed not allowing anyone who contributes answers to the Ref Desk to also ask questions. Ninety percent of all Canadians live within one hundred miles of the U.S. border. -] 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No one ever proposed banning regulars from being allowed to ask questions. The "vote" above is designed to divide the "regulars" from me, to make my proposal look insane, and to make it appear the other "side" won a "vote." This is why we do not vote here. This guideline is not a guideline - it is a polemic. ] - ] 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, you certainly seemed to have an objection to Ref Desk regulars asking questions, so, if you don't like the way I stated it, how would you word it ? ] 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't vote, nor do I call votes. I stated my proposed addition for discussion above.] - ] 11:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There are several suggestions there: | |||
| *"The reference desk is not a chatroom." - Rather vague as written. If you mean "no side conversations are allowed" or "address only the question asker, not other responders", then those are things we could reach consensus on. I believe some of those are already on the list of things we will discuss. We can't discuss everything at once, though, that just doesn't work. ] 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** I will not allow you to structure the conversation so only things you like are discussed. The reference desk is not a chatroom. Do you believe it is a chatroom? If you agree it is not a chatroom, we should agree to that. ] - ] 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Like I said "not a chatroom" is vague, it could mean anything from "never say anything that isn't a direct answer to the question" to "keep side conversations to a minimum". We need to all agree on exactly how much, if any, chat is allowed, in order to "build a community". Just saying "not a chatroom" leaves us right where we are now, with everybody having their own interpretation of what that means. ] | |||
| ::::I'm starting to think "not a chatroom" means "keep the coy banter and in-jokes to a minimum". See ] above. (Though using words like "I'm starting to think it means" always concerns me; why should we be doing archaeology on each other's statements?) —] (]) 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That is reasonably accurate. ] - ] 20:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *"Humor for humors sake is not appropriate. If you cannot or will not add informative information, it is inappropriate to write just to be funny." - We already discussed this, and the consensus was recorded that humor is OK, provided that at least one serious answer has been given. If, after we finish everything else on the list (like the items above), you want to reopen this issue, that's fine, too. ] 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** The issue was never closed. You took a vote and never discussed it. Humor for humor's sake is not appropriate. ] - ] 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*It was thoroughly discussed many times, see the archives. ] 13:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *"Likewise, the reference desk should not be used by "regulars" as a way to get random questions answered. Unless you are truly unable to find the information you seek on your own, you should not ask questions just to spur jokes, conversation and activity." - This seems to be in the "beans" category, and which questions are "just to spur jokes, conversation, and activity" is so highly subject to opinion that it's rather pointless to have a rule on it. ] 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** Then you will support my actions to stop this, correct? ] - ] 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*No, I'm for rules that actually mean the same thing to everyone, not the same type of vague generalities which we have now, which everybody then interprets in their own way, leading to conflict. ] 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If I can make an observation- I have read various contradictory policies and essays about voting versus discussing. There's some good food for thought there and I think the answer is that sometimes we use either one. So instead of having an abstract "vote versus discuss" discussion, I'll give MY opinion. Right now, on this page, for our purposes, discussing is clearly the way to go. Look at what's actually happening: voting is discouraging a good decision-making process, while discussing is helping. The folks insisting on voting keep saying "But look, it's sometimes allowed!" Yes, that's true, but in this case it seems like discussion is working- slowly, perhaps with difficulty, but it's working. I endorse the plan to ignore whatever votes are held, and discuss things instead. ] 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there some reason why we can't do both ? You may not know this, being new here, but we've discussed most of these issues for months already, so felt it was time to actually decide something, and the way to do that is by consensus, and the best way to measure that is with votes, as they are objective, whereas "deciding on consensus" without votes is highly subjective. ] 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem I see with the specific votes that have happened here is that they tend to condense complicated issues down into small bullet points. Simplifying as far as possible is good, but OVERsimplification is bad. The thing I keep seeing repeated is that people need to use good judgment instead of relying on a checklist of what to say or not say. The votes, by and large, miss this point. They're also usually irrelevant- if there's actually consensus, this is clear without a vote. ] 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == List of Ref Desk policy issues under dispute == | |||
| ''Copied and refactored from the Ref Desk talk page archives:'' | |||
| Here I wish to only build a list of Ref Desk policy issues under dispute. I don't wish to discuss them here, just build a list. That discussion can happen elsewhere. Please add any issues I missed to the list. Also, add a link after each item to where that discussion is or has occurred, if you have one: | |||
| *Purpose of the Ref Desk | |||
| *Is the Ref Desk considered to be like an article or like a talk page ? '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *Rules for deletion '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *Is opinion allowed '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *Are references required for all statements of fact ? '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *Are answers containing original research allowed? '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *Are answers with references outside of Misplaced Pages allowed ? '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *Are responses which don't directly answer the question allowed ? | |||
| :*If still related to the topic | |||
| :*If totally unrelated | |||
| *Can we address another responder, or only the original poster ? | |||
| *Is humor allowed ? '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *Is sexual content allowed ? '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *Are poorly written questions allowed ? | |||
| *Should signatures be required ? '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *May we edit the posts of others ? '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| *Avoid using abbreviations like "OP" ? | |||
| *Is "just Google it" a valid response ? '''RESOLVED''' . | |||
| *May the same people post both questions and answers ? '''RESOLVED''' | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| *I think you shouldn't phrase this as "X is allowed, Y is disallowed". Rather, you should state something like ''The intent of the reference desk is to help people who have questions. Try to take the question seriously; it is not productive to give a joke answer. Likewise, it is not recommended to simply send people to Google instead, as that doesn't really answer anything.'' You should treat this page as an instructive guide to new users who wish to help answering refdesk questions, not as a strict book of law. (]) 12:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*The word "guideline" describes that concept quite clearly, doesn't it ? ] 12:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :**Yes. I take it then that you agree to a description rather than a checklist? (]) 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*No, we agreed on the items one at a time, and they should stay in that form. It's also far easier to read than a long paragraph. We need to be concise, and long rambling descriptions fail that test. ] 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::**It's not easier to read. You are attempting to catch in strict rules what should be commonsensical. But Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, so guidelines aren't written that way. You are also wrongly assuming that a brief vote among the frequenters here is an appropriate way to decide an issue for Misplaced Pages as a whole. And finally, you are wrongly assuming that policy/guidelines may not be edited; if that were actually true, we'd protect the lot of them. See also ], ], ] and ]. (]) 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have concerns about the practice of using votes with very little discussion to try to claim a 'consensus'. To look at one example above, restating another individual's suggestion in an absolute and unpalatable form, then declaring the matter resolved after less than ninety minutes of 'discussion' (see ]) is a ludicrous abuse of process. Per Hipocrite, I see no reason to participate in a discussion that is going to be conducted in such an utterly autocratic and bad-faith manner. Claiming that there is agreement on each of these points is in many cases selective blindness of the worst sort. | |||
| This has gone from exercise in preventing the abuse of the Ref Desk to an exercise in developing loopholes through which both the Ref Desk and administrators ''can'' be abused. ](]) 13:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :With three votes in favor, and none against, and even the original person appearing to request the item no longer arguing for it, we appeared to have consensus. If you dispute this, no problem, I will remove the item from the guidelines until we get more votes. Is this what you wish me to do ? ] 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::One more time: Consensus is not a vote. (]) 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::One more time, no, but a supermajority is a way to gauge whether a consensus exists, as per ]. I refer you to the Arbitration Committee votes happening right now and Votes for Adminship and Votes for Deletion. ] 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == New version == | |||
| Hipocrite's version is a great improvement. (]) 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. It has some rough edges and sounds a bit abrupt in spots, but it's much closer to the format that is usually used for guidelines around here. ](]) 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you want to propose replacing the guidelines we've developed so far, that's fine, but don't replace them and '''then''' discuss it. You should create an alternative page, then we can compare the two and decide which we like the best. ] 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You haven't developed any guidelines so far. You have developed a proposal that has not gained ] yet. Also, Hipocrite didn't replace anything, but added to it. (]) 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: As a minor correction, I was initially over-bold and replaced the page with my starting point for discussion. That was reverted, so instead I tacked my starting point on top of the voting-version. ] - ] 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::List of things that are wrong with Hipocrite's version: | |||
| ::#''You may not seek opinions'' - we've discussed this, and agreed that there are certain situiations where an opinion is a valid response to a question. | |||
| ::#''We don't have opinions'' - obviously silly. | |||
| ::#''We don't do novel research'' - we do, on Mathematics RD, all the time. Again, we have discussed this. | |||
| ::#''Your personal knowledge is not acceptable except to the extent it guides your selection of sources'' - answers on the Comoputing/IT RD are often based entirely on personal experience of a similar situation. | |||
| ::#''Do not provide answers to homework questions or opinions, no matter what the questioner wishes'' - sounds as if it is prohibiting ''any'' response a homework question. Certainly needs major re-wording. | |||
| ::So much wrong here, I think there is little or nothing worth keeping. ] 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::But how could such responses (opinions and personal knowledge/original research) help out the ''encyclopedia''? I agree that the current version is somewhat overly restrictive and think that we could make a good case that answers which, for instance, state the editors opinion can in some ways improve the encyclopedia. But these are based on some core Misplaced Pages principles, the reference desk needs to find some way to live inside the project, not as a separate entity whith it's own unique goals and methods.] 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::An open, helpful and responsive RD improves the image of Wikpedia and encourages new editors to join the project. OTOH, if we followed Hipocrite's rules we would have to keep saying "I'm sorry, Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article that answers your question, so we can't help you" - which would be a waste of time for all concerned. Take a look at Dec 10th and Dec 11th on the Mathematics RD - full of original work and suggestions from personal experience - under Hipocrite's rules, we would not be allowed to answer ''any'' of these questions in any meaningful way. ] 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I'm happy to review dec10 from the math RD. | |||
| ::::# maximum value of a cubic function? | |||
| ::::## Answered in our article on ]. | |||
| ::::# Bézier Curves | |||
| ::::## KSmrq's answer references his sources. | |||
| ::::#rewrite using partial fractions | |||
| ::::##{{tl|homework}} | |||
| ::::#vector perpindicular | |||
| ::::##{{tl|homework}} | |||
| ::::#natural log integration | |||
| ::::##Meni Rosenfeld cites her sources. | |||
| ::::: I do not see substantial disruption here. ] - ] 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::1. The ] article does not actually answer the question that was asked. 2. The questioner on ]s had already read the article and was asking about stuff not covered there. 3. & 4. A ''homework'' template on its own is no help at all to the questioner. 5. KSmrq amplified Meni Rosenfeld response by working through a specific example - your rules would not have allowed him to do that. ] 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I have changed the guideline to accurately reflect what we desire from the mathemematics RD. Thank you for helping guide our thought processes through discussion. As a note, The cubic function article does answer the question, and KSmrq linked to algebraic geometry. ] - ] 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == StuRat's objections == | |||
| My objections to the new version are as follows (I will build the list item by item): | |||
| *"Giving personal opinions in answers should be avoided." - The consensus is just the opposite, that both OR and opinions should be allowed. ] 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *"1 You may not seek opinions. While we have opinions, we're not going to tell you what they are, so don't ask for them. We will give you the facts, and allow you to form your own conclusions." - Same comment as above. ] 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *"2 We don't do novel research. While we may check things, we will not test your experiment, your theory, or your thoughts. We can point you to other people's work, however. We will not answer your homework question. We will, however, direct you to sources that will help you answer your homework question." - Same comment as above. ] 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *My main objection, however, is to all the things which are not included, such as what process should be used to decide what should be deleted and how that deletion should occur (Can we delete anything we don't personally like ? Do we need to notify the author ? What happens if they put it back ? etc.). ] 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:These things you object to are a consequence of the fact that the reference desk is part of Misplaced Pages. As for what to do exactly about off-topic content, describing an exact editing procedure is not something we need to do. ] 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Well, we disagree there, but that's OK. ] 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Let's see if we can't turn it into an agreement or a compromise then. You do agree with the basic idea that the reference desk is part of Misplaced Pages and therefore must support the goals of Misplaced Pages rather than going its own way entirely, right? ] 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*In general, yes, but that doesn't mean that every Misplaced Pages policy applies to the Ref Desk, especially since many of those policies contradict each other. ] 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: This will perhaps be a dangerous admission, but when I first came across the Reference Desk, I remember noticing that in a couple of ways it was ''not'' like the rest of Misplaced Pages. It was very chatty, much more like a Usenet newsgroup. And (though I didn't think of it in these terms then) there was plenty of what we might call "original research" going on. But the "chat", and the research, were both being carried out to high standards of accuracy (just like a good Usenet newsgroup in the good old days), and I was more than happy to participate on that basis. | |||
| :: Now, with those points conceded, it seems to me that the question is, do we want to "fix" the Reference Desk by holding it strictly to all Misplaced Pages policies, including ] and "no discussion except on talk pages"? We could do that, I suppose, but we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face, and destroying the village in order to save it. | |||
| :: Me, I think we should declare (as a formal policy if someone absolutely insists on it) that the Reference Desk '''is different''', that ] and ] either do not apply or are applied ''much'' less stringently than in the main namespace, and that discussion is not only allowed but encouraged. | |||
| :: I very seriously doubt that any Misplaced Pages Police would descend on us if we made those declarations. But I rather seriously fear that -- if we formally made and attempted to enforce the opposite set of declarations -- the Reference Desk would be a very, very different place, that I for one would have no interest in contributing to. —] (]) 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-consensus changes == | |||
| Ok, I've moved those items agreed to by consensus to ]. Those of you who wish to make non-consensus changes feel free to do so here. ] 14:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think making a fork right now is a good idea. And why are you saying "non-consensus"? People are working on describing consensus, from what I can see. ] 14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::We were, but then ], and others, just started deleting the items we had already agreed upon. I feel the fork is needed to stop an edit war. Hopefully, once both versions are completed, we can reach consensus on which is best and should be linked to from the Ref Desk page templates. ] 14:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a wiki. Text gets edited. The wiki-process is how we build content, even on policy and guideline pages.] 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Absolutely, and so I made some edits, too. -] 15:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Making bad faith changes to the guidelines is not helping this process move forward. ] - ] 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], If you are accusing ME of making bad faith changes, please do so in a direct manner. Thanks. -] 15:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Stop making bad faith changes on the article page. Discuss your proposals in talk, don't just disrupt the page. ] - ] 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please ] and remember ]. And stop ordering others around: ]. Thanks. -] 15:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Thank you for reminding me of those important policies. ] - ] 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Obviously you can't get consensus by starting a new debate that only involves those users who agree with you. (]) 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Everyone is invited to voice their opinion of each proposed rule on the new page. They are '''not''', however, invited to delete any rules, without consensus, that they don't like, disrupt the conversation, and constantly complain about, and remove, poll results. Those actions aren't designed to work towards a consensus, but rather to disrupt it. ] 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Reference Desk == | |||
| I was thinking that the very use of the term "Reference Desk" implies some formality would be expected in the way it is run. I know that some have a problem with the informal appearance of the desk. OK, that is fine with me but I don't want to go all draconian with warnings on users' pages eventually leading to blocks for simply inserting a quip. I think if we have policy that "responses that consist '''solely''' of off-topic remarks are subject to deletion by any editor" then those that don't like them can pull them. We would also have a policy to stay on point and not use the RD as a chat room. I am not talking about someone that is disruptive. I am talking about people like me and others here that like to joke around while they work. But "work" is the operative term. I just know that, for me, if the RD is ]d then I am "outta here". --] 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Micromanagement is not a risk- that's more or less the opposite of how Misplaced Pages works. This is why we phrase things in a general way and depend on people to interpret guidelines reasonably. See ]. Just having a list of ''exactly'' what is or isn't allowed is unsatisfactory- troublemakers will simply invent ways to make trouble that aren't yet on the list. See also ] ] 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::We aren't trying to deal with troublemakers so much as honest disagreements between good editors, who are operating under different sets of rules, since none have been defined specifically for the Ref Desk. Since it's not clear which general Misplaced Pages policies apply, everyone has a different interpretation, leading to conflict. ] 15:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Micromanagement is very much a risk if some editor decides to vet every response. And I believe that I saw something suspiciously like that on ]. If we have consensus that off-topic remarks can be removed by any editor then just remove it and be done with it. If someone takes offense then they can bring it up. That is how I have observed wikipedia to work. We continue to dance around what I see as the only real issue. Is the Desk formal or informal and how much informality is acceptable. I think that we are making progress in the direction of answering that question though even if we are not directly asking it. --] 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I think we were making progress in that direction, with the consensus leaning towards an informal, but, above all else, polite Ref Desk. And that's politeness to everyone involved, not just the OP. ] 16:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A couple of objections == | |||
| Well first of all, to be a little pedantic I guess, the whole thing needs to be rewritten to sound less like "Hey newbie, this is stuff we're not doing for you so don't even ask". Some examples: ''While we have opinions, we're not going to tell you what they are, so don't ask for them'', ''We don't do'' , ''don't chat, because this is not a chat room. Just joking around is not acceptable'', ''...do not provide answers, no matter what the questioner wishes''. Whatever, this can be fixed easily, but I want to make sure that at some point it does get fixed. | |||
| Anyway, first off I oppose the first "instruction for questioners." This might be a little controversial, but opinion questions often are appropriate to the RD. For example, we get a lot of that kind of thing at the computing desk, especially with stuff regarding "real world experience." Often people ask stuff like "what linux distro have you guys found best for Q use?" and people answer along the lines of "yeah personally I like X because of A, but if you find B and C important you might want to consider Y or Z." I can easily see the same thing applying to other desks. If I want advice from experienced people who have well-formed opinions based on experience and actual knowledge, there's nothing wrong with asking for them just because they're unencyclopedic. It's still important to talk past your personal biases, but opinion can be valuable. | |||
| Secondly I am strongly opposed to the second "instruction for answerers." I don't believe it's always possible to answer with a source, and I don't believe most OPs really want a source. AFAIK very few (if any) OPs are using the RD for actual research, and just want the info, and don't really care that it's verifiable as long as a couple other editors agree. Also, though sources are great, experience is really what gives the RD its strength, and placing any restriction at all on giving advice from experience or personal knowledge isn't helping the RD in any way. | |||
| --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm pretty sure that the idea of hosting an experts forum, while possibly useful, is outside the scope of Misplaced Pages. There are other websites that DO have that exact purpose, though. I don't see why we'd want to compete with those forums- wouldn't it be better to direct questioners there? ] 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've seen sites with expert forums on one topic, like computers, but I haven't run across "all topic" expert forums. Do you have examples ? ] 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing comes to mind. Most forums aren't going to be all topics, they're going to be specific. I don't see that this matters? Unless we want to maintain a list of various expert forums to refer people to? ] 01:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::We don't have to promise expert advice, but if someone ''has'' that "expert advice" there's nothing wrong with giving it --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, the closest we come to "quality control" in articles is ]. How do you propose we have quality control when using individual expertise? I see that people disagreeing with each other's advice is already not unheard of. ] 02:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just as in a Misplaced Pages article, you go with the consensus. Here the person who asks the question gets to decide which answers they will accept and which to reject. ] 03:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The idea of the questioner deciding seems reasonable to a certain extent. However, just as we have certain standards for what goes into articles, don't we want some standards at the reference desk to help ensure good answers? To me the easiest way to address the concern of quality answers is to use Misplaced Pages content and/or reliable sources. The current wording of the guideline does a good job explaining this, I think. ] 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::While references are good to give, if they exist and you can find them, refusing to answer a question (even though you know the answer), just because you can't find a reference, doesn't seem to be very helpful to the user. However, this is exactly what a strict application of ] to the Ref Desk would require. ] 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that: sure, the Reference Desk is an "experts forum", and it is a "chat room". And I don't see anything excessively wrong with either of those two characterizations, and, although I'm still coming up to speed on what this sudden burst of frenzied policymaking is all about, the impression I'm getting is that it's either trying to solve a nonexistent problem, or will end up making things worse instead of better. | |||
| ::Now, mind you, I don't think the RD is truly a chat room. But it's closer to being a chat room than it is to being "not a chat room", which is what some people are trying to assert. What we chat about is: science, and humanities, and language, and mathematics, and computing/IT, and some other miscellaneous stuff, all in the context of the random questions people ask, some of which are good and some of which are not so good, but many of which (even the not-so-good ones) end up sparking interesting and informative discussions nonetheless. —] (]) 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well said. ] 06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the "frenzy of policymaking" is the inevitable product of being so different from the rest of WP. The inexorable quality control crew (sort of similar to the wiki cabal I guess) rolled through and was horrified by how off topic a lot of the discussion was, and how unusually free we were with a lot of the content we were pushing to new users. I was expecting it for awhile before the issue exploded, but ironically that same spirit that some of this new policy is trying to erase was what interested me in the project in the first place. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == How to ask and answer == | |||
| We've already got ]. If (sigh) we're after all going to end up with a guideline page, then shouldn't it read like other guidelines? Less prohibition and more prose, more a description of how thing should work than a list of do's and do not's?] 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought (at least I hope) that these are more behind-the-scenes guidelines so that if an issue comes up with another editor we can show him that we reached consensus on the issue already. For this very practical use, a list of dos and donts is most useful. You're right, if these "go public" then prose would be more appropriate, but if they do then God help us because the RD will be more restrictive than the mainspace itself! --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I too have wondered what the guideline does that ] doesn't already do. The current version seems well-grounded, but is worded too harshly here and there. I agree with froth that maybe there is value to having a more detailed description apart from the obvious stuff. ] 02:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is good, as far as it goes, but completely avoids many critical issues, like whether opinions are allowed in questions and answers. That's why more detailed rules are needed, like those at ]. ] 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is exactly what i think we need to be moving away from—more detailed rules. Wasn't it you who earlier on the main talk page said that we're shooting for the sum total of the responses to a question to be NPOV, not each and every response individually? I think there is some support for that position, policy lets us know that achieving NPOV is an iterative process which may require the input of more than one editor. Isn't a description of how that could apply to the reference desk more helpful than: Is opinion allowed (yes/no)? Either rule would be completely meaningless. They are focused on a particular behavior and do not let us know how that behavior helps, or hurts the ''encyclopedia''.] 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I did say that. I don't see why we can't have both a rule interpretation on how NPOV applies and the role of opinion, such as questions which solicit an opinion, those which contain an opinion, and answers which give an unsolicited opinion. While the topics are related, they are not identical. ] 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I removed the welcome message and added a few headings, is this more towards the way we want the guideline to look?] 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sources == | |||
| People who just answer questions with their personal knowledge, not any sources, are often just being lazy in not linking their sources. I suggest that all answers should be required to have sources - just telling someone the answer makes them reliant on the reference desk to get them answers, as opposed to teaching them how to find answers. As such, I believe all answers should have sources, without fail. ] - ] 14:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This is just not realistic, particularly on the Mathematics RD, where some questions are not textbook problems and can only be answered by giving a worked example, which means answering with personal knowledge. For examples, see ] and ] and ] and ]. I've pointed this out at least twice before ! ] 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I disagree. The first answer merely should have mentioned that this is a "]" - someone said it, but failed to link. Done. The second should have linked ]. The third should have linked ]. This is not about finding the answer in the source, it's about demonstrating where people should be looking before asking. I said this the last time you had a problem with sources on the math page. ] - ] 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::WP:NOR does not apply here. Granted, it doesn't take that much ] to ] ] but the last thing the Reference Desk needs is for ] to ] ] ] ] into the mix accidentally. Things are already ] enough as it is. ] ] ] 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I would hope that answeres are READING the pages they are linking to before posting answers. I certainly do. If others are not, they should probably not answer any more questions untill they start doing so. ] - ] 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : "People who just answer questions with their personal knowledge, not any sources, are often just being lazy in not linking their sources." But there's a significantly imprecise implication here. What you mean, I think, is that they're being lazy in not linking some "authoritative" source which corroborates their personal knowledge. | |||
| : I don't know about other RD answerers, but most of the time, I ''do'' answer based on my own personal knowledge. Much of the time (and especially if my answer might be contentious, or if I imagine that the reader might want to read more), I'll try to include a link, but it's a corroborating link, not a link to "my source". (I can no longer remember where I learned everything I know, even if thouse sources were on-line and linkable.) —] (]) 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I suggest that if you know the answer off the top of your head, you know which phrases are the ones to wikilink to provide the user ]. Provide me an example and I'll tell you where you should put the ]. ] - ] 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is unrealistic. It's entirely OK to answer from personal knowledge with no source at all. The only time that I would say wikilinks ''should'' be used is for technical terms that you throw into your answer that the OP might not be familiar with. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. I can't count how many times here I've seen questions along the lines of "which book..." or "what's the name of that movie where..."? How on earth can you source your answers to that? A wikilink is definitely to be included in the answer so that the OP can do any followup research on the book/movie that they want, but unless the article describes the exact same scene that the OP asked about, anybody answering the question is technically using OR. So mandating that there MUST be NO OR, and EVERY answer MUST cite sources is silly. These aren't articles, they're questions. We're not trying to write an encyclopedia here, just answer the questions that the encyclopedia doesn't, or can't. We can strongly suggest people use references and sources whenever they've got them, but I don't think we should enforce always using them like that. --] 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: "A wikilink is definitely to be included in the answer so that the OP can do any followup research on the book/movie that they want" - without comment. ] - ] 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Huh? I don't understand... can you explain what you mean in more words? --] 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If it wikilinks to what you'd need to fully understand to fully understand the answer, it's sourced. ] - ] 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But by standard wikipedia rules of verifiability, it's not. If somebody asked "what's that movie with the guys that turn into dummies suddenly, it scared me" and I answer "]" then my answer isn't properly sourced, because nowhere in that article does it describe that scene. To properly source the answer, I'd have to find a third-party article describing that exact scene from the movie. That's what I mean about not always having a proper source, which is why we should leave sourcing as a suggestion, not a requirement. --] 20:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I have never suggested that the full brunt of V, OR and NPOV apply - you have confused the strawman for the argument. ] - ] 20:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the general feeling is that there are good reasons to continue to be aware of the core content policies, even at the reference desk. This does NOT mean we have the same strict standards as we do in articles. I think it's the nuance of this point that has somehow gotten lost on several people. ] 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the problem is that this nuance, by definition of the word nuance, is unclear. So by your words, we have to be "aware" of V and NOR. What does that mean? I'm aware of them right now, in that I've read them before and know they exist. I can just as easily do something that's blantently against them, all the while quite "aware" that what I'm doing goes against those rules. Meanwhile Hipocrite says that we're not going to apply the "full brunt" of them. So we'll say that they're still rules, but only sorta? The current guideline says that this isn't a place where they "can be ignored". Again that's fairly unclear... but to me mostly sounds like they're in effect, if we're not ignoring them it means that we have to follow them, right? But then both of you seem to disagree with my interpretation of that, leading me to believe that there are obviously multiple ways to interpret them. WP:V and WP:NOR are rules, so to invoke them in such a way as this is to invoke them as rules, to be followed. If they're only suggestions here, that won't be fully enforced, than either we have to word the guideline to make that clear (as in "Please attempt to follow WP:V and WP:NOR where possible") or move away from citing those rules completely (as in simply "Please attempt to cite sources where possible"). Just my thoughts --] 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Use common sense. I know it's anathema, but it's how we work here. ] - ] 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :]'s another example of an answer that's almost entirely OR. Are we 'really'' saying this answer is going to be disallowed ???? ] 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: That answer should have linked to ], ] and ]. ] - ] 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::...which would not answer the question at all. Ahhhh .... what's the use ... I'm wasting my time here. ] 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You appear to still be falling for the strawman. I do not believe a fully strict application of V, OR and NPOV is appropriate. I do believe in citing wikipedia articles of relevence before just giving the answer. ] - ] 21:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So to summarize my view of this conversation... Everything I'm seeing in this entire section (including the repeated arguments that some of us are looking at it too strictly, and it won't be enforced that strictly) seem to be well in agreement with the "Instructions for Answerers" section 2 of the guidelines. I completely agree with the way those are written right now, so no problems there. The problem seems to arise in that "What the Reference Desk is Not" says "The reference desk is not a place where WP:V and WP:NOR can be completely ignored", which seems to contradict section 2 of the instructions below. As such, I think that the line from WtRDiN should be removed. I'm not suggesting that we SHOULD completely ignore those guidelines, just that's we shouldn't NOT completely ignore them (umm... that made sense in my head). Basically, if we leave out the line telling people not to ignore them, it doesn't mean that we have to tell them TO ignore them, just that the "blurry line" people seem to be describing above is better served with the way the instructions are worded, than by a one line "don't do that" command. --] 13:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Hate me if you want. == | |||
| I'm making a move as per ] and removing some of the subheadings here that are blatantly disruptive to the process of policy and guideline creation. Come on, folks: you can't hug with nuclear arms. ] ] ] 16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, yeah. ] also played a part in this decision. ] ] ] 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, that section seeking consensus on the use of the letter "E" is a no-brainer for disruption, but what other sections do you mean ? ] 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see you also removed "== Next item for consensus: *Can we address another responder, or only the original poster ? ==". This was not meant to be disruptive, but reflected a minority opinion, voiced on the main Ref Desk talk page, that we should not address other responders in an attempt to limit chat. While there isn't much controversy on this, I feel that any opinion, even the opinion of a single individual, deserves a discussion/straw poll. I will move it, however, to ], as it is more closely related to the discussion there. ] 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *It's a good start, but you should actually remove all the votes, because they all are not conductive to discussion. It is a well-known fact that Misplaced Pages guidelines are created by discussing them and finding a compromise on acceptable wording, not by making a motion and calling a vote on it. ] a democracy, after all. See also ] and ] for details. (]) 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Radiant the time to bring this up is if he starts trying to bring the results of those votes into actual policy. It's useful to know where people stand on the issues, even if he did go a little overboard on the votes. Besides, there's a lot of discussion behind those votes too, so stop tooting your horn so you can realize that we've reached consensus on many of the same issues in other ways too --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Purpose of the desk == | |||
| Isn't ] a great example of how the reference desk can and should be helping build the encyclopedia?] 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it's a good example. The reference desk is here to help the project- there should be consensus on at least THAT much. ] 18:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I strongly support the question and the answer. ] - ] 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Purpose of the desk, comma, desired? == | |||
| As I'm trying to wrap my head around all the issues that are being debated here, one sense I'm getting is that some people have a rather different vision of what the Reference Desk should be than I do. The extreme version of that different vision could be described something like this. (Please note that this ''is'' an extreme version; I am not suggesting that anyone has stated or desires this particular vision; what I'm writing here ''is'' a strawman that's intended to be knocked down.) | |||
| # The Reference Desk is for asking questions which have objective, scientific answers, such as could be answered by consulting one of Misplaced Pages's existing articles, or via a Google search. (If the guideliines for new questioners don't say this, they should.) | |||
| # Questions not falling into that category should not be asked, should definitely not be answered, and might even be deleted. | |||
| # Questions are answered by consulting Misplaced Pages's existing articles, and via Google searches. | |||
| # This is a serious business. We owe our questioners nothing but prompt, concise, factual, objective answers. Humor and by-play are out of place and quite inappropriate. Other than a straightforward answer to a question, the only dialog should be (if necessary) clarifying questions asked of the original questioner. (Also, if by some grave mischance a wrong answer should be posted, followup posts to point out and/or correct the mistake are also permissible.) | |||
| # All of Misplaced Pages's core policies, such as ] and ], apply in full force in Reference Desk answers, just as they do in the main namespace. | |||
| # In particular, all answers must cite reliable, verifiable sources. | |||
| Note, too, that there are several corollaries which follow more or less directly from the above: | |||
| : 7. Reference Desk answerers don't need to be experts in anything; they just need to know how to consult Misplaced Pages and perform Google searches. | |||
| : 8. Since Reference Desk answerers do know how to consult Misplaced Pages and perform Google searches, they never ask questions at the Reference Desk, save clarifying questions of original posters. | |||
| : 9. Questioners who ask other than objective, scientific questions are idiots who can't read our rules, and deserve nothing (save perhaps pity or scorn). | |||
| : 10. In fact, questioners who do ask appropriate questions are idiots, too, since by definition their questions could all have been answered by consulting Misplaced Pages's existing articles, or via Google searches. | |||
| : 11. In summary, then, the only job requirements for a Reference Desk answerer are good google-fu, and the ability to say "you could have answered this question yourself, but just this once I'll show you how" reasonably politely. | |||
| Now, as I say, this is an extreme caricature of what some of the proposed new policies seem to be getting at. If you disagree with any of the above 11 points, please understand that I did not mean the caricature as any kind of personal attack against you. Please don't say, "I never said that, how could you have thought I said anything like that?" Please instead say, "Good grief, is that what you thought I was getting at? No, not at all, all I meant was..." | |||
| —] (]) 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :# True. However, the synthesis and adaptation of our article to specific questions is relevant and valuable. | |||
| :# False. Questions should be answered unless answering them does more damage than not answering them. | |||
| :# Mostly true. Replace with "Answers should be based on Misplaced Pages articles and Reliable Sources to the furthest extent possible. | |||
| :# Mostly true, but phrased as a strawman. Answers are important. This does not preclude humor IN the answer, if it does not hurt the answer. It does preclude just making a dumb joke. | |||
| :# False. Our answers should strive to fulfill those criteria, but are not required to meet them. | |||
| :# Mostly true, but should include "when possible." More importantly, our answers must be Verifiable (which is another word for true) | |||
| :# True. I can answer the bulk of questions on the RD with just basic knowledge and basic webbilities. I can answer advanced questions about economics, finance, and biochemistry because of specific knowledge. I will avoid questions on literature. | |||
| :# False. I am an expert at finding sources in the fields I am expert in. If I wanted a survey of academic criticism of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, however, using the RD would be appropriate for me, if such info were not in, for instance, the Misplaced Pages article. | |||
| :# False. Trolls are idiots. Newbies are new. | |||
| :# Absurd on it's face. | |||
| :# True. Basic requirements are the minimum required. More is always good. ] - ] 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Purpose of the desk, comma, percieved == | |||
| As I'm trying to wrap my head around all the issues that are being debated here, one sense I'm getting is that some people have a rather different vision of what the Reference Desk should be than I do. The extreme version of that different vision could be described something like this. (Please note that this ''is'' an extreme version; I am not suggesting that anyone has stated or desires this particular vision; what I'm writing here ''is'' a strawman that's intended to be knocked down.) | |||
| # The Reference Desk is for the reference desk regulars enjoyment. Sometimes questions are answered | |||
| # If the questions are just designed to get a rise out of people, that's ok. | |||
| # Questions are answered by whomever. They answers can be wrong, because there's no responsibility to be right. | |||
| # This is a total joke. We owe our questioners nothing. Humor and by-play are the name of the game. Other than in jokes and offensive comments, the only dialog should be (if necessary) clarifying questions asked of the original questioner. (Also, if by some grave mischance a right answer should be posted, followup posts should really confuse the whole thing.) | |||
| # None of wikipedia's polices apply at all - this is a different website, basically. | |||
| # In particular, good answers are really unique and origional thought. | |||
| Note, too, that there are several corollaries which follow more or less directly from the above: | |||
| : 7. Reference Desk answerers don't need to be experts in anything; they just need to be funny. | |||
| : 8. Since Reference Desk answerers don't know how to consult Misplaced Pages and perform Google searches, they pretty much are the only people asking questions on the desk. | |||
| : 9. Questioners who ask objective, scientific questions are idiots who don't realize they are going to get bad answers. | |||
| : 10. In fact, questioners who do ask inappropriate questions are idiots, too, they won't get the injokes that are about to be thrown at them. | |||
| : 11. In summary, then, the only job requirements for a Reference Desk answerer being a reference desk answerer before the arbitrary cutoff date at which point no injokes will be explained. | |||
| Now, as I say, this is an extreme caricature of what some of the proposed new policies seem to be getting at. If you disagree with any of the above 11 points, please understand that I did not mean the caricature as any kind of personal attack against you. Please don't say, "I never said that, how could you have thought I said anything like that?" Please instead say, "Good grief, is that what you thought I was getting at? No, not at all, all I meant was..." | |||
| ] - ] 22:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :LOL! Bravo! That was an inspired rebuttal. Now all we have to do is perform ] between these two nicely-polarized extremes, and we're done! —] (]) 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : In all seriousness: Hipocrite raises some excellent points here, and I'd love to see people respond to them equally as they respond to my strawman above. —] (]) 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : In the spirit of Hipocrite's answers to my strawman above, here are mine to his: | |||
| :# Mostly (albeit not primarily) true. If the answerers (and especially the regulars) don't get any enjoyment, they have no incentive to ''be'' answerers and to provide answers. | |||
| :# False. (Though those questions will never go away...) | |||
| :# False. We should be striving for the highest-quality answers (though indeed, anyone is free to provide them). | |||
| :# Clearly false. | |||
| :# False (though clearly, since this is project namespace, policies which apply specifically to articles, such as ] and ], do not necessarily apply in full force). | |||
| :# True. (Why not?) | |||
| :# written as a strawman, but: False. | |||
| :# Absurd. | |||
| :# False. | |||
| :# Absurd. | |||
| :# written as a strawman, but: False on its face. | |||
| :—] (]) 06:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == How can this help the encyclopedia? == | |||
| In an ], someone asked, "How could such responses (opinions and personal knowledge/original research) help out the ''encyclopedia''?" That's a good question. My answer to it is in two parts. | |||
| Certainly, opinions and original research are borderline propositions on the Reference Desk, and should be engaged in sparingly if at all. (The currently-running thread on ], which I confess I contributed to, is an example of the difficulties that can result when discussions ensue around opinionated topics.) | |||
| However, although we might certainly want to discourage opinion and original research, I don't think we should try to formally ban them. I don't think it's possible to separate them from the kinds of discussions which do -- and will always -- come up on the Reference Desk. | |||
| I haven't answered the question of how those opinions and original research actually contribute to the encyclopedia. My answer to that is only that in the end they're inseparable from the inevitable Reference Desk discussion, but Reference Desk discussion definitely does help the encyclopedia. | |||
| Since it's not necessarily obvious how the Reference Desk -- which we've admitted is kind of separate and different -- helps the encyclopedia, the second part of my answer will be an exploration of how, in general, I think it does: | |||
| #In the process of finding or checking their answers, Reference Desk contributors regularly discover, and fix, weaknesses and mistakes in existing Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| #In the process of finding or checking their answers, Reference Desk contributors regularly demonstrate to the Original Poster, and more importantly to each other, new and better ways of performing top-notch cutting-edge on-line research. | |||
| #The whole intellectual tenor of the Reference Desk is stimulating and conducive to the processes which underlie (among other intellectual pursuits) the writing of an encyclopedia. | |||
| To that last point, and to the extent (as I've suggested ]) that the Reference Desk is in some ways "different" from the main-namespace Misplaced Pages, I would also suggest that keeping the Reference Desk relatively open and unfettered is not only acceptable, but positively beneficial to the rest of the project. Here's an analogy. | |||
| Suppose you were working for a company, perhaps a defense contracor, producing an extremely high-reliability system, with strict design, documentation, and change-control requirements. Now, at midday, when you're in the lunchroom with your colleagues, talking either about some outside-of-work project, or talking informally about a work project, do all the same strict standards of design and documentation apply? Are you forbidden to cut corners, to approximate, to make a decision without three levels of signed approval? Must you cut the bread for your sandwich with five-nine's accuracy? Is the munchies cupboard shopping list under change control? | |||
| The answers, I hope, are "no". You'd go ''crazy'' if every aspect of your working day were as constrained and stultified as is (perhaps necessarily) required by the formal requirements of the company's main project. And even for the formal project, you've got to spend some time with the mental restraints off, informally brainstorming, if you're ever going to discover designs that can then be implemented successfully within the project's constraints. | |||
| The lunchroom example is not a perfect analogy to the Reference Desk. But I hope it suggests some reasons why the Reference Desk (like talk pages) might not need to be held to the same formal policies as the main namespace, and why we're not merely making lazy excuses in doing so, but beneficially furthering the project. —] (]) 22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===side question=== | |||
| I have a question - it was obvious to me that the age of the earth discussion was problematic BEFORE anyone posted anything. In fact, the first response was me trying to head that off at the pass - . This response lasted for nearly an hour untill '''you''' decided that would be helpful. With 20/20 hindsight, is the question more valuable '''now''' or was it better answered by my response? Why did you decide to have a debate '''on our desk''', when his question had been fully answered by a link to an article '''about the debate'''? It appears to me that you wanted to debate - that you enjoy arguing on the internet. That's fine, but Misplaced Pages is not for arguing on the internet, regardless of how much of it I've been forced to do over the past two days. | |||
| We can discourage opinions and worthless arguing by '''not participating in it.''' Would you mind trying that? While you do not cut the sandwitch to six-sigma, you do, in fact, avoid cutting off your finger. Please watch your fingers. ] - ] 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I already did this a bit by parenthetically mentioning the issue at all, but if you want me to grovel: yes, I learned something today. You were absolutely right to have perceived that the discussion was problematic, and I kowtow before your superior prescience. I am indeed chagrined that my contribution to the thread might have spurred it along towards less-than-meaningful logorrhea. | |||
| : With that said, though, I am not willing to concede that the question was not valuable, or that the answer is not worth debating. My own opinion is that if we refuse to debate a difficult question, if we insist on merely pointing to a source where we claim The Answer can be found, we're little different from those who would assert that divine creation is The Answer because they can point at the book that describes it. | |||
| : I'm sorry you don't like debates or arguments on Misplaced Pages. I love a good debate; I hate stupid arguments. I don't have a problem with good debates on or off the Internet, on or off Misplaced Pages. (No, there shouldn't be debates in main-namespace articles, but there are clearly going to be debates on talk pages as NPOV is hammered out, and I don't have a problem with debates on the talkier sorts of project pages, either.) | |||
| : We can always learn something new from a good debate. The comment that and , for example, made what I thought was a very good point, which I learned something from, which was why I was moved to restore it. (Also, for what it's worth, I was worried that restoring it might annoy you and I almost decided not to, but my appreciation for the content won out.) —] (]) 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some of what you say here seems reasonable to me. However I have to object to "if we insist on merely pointing to a source..." I would instead say that if we insist on merely pointing to a source, maybe it's because we understand the goal of Misplaced Pages. Maybe it's because we realize that the project has a SCOPE, and debate, while perhaps interesting, generally lies outside that scope. Debate about what's best for Misplaced Pages belongs in some places, certainly. But general debate on any topic? Nope, that's for a forum. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. Hosting debates here doesn't help, and it means we have to deal with needless debate-drama. ] 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Disrepute == | |||
| One thing that's been alluded to but maybe not said explicitly much, is this: Misplaced Pages, as a whole, has good reason to want to avoid things that would bring the project into disrepute. This has been used previously as a reason for limiting what's on user pages. We should keep this in mind at the reference desk too. Some of what's been going on here DOES make Misplaced Pages look pretty ridiculous. I hesitate to use the word "professionalism" since we're all volunteers, but something resembling that would be nice. ] 23:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah well. It is all ]. I will bring over here a couple of scattered remarks I have:<blockquote>Basically, in a free society, you put up with a degree of disorder from the few to protect the rights of the many. Right now we are going through a period when it seems the few are becoming the many on this Desk. That will pass as they get bored and go play somewhere else. --] 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)</blockquote><blockquote>. . . I would rather we were fooled five times than were rude to one newbie. --] 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)</blockquote><blockquote>(To Hypocrite) And the fact that you were right does not change the fact that you were premature. I never really doubted that you were right. You gotta leave the slack there as the ] is more damaging to the RD, IMO, than the ] and I think you want to go in the direction of false positive. --] 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>--] 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You lost me when you said "in a free society"- this is not a free society, this project is about making an ]. Wide latitude is given, of course, and editors are certainly free to contribute usefully to the project however they see fit. If you want a society, try ] or something. ] 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I lost you? Really? Misplaced Pages is a society of editors editing an encyclopedia. Unless we want that society to be a ] we must allow the degree of latitude that allows some disruption to enter in. What we do is, once the disruption has been clearly identified as disruption, we handle it at that point. Not before. --] 00:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::While the statement "Misplaced Pages is not a society, it's an encyclopedia project" is true at one level, there are so many qualifiers and exceptions that it's almost useless for proving anything. | |||
| ::In particular, Misplaced Pages is edited by people, and ''any'' time you get a group of people together you're going to have "social" aspects. You can try to suppress them, but (a) it won't work, and (b) you'll destroy the project if you try. | |||
| ::I'm not trying to claim that Misplaced Pages is myspace or anything -- there are limits, there's a happy medium to be sought. But that medium is well between the poles of a completely social space such as myspace, or the sterile drone-ridden police state that a hypothetical completely asocial collaborative editing project would be. | |||
| ::There's an excellent essay on this: "", by ]. You may not agree with it, but if you haven't thought hard about the issues it raises, you're setting yourself up to reach some very wrong conclusions about how to run (or not run) a project like this. —] (]) 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, building a sense of "community" is critical to the success of Misplaced Pages, including the Ref Desk. ] 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Scanning that, it looks like it agrees with an apropos quote from ] that goes (totally paraphrased). "Individuals at their highest level are all different (different interests, different ideas). The only things they "completely agree on" are the irrational aspects that form a part of eveyone's psyche; the "] if you will. Hence mobs" and I add "hence, the internet." So the internet can serve both the best in us and the worst in us but it will be the worst in us that gets the broadest agreement. --] 00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with you on many things, Steve. Show me whoever is trying to make the reference desk into a sterile drone-ridden police state and I'll happily tell them why I disagree. ] 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nobody, it was just a pole, the hypothetical extreme if someone were to try to quash all social aspects from Misplaced Pages. And (here) I was talking more about Misplaced Pages than just the Reference Desk, and I was responding to the statement "Misplaced Pages is not a society, it's an encyclopedia project", not to your more restrictive "this is not a free society, this project is about making an encyclopedia". —] (]) 01:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Point taken. I find myself agreeing with you again. The social aspects of the work we do here cannot be overlooked. ] 01:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Trying again == | |||
| I came into this late, so I may be off-base here, but I think a big part of the problem, a reason this discussion has gotten so contentious and unproductive, is that it got started in the middle. People are trying to discuss (or vote on) specific details of a policy/guideline, without ever having agreed on the problems that they're trying to solve, or on the vision of an ideal Reference Desk they're working for. | |||
| My outline of a policy/guideline, which is also in some sense a roadmap for arriving at the policy/guideline, is something like this: | |||
| :1. problems to be resolved | |||
| :2. goals | |||
| :3. policy | |||
| :4. implications/interpretations/readings | |||
| <nowiki>#</nowiki>1 is still somewhat of a mystery to me; I'm still not sure what problems people are really worried about. #2 is covered pretty well in the already-forgotten ]. #3 is what this page ] should ultimately be (and may or may not be anywhere close to now). #4 would be specific interpretations and implications of the guidelines in #3, i.e. specific examples of things which the guidelines are or aren't intended to promote or discourage. | |||
| Now, a version of #4 (which is currently relegated to ], but is on the chopping block at ]) is what (as far as I can tell) actually got written first, so it's perhaps not completely surprising that there's been confusion and contention, given that the preceding three steps might seem to have been skipped. (I'm not saying they ''were'' skipped, just that a latecomer like me might get the impression that they were.) | |||
| Here's a slightly-fleshed-out version of the above outline/roadmap. (I sketched this out over dinner, on paper, without a computer in front of me, so I haven't aligned it with the goals and tentative policies and interpretations we've already got. Apologies, therefore, for the inevitable duplications and omissions.) | |||
| :1. problems to be solved: | |||
| ::*too much banter (too "chatty") | |||
| ::*too many poor (troll/homework/unanswerable) questions | |||
| ::*too many troll answers (?) | |||
| ::*too many poor answers (?) | |||
| ::*too many unsourced answers (?) | |||
| ::*(as I mentioned, I am ''not'' sure these are what the problems really are, especially the ones I've marked with question marks) | |||
| :2. goals: | |||
| ::*highest-quality answers | |||
| ::*some level of "professionalism" | |||
| ::*provide enjoyable atmosphere which encourages high-quality answers | |||
| ::*improve the encyclopedia at the same time | |||
| ::*minimize problems due to trolls | |||
| ::*minimize problems due to homework questions | |||
| :3. guidelines/policies: | |||
| ::*for questioners: | |||
| ::**do ask specific, ideally objective questions | |||
| ::**don't ask us to do your homework for you | |||
| ::**try not to ask subjective, opinionated questions | |||
| ::*for answerers: | |||
| ::**do try, first and foremost, to give (responsible) questioners the highest-quality answers | |||
| ::**provide supporting/corroborating links if at all possible, preferably to relevant Misplaced Pages pages | |||
| ::**good-faith questions deserve good-faith answers; don't send questioners on wild-goose chases by saying "the answer is <u><font color=blue>here</font></u>" (pointing to a huge, long page) or "just do a Google search" | |||
| ::**avoid Original Research if possible, and mark it clearly as such | |||
| ::**stick to the question; avoid long, rambling discourses | |||
| ::**don't do people's homework | |||
| ::**don't feed the trolls | |||
| ::***(though occasionally teasing them is fine) | |||
| ::**do enjoy yourself | |||
| ::**don't alienate questioners or other responders with excessive in-jokes or banter | |||
| ::*enforcement mechanisms: | |||
| ::**gentle reminders are preferred | |||
| ::**comment deletion policy | |||
| :4. implications/readings/interpretations: | |||
| ::*]] | |||
| Feel free to add or comment. | |||
| —] (]) 06:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well done! This is definitely the best complete summary that I've seen so far. Of course, I think it's also the ONLY complete summary I've seen so far. ;-) And I agree with you, I think this (summary) is a large part of what we were missing here, which helped cause a lot of the current communication issues. What we should do now is go through these one step at a time (using the 4 steps you've laid out here) and see what kind of agreement we can get. If we can start by at least getting some agreement in steps one and two (problems and goals) then it will hopefully create enough understanding among everybody to help facilitate the discussions of steps three and four (which is where the issues seem to be). --] 13:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Good work on that. I'll have to think some more on a response, but this is a very productive approach. (]) 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Son-of-a-gun, I thnk you've got. I agree! Just flesh out your #3 and we have a draft policy. Stu, I know that we already do and you are commended on your work! I am sure that Ummit got lots of what I see here from that but he also seems to have incorporated the "other side" to a greater degree. Just an impression, not an analysis. Does anyone else think that the above #3 represents something that might be termed (appropriate dramatic music here) "consensus"? --] 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Teasing trolls is not fine. More comments after I have had time to review. ] - ] 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the major problem to be solved, or at least the spark which started the fire, is disagreement over the "wikiness" of the desk. Can we actually edit here, delete anothers comments if that's in the best interest of the encyclopedia? Personally i see the items under #3 as ]. So far, in my opinion, both forks of the rules/guidelines have been ill-considered, the first was put forth in an effort to disallow deletions, the second more in response to the process which gave us the first. Neither set has really taken into consideration what's best for the encyclopedia. I for one am still not convinced we need a #3 and #4.] 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think we leave others comments alone and create what I have previously termed "answer stream". I agree, no teasing. But what I really suggest is that this be merged formally with the existing draft and that we work on that rather than disussing the points of this here. --] 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to me that Steve has laid out a great summary of the steps that this discussion will need to take to make this work, starting with step 1 and working up to step 4... and yet already people are jumping in to argue over the answers to steps 3 and 4. Can we please just start at the beginning, and first discuss step 1? A very brief synopsis, with a lot of questionmarks in it is listed above, but I think we need to discuss whether everybody agrees with that or not, what should be added, what should be removed (especially the ones marked as questionable), etc. From there we'll eventually get to discussing how to fix the problems, but lets first agree what the problems actually ARE and stop impatiently skipping ahead, since that's what caused all these arguments and forks in the first place. --] 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I was suggesting that maybe some editors have become so entrenched on the issue of comment deletions that their answers to the questions under #1 are predetermined.] 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's a great summary Steve. I've taken a shot at encapsulating the core philosophies – and the guidelines that I think flow from them, and my reasoning – over in my user space at ]. Comments are more than welcome at ], and feel free to incorporate any good bits back here. ](]) 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I skimmed your page just now -- it's excellent. Many good ideas there. (More comments later.) —] (]) 18:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Very good, # 10. May I suggest adding something that I personally do . . . sometimes . . . really.<blockquote>Very often it is helpful to preview your post and; while checking for typos; have good laugh, admire your own wit, and finally, ask yourself if it a useful answer. If not, just navigate away without saving.</blockquote> --] 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===What the problems are=== | |||
| This seems like a very productive approach to me. IMO there are only two problems we're attempting resolve: | |||
| :1) frequency of inappropriate RD responses | |||
| :2) some mechanism to address #1 without making the "RD regulars" feel persecuted. | |||
| The efforts to date seem to be directed at defining "inappropriate response", with I believe a goal of making the definition completely unambiguous so the RD responders know precisely what is and is not allowed. This presumes the solution to the 2nd issue should be to create and publicize such a definition which could then be used to shield responders from any repercussions (including deleted comments or blocks) so long as what they do is not explicitly prohibited. I think one of the basic issues of disagreement is whether this solution can possibly work. -- ] <small>(])</small> 20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Justanother again == | |||
| I hope I will be forgiven for copying this (with slight revision) from archive on the RD talk but as this discussion is, to a degree, taking place on two fronts (three, if you include the RD itself) and been going on for soooo long, I am going to. The below is my contribution to proposed policy. | |||
| I reiterate that the RD is not an article and one should review ] to see how rules for articles differ from other areas. Moreover, RD is "its own beast". We get a whole lot of absolute newbies, many with only marginal ability to frame their question in English. It is RUDE to delete their posts, no matter how crappy they are in relation to the guidelines. If the question cannot be easily reworded or is otherwise flawed then kindly let them know what is wrong and ask them to correct it. If the OP cannot be bothered to do that then why should we expend the considerable more effort that we, as a group, expend. Delete obvious trolls on sight; but wait for them to become obvious. '''Support''' the concept that we can police our own house. | |||
| 1. Remove obvious trolls - any editor | |||
| 2. Ask OP to reword questions that are too ambiguous to be reworded by an RD editor - any editor | |||
| 3. Refactor posts that have formatting errors or include personal info - any editor | |||
| 4. Ask OP for clarification as needed - any editor | |||
| 5. Answer the question you think he would want to ask had he been able to word it better - any editor | |||
| 6. Remove obvious unhelpful answers if an even partial on-point answer has not yet been posted (this one is my only real new idea) - any editor | |||
| 7. Leave the banter alone once an even partial on-point answer has been posted - any editor | |||
| 8. Delete hate-talk in responses on sight - any editor | |||
| 9. Warn users that do not agree with our cabal when their actions violate the rules of the cabal - all cabal members | |||
| 10. Warn users that abuse the RD on their talk page and escalate as needed (OK, the above one was a bit of a joke) - any editor | |||
| 11. Use <s>"common sense"</s> "good sense" - all editors | |||
| Amazingly, with the possible exception of # 6 and that not really, I think these rules are already in effect on wikipedia as a whole and we just need to do them. Did I leave any out? | |||
| --] 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Rather than discuss these points or agree/disagree extensively, I simply ask if there are any above point that you strongly '''disagree''' should be incorporated into or clarified in the draft policy (assuming that not to be the existing case). Note also that "messing with" another's post on a talk page is, in my experience, considered very bad manners. --] 15:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : These guidelines will not work. There has been a demonstrated and prolonged lack of good sense. Most recently, refdesk "regulars" were asking questions about oral sex, and then responding with veiled sexual innuendo, and then defending these comments as harmless. These guidelines appear to prohibit people who have good sense from taking action to stop this kind of trash. ] - ] 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::So it seems to me that you disagree mostly with Point # 7. OK, thanks, let's get a few more opinions too. --] 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Justanother, kudos to you and StuRat for continuing to work towards consensus despite everything. -] 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:07, 7 July 2009
Redirect to: