Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines page. For other discussions about the Reference Desks, please go to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. Old discussion is available at this revision.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Request for clarification

Disclaimer: I was invited to join in. I haven't studied any of the discussion here since April 23. Please don't see this as disrespect or laziness (well, maybe that), but I chose this approach deliberately. After comparing the current guidelines with the ones I had read before signing the agreement eight days ago, I noticed, to my delight, that most of the sections received only minor changes and a few saw additional improvement. I guess it comes down to the last paragraph, the one on factuality and verifiability, eh? It sounded strange, after having read the rest. Consider the first two sentences.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. While we should keep the verifiability policy in mind while answering, a strict application is not always efficient or useful for some questions."

I stumbled and had to re-read them. The emphasis shifts from one sentence to the next. Is there an explanation? ---Sluzzelin talk 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the result of a merger between a couple (or several) variants of that passage that were spread over a few different locations. There's still some massaging going on (look up this talk page); if you can think of a good way to smooth out the lumps, it would be welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ten. The paragraph's intention isn't clear to me. There are different possible ways of smoothing it, but what's the first sentence's message? Is it supposed to provide context for the next sentence, which makes it relative. (i.e.: "Though verifibiality, not truth, is generally Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion, a strict application is not always efficient or useful for addressing some questions at the reference desk." Is it supposed to provide context for the subsequent part. ("Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, so please don't say someone else's answer is false, and don't remove it if you think it is. Instead, present other references and point out the conflicting views etc.") I guess I don't understand what the last paragraph is trying to tell the reader. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire paragraph was mostly a response to an earlier version which discussed "wrong" answers, and was an attempt to re-frame and discuss verifiability instead. Mostly the phrase was used as shorthand for the ideas expressed in the attribution FAQ, that we are aware of our own limitations in knowing the truth and instead rely on reliable sources to support our statements. I don't know that we even need such a paragraph at all—"keep in mind V" should really suffice—but if the guideline needs to be so detailed then i think "verifiability not truth" should guide the wording.—eric 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The page just didn't change because StuRat lost the edit wars. I don't like edit wars too much, so I didn't participate. However, there is definitely no consensus about the guidelines. A.Z. 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors have a choice. You can complain, or you can participate. If you elect not to participate, you might find nobody pays much attention to your complaining. The current guideline draft seems to me to have a pretty decent consensus among those who have been participating. As always, specific suggestions for improvement are much more valuable than nonspecific complaints or assertions that there's no consensus. Friday (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by "I didn't want to participate" was just that I preferred to discuss the guidelines here on the talk page and help reaching consensus rather than engaging edit wars.

There's no consensus because a lot of editors think that the guidelines as they currently stand don't reflect what the reference desk is all about, and are likely to allow the destruction of the potential that it has. This is mainly due to the fact that the guidelines as they stand allow for the deletion of content. There is no reason to delete wrong nor unverifiable opinions, since everyone is allowed to disprove those!

Really good editors who come here to answer questions just go away the minute they realize that people are going to arbitrarily delete their responses. A.Z. 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do read the guideline. There's even a sentence in there specifically saying not to remove content just because you disagree with it. This whole "people will arbitrarily delete whatever they don't like" was a straw man months ago, and it's a straw man today. Friday (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I totally agree with what is written. I just think that each user will interpret it in a very particular way. Some ways will be even "eccentric". Hipocrite said: "disruptive answers and questions will continue to be removed from the desk". To me, this is like saying that you will delete something because you disagree with the content. My main point here is: saying what your opinion is (with or without sources and arguments to support you) does not violate NPOV and verifiability. A.Z. 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are using a very different definition of the word "disruptive" than I am. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we're just quibbling over words. When I delete vandalism, I would not say it's because I "disagree" with it. I would say it's because vandalism disrupts Wikipedia. Perhaps the key is in what people mean by "disruption" at Wikipedia. The page WP:POINT may clarify. Friday (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How does this page help to clarify things? And... were you both wrong about Froth after all, when you said that he was disruptive? Or today you would stop reverting his posts, accordingly to the guidelines? A.Z. 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Concern

This guideline appears to be overly long. Is a codified set of rules more necessary than "WP:ENC, WP:DICK (WP:POINT), WP:5P?" When this process started months ago it was transparently an attempt to protect obvious nonsense from being removed from the reference desks. I certainly hope all of the editors here realize that the strong community consensus that pooflinging is not protected expression anywhere is not going to be changed by a very long guideline that, in paragraph three of section four subpart 5 sentence 2 says "pooflinging is ok."

To be more specific, disruptive answers and questions will continue to be removed from the desk regardless of whatever some individuals believe this policy says. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't agree as to how the policies apply to the reference desk, Hipocrite. You can explain to us your positions and let the other editors judge for themselves and show everyone whether they're fallacious or credible. A.Z. 22:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the guideline is not needed. However, as long as what it says is reasonable, I don't see that it particularly hurts anything either. Reasonable, experienced editors don't have much need for long rules, it's true, but if some folks claim having the guideline helps them understand what the ref desk is about, why not let them have it? Friday (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree with that sentiment, and generally follow the principles of WP:IAR for myself. Nevertheless, I don't mind helping editors who need a bit more structure to – within reason – assemble a slightly more detailed set of guidelines. I'm not trying to impose any particular changes on the Ref Desk or rebuild it in my own image; I'm just trying to help build guidelines that reasonably accurately reflect accepted practices on the Desk and on Wikipedia in general.

Mostly this means keeping a handle on the scope and aims of the policy to avoid too much WP:CREEPiness, and trying to avoid writing things in or out that will encourage ruleslawyering in the future. I'm also trying to avoid 'gotchas'—things added, omitted, or misstated that might lead a novice who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia culture and practices into bad habits or behaviour.

I expect that most experienced editors will intuitively understand and naturally follow the guidelines that we lay out, without ever needing to read this guideline or even knowing that it exists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur with ToaT. The 5P will always supercede these guidelines. I too will continue to remove disruptive answers and questions if they interefere with the project, and should those be continually reverted on a WP:POINT of principle, then there is policy to deal with that too.

Although I see no harm in having a more detailed guide for what editors should expect, and not expect, from the desk. It would be misleading and confusing to have guidelines that would appear to allow open season for chat on the desk, only for other editors to invoke 5P and remove it. Therefore if we do have these guidelines, it is imperative that they are consistent with the wider culture of Wikipedia. This is why A.Z.'s attempts at re-inventing the Desk are pointless. There about about 10 individuals involved in forming these guidelines, no matter what we decide here, we have no mandate to overrule the core characteristics of the project. If he somehow managed to claim consensus among us that "anything goes" is our new policy, the project would correct that soon enough. Rockpocket 23:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that I'm not trying to re-invent the desk, as a lot of editors of the desk agree with me about what the desk is; this understanding of what the reference desk is does not overrule any core characteristics of the project (arbitrarily deleting stuff does that); and the closest to "anything goes" that I can find here is eric's view that anything is allowed when it comes to deleting stuff. A.Z. 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, saying the 5P apply universally the same everywhere, including talk pages like the Ref Desk, is not helpful at all. Obviously, different interpretations of the rules will apply in different settings. StuRat 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(I was invited to rejoin the discussion.) I have come to doubt the wisdom of trying to generate guidelines at all. Even among the handful of editors who work actively on the proposed guidelines, there is an obvious lack of consensus not only about guideline formulation but fundamentally about how the reference desk should be run. Any official guidelines that reflect a compromise would almost certainly be used by some faction as a blunt instrument to defend dubious behavior on the desk. The existence of the guidelines would then have a negative influence on the desk. My feeling is that the attempted guidelines should be abandoned. --mglg_(talk) 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that some compromise guidelines would prevent the worst behavior from both sides. Why don't you think that would happen ? StuRat 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we will simply end up with compromise wording that is agreed upon because it can be read to mean either of the conflicting opinions being held, and would be used to support rather than prevent the worst behavior from both sides. What is needed is to first agree on compromise substance – a compromise vision of how the desks should be run – and then formulate that vision into words for the guideline. I was despairing about the chances of anybody being willing to try to converge on a vision, let alone be successful. --mglg_(talk) 23:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Being honest

I'm going to be honest here. I would like that there were no guidelines at all, I would like it if we didn't need them. But people misinterpret the policies and use them as an excuse to delete posts from the desks: that's a problem. I am willing to take this to the next level now. I don't know who is it who will decide, I don't know whether it is the village pump the right place or which place it is. Maybe the talk pages of the policies. The only reason why I didn't want this to get out of this page is that I was afraid that people elsewhere would have a hard time understanding why the policies apply to the reference desks sort of counter-intuitively: this only happens because people are used to apply them to articles, and the reference desks are quite different from articles.

Now, it just looks as if it's never going to end. Just look at Rockpocket's post above: he clearly sees things a lot differently than I do. I would like to do as suggested above and gather us all in one place so we could understand one another, but this seems unlikely to happen. Why don't you pay attention to what I'm saying? Why don't you realize that things that are opinion, wrong and unuseful in your opinion do not violate unverifiability nor NPOV? They could violate notability, is that what you are talking about? What belongs or doesn't belong to the articles and the reference desk is a matter highly subjective, so you should allow the subjectivity to be explicit when no harm is done!

Anyway, where should we take this to let some other people solve this for us once and for all? A.Z. 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you to the extent that the reference desks are quite different from articles, in some significant ways. I would support the main Wikipedia policies and guidelines explicitly acknowledging that, so that we can have some freedom to construct some Ref Desk guidelines that reflect these significant differences, and not always be hamstrung by arguments to the effect that "the Wikipedia policies say X, the Ref Desk is part of Wikipedia, and therefore we must always abide by X".

But I disagree that taking these discussions anywhere else would be helpful. We are the ones who are most affected by whatever outcome this process produces. Anyone else on Wikipedia can see these discussions and is welcome to come along here and join in. JackofOz 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to take this wherever you wish, but I don't think anyone, anywhere, is going to have much interest in debating it with you. The general response of Non-Ref Deskers to disputes about the Desk is: "Its not building the encyclopaedia so delete the whole thing." Now imagine what they are going to say with a proposal that it should be immune from our core policies. Good luck with that.

The fact is that there will be absolutely zero enthusiasm from anyone outside the handful of people here to promote anything that deviates from the 5P. Wikipedia's policies will continue to govern the Desk as they always have. The options are we can either draft specific guidelines within that framework to assist those that are not familiar with our policies, or we can carry on without specific guidelines. However, If you are serious about getting wider consensus to grant the Desk explicit exceptions from WP:5P then I suggest you draft a proposal and invite comments. I'll be happy to give you mine. Rockpocket 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to change anything with the policies. They apply just fine! The articles are not signed, so a person cannot write "abortion should be legal". The person can only write "The president of Brazil thinks that abortion should be legal." On the reference desk, we use four tildes to sign our posts and everyone reading it understands that our posts are our personal opinions. The fact that the posts are signed and the acknowledgement that the sentence "abortion should be legal", when written on the reference desk, actually means "User:John thinks that abortion should be legal" makes answers with personal opinions NPOV and as verifiable as it is that a person is being truthful about their own opinion!

Also, they say "It's not building the encyclopedia, so delete the whole thing." What do you think? Is it building the encyclopedia?

It's just that I am having trouble figuring out why you don't say "delete the whole thing" as they do. A.Z. 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., I agree that anything which is obviously opinion on the Ref Desk can be taken as the opinion of the author, unless it is otherwise attributed. StuRat 03:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., I'm a bit concerned that your interpretation of NPOV differs somewhat from the way it's usually understood on Wikipedia, but in any case, the sort of debate that you'd be encouraging is really outside the scope of the Desk. (It might be welcomed in some other forum, however.)

Our response to the question "Should abortion be legal?" should be along the lines of "There are many schools of thought on this issue. See our articles on Ethical aspects of abortion, Religion and abortion, and Legal protection of access to abortion for discussions of these perspectives and considerations. Our article on abortion also links to a number of other useful resources. For country-specific information, see List of articles about abortion by country." The Ref Desk isn't the place to rehash the entire debate about abortion, with every participant offering their own opinion ("It should be legal!" "No it shouldn't!" "Yes it should!" "Why do you hate women!" "Why do you hate babies!"). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is counter-intuitive? This guideline is just a common-sense explanation of how existing Wikipedia standards apply to the reference desk. Friday (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the notion that the collection of answers to a question will not look exactly like a Wikipedia article even though they follow the same rules is counter-intuitive: in the collection of answers, the biases will be more "explicit" and there will be things perceived to be off-topic, which doesn't happen with the articles. A.Z. 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does this continued fear of "arbitrary deletions" come from? Has this ever happened? Are a small minority of editors trying to stir up fear of some unlikely scenario? If someone were to remove a post, they'd be expected to have a darn good reason for it. Where is the problem? Friday (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a genuine fear, when people like Hipocrite state that they will delete anything from the Ref Desk so long as they think it improves Wikipedia: [1]. If even a few people do that, we will quickly end up with most of the questions and answers gutted. StuRat 06:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a fear, it's a reality that I've personally experienced. Just recently a completely civil post of mine, simply stating politely that I disagreed with the accuracy of a response was deleted twice, once because it was considered "divisive" and the second time because it was considered "antagonistic". Is the questioning of the accuracy of a response indeed "divisive" or "antagonistic", and worthy of deletion, especially, I should add, when upon further request, the source of the original answer was indeed proven to be of rather questionable accuracy? Lewis 10:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You called another editor's contribution a "mischaracterization of events" without giving any argumentation. This has more the nature of an attack or "baiting" than a "polite" statement of disagreement, whether you add the word "respectfully" or not. You have rather consistently been attacking this same editor, after an inital brief episode of fawning overawedness. You had promised us you would cease this behaviour.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. What's been going on is that just like you did just now, many editors and many admins have consistently been breaking the Assume Good Faith guideline and replacing it by consistently Assuming Bad Faith whenever any single disagreement occured between myself and the other editor in question. As has been the case all along, my statement was sincere, and not meant as any attack. It was meant to be taken literally. I just decided to refrain from any detail this time out of fear that I'd be "breaking my parole", so to speak. However, on my talkpage, I was advised that I should indeed elaborate on my disagreement, and so I did. The result of it all being that my charge of mischaracterization was indeed a real one, and was based on the fact that the source that the editor in question was quoting was a rather unreliable one, one who has repeatedly been accused of falsifying history. See my talkpage for details, and please, please remember that the guideline is Assume Good Faith, not Assume Bad Faith. Had you guys simply abided by the Assume Good Faith guideline straight from the beginning, all those months ago, much, if not all of the ugliness that ensued could have been avoided. Lewis 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was glad to see you cite the World Socialist Web Site as an authority.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Should I take that to mean that you now recognize that not all sources are equally reliable? Or perhaps do you mean to say that only those sources that share your particular POV are reliable? Whatever the case, I appreciate your help in proving my point! Lewis 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make huge changes without discussion

There seems to be a general feeling that we're in decent shape. Major changes like this one should not be made out of the blue at this stage. I've reverted back to how it was before. Friday (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But, you disagree with the changes or not?

You said to me earlier: "As always, specific suggestions for improvement are much more valuable than nonspecific complaints or assertions that there's no consensus." Well, you just said "there seems to be a general feeling...", which is a very nonspecific complaint about the changes I made. A.Z. 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Friday was compaining about the words per se. I think he was complaining about a fairly large edit to a document that we're coming close to achieving agreement on. By all means make suggestions, A.Z., but when they're that major, discuss them here first, rather than just changing the policy document without any discussion. JackofOz 03:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of people being bold- that's how we get things done. But, don't be reckless. Specifically, saying that stating "your opinions on any subject" is in line with core policies is a complete non-starter. Friday (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

People who are capitalists can go to the article on capitalism and write "capitalists believe this, according to this source". On the reference desk, you can do the same. A.Z. 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Encouraging sourced statements is vastly different from encouraging editors to give their personal opinions. Friday (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, explain why, Friday. A.Z. 03:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This must be the language barrier at work. I can't think of a way to be more clear. I can tell you that sourced opinions are verifiable but I can't imagine how reading that page will help if the above statement doesn't make sense to you. Friday (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A personal opinion may be or not be a sourced statement, but someone saying "black people are inferior" is different from someone saying "I think that black people are inferior", as Rockpocket said. A.Z. 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Errr... any chance you could rephrase that so it doesn't potentially read like I'm a racist? Rockpocket 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A personal opinion may be or not be a sourced statement, but, as Rockpocket said, someone saying "black people are inferior" is different from someone saying "I think that black people are inferior".A.Z. 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Applying the policies

We are in danger of confusing representing a POV in a NPOV manner ("white extremists think blacks are inferior") and simply representing a POV ("blacks are inferior"). Stating only the former is perfectly acceptable, even though it is simply representing only one POV. Stating the latter is not even if contrasted with the opposing view. A statement saying "Blacks are inferior" countered by "Blacks are not inferior" is not NPOV, even though we are "expressing "all" points of view". This is what WP:NPOV is about in this context: representing positions in a neutral manner. It doesn't imply any editor has to represent all positions equally, simply that the position they do represent should be stated neutrally. Rockpocket 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What about saying "I think that blacks are inferior"? It is NPOV. A.Z. 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Any statement starting with "I think" is by definition POV. JackofOz 03:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "capitalists think" and "Jack thinks" and "Hitler used to think"?

And "I think that 1+1=2" ?

What about a neurologist or a psychologist making experiments with people and asking them "OK, now we're gonna do a thinking exercise and I'll evaluate the results. I'll say a word and you tell me what do you think". The person will say "I think..." and that sentence will be the object of the scientific study.

I mean, I'm just trying to show why it isn't POV... A.Z. 03:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not feed the hand that bites you

Is there some rule in the notion of building consensus that we should indefinitely keep taking account of the arguments of editors who insist on argumentation in a style that is virtually indistinguishable from trolldom? Perhaps we should not feed them either.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I see what you did there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to ignore unhelpful talk page contributions. This is difficult for me because I tend to be optimistic and assume that people can be reasoned with. But it may be time to cut our losses in some cases. Friday (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see anticipaton of disruption at the desks (edit wars) and indignation on the talk page (endless) as one reason why a few editors choose to not ignore the argumentative style. I have only the highest respect for this approach, but it does focus a lot of attention on one single "conflict" not too many editors seem interested in dealing with anymore (the conflict is specified in the next section below). Yet I know no alternative, since the edit wars in particular seem to be unignorable. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll?

Can we have a straw poll on the following issue: Should inappropriate content sometimes be removed? A possible list of answers:

1. Yes, inappropriate content should always be removed.
2. It depends, but some inappropriate content ought definitely to be removed on sight.
3. Perhaps, but only after the consensus has been reached on the talk page that the controversial content is to be deleted.
4. No, content must never be deleted.
5. Other (don't agree with the question or answers; don't understand the question; am taking the Fifth; ...)

 --Lambiam^Talk 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If removing the content improves the encyclopedia, remove it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of inappropriate content is ill-defined. If I say "1 + 1 = 7", nobody would agree this is correct, but everyone is free to dispute it and prove it wrong. It's clearly inaccurate, but is it inappropriate? And if so, should it be removed? I say no. If I say "all Buddhists eat pigs' entrails", then few if any would object to it being removed on sight because of its offensive nature. It is clearly inappropriate. So, it depends. I vote for 2. JackofOz 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment my question is not whether inappropriate content should be removed sometimes and if so when, but whether we can have this straw poll (possibly amended as the result of discussion here by rewording questions, including others, or merging some). I'll wait before starting any polling (if at all) for at least 48 hours, and not until any meaningful discussion peters out.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite, Jack. The real answer is 2, based on policy and practice. Please note that I would discourage any attempt to create an exhaustive list of content that would qualify. Creating a such a list will lead to an endless amount of bickering; the existence of such a list will discourage editors from employing common sense; and the use of such a list will encourage wikilawyering.

Worth considering as well is that removal is not the only route to dealing with edits that aren't appropriate to the Ref Desk—a pattern of unhelpful editing is not just a Ref Desk problem, but a user conduct issue that can be dealt with through other processes (mediation, warnings, probation, blocks, page bans, and – if all else fails – site bans.) Please everyone try to remember that this document doesn't need to address every single conceivable circumstance to be a workable guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 2 seems to be about right. There are plenty of harmless but off-topic questions and answers which nobody seems too bothered to remove. It's the potentially harmful stuff we should worry about. Friday (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A straw poll might be helpful at this point. It might show that no one holds positions #1 and #4, and it might boil down to how positions #2 and #3 are split in the comnunity of those who cast their vote. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 doesn't actually exclude option 3, and I think the choice to employ one or the other (or some unlisted option) depends strongly on circumstances. This might be another reason to discourage this particular straw poll—it may inadvertently create the impression that a) there is more disagreement than actually exists, and b) that there are two warring camps working on these guidelines (a popular myth that we're trying to stamp out). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A very reasonable sentiment, but #2 and #3 do seem to be mutually exclusive they way they're phrased now. ("some content definitely to be removed on sight" vs "but only after consensus has been reached at the talk page"). Yeah, I'd prefer to vote for something like "some content may be removed on sight, in the interest of damage control, but persuading the poster to remove his/her own comment is the preferable course of action". ---Sluzzelin talk 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

#2 is the only option per WP:BLP and WP:BAN. Extreme examples of these types of inappropriate content should be removed immediately. Rockpocket 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What about something like this? Personally, I think it should go, but I'm afraid of being assigned to a faction. FWIW, this is exactly the type of thing a certain banned user used to post; when I tried a unilateral deletion of something similar way back when, I was reverted and his action was supported by others, leading to a hiatus in my attempts to work the RDs. --LarryMac 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've come a long way. The remaining editors who fanatically object to any removal of off-topic content are now generally kept in check by the rest of us. I hope reasonable editors feel comfortable applying common sense to the reference desks. Friday (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Friday, all I will say is that the desks where I make most of my contributions are now infinitely better, and more serious, than when I first joined Wikipedia last October. Most of the puerile schoolboy tendency have now gone, along with the 'oh-so-clever' dialogues. Clio the Muse 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that differences of opinion on the issue of removal of content deemed inappropriate have led to warring behaviour in the past, and are likely to continue to do so unless we can reach some form of consensus. My purpose in having this poll is to see how far we are from consensus, and what roads might lead to consensus on the issue. If the consensus is #2 (something that has neither been established nor disproved yet), we can try to work out some compromise on what constitutes delible content – perhaps covering more than some would like, and less than others would like, but something we all can live with. If there is no consensus for #2, then it might be time to consider asking for wider input from the Wikipedia community.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point has been made that artificially restricting our choices – by saying all matters must be handled using either method #2 or method #3 – isn't going to work. It isn't how things are done now, and it doesn't acknowledge that the process chosen must depend on the nature of the content removed and the history of the editor(s) involved. Presenting this as an 'either/or' situation is likely to push people here further apart, not result in a useful consensus. (Please see also my comments above on how trying to create a list of forbidden comments is likely to be unsuccessful.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Choices #2 and #3 are logically exclusive of each other. If a user is in favour of allowing some content to be removed on sight, they should choose #2, and definitely not #3, which excludes that option. If a user feels that content should never be removed on sight, they should not pick #2, but instead #3 or #4. You cannot have guidelines according to which both some content may be removed on sight, and no content may ever be removed on sight. Such guidelines would be internally inconsistent, contradicting themselves. So the distinction is not at all an artificial restriction of our choices; the restriction is already imposed by the natural requirement of consistency.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the answer is #2 - the other options are straw men. The question that this begs is what exactly is "inappropriate content". Is a possibly wrong answer inappropriate ? Is a tasteless joke inappropriate ? Is a joke of any kind inappropriate ? Is a remark about seagulls or bagels inappropriate ? Is a response that starts "In my opinion ..." or "In my experience ..." inappropriate ? Is a response without links or sources inappropriate ? Agreeing on #2 proves nothing. This is where we came in. Gandalf61 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? The version of 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC) gave the following as "the proper procedure" to be followed for deletions:

1. First, mention the post on the author's talk page, politely list your objection, and request that they remove it.
2. If they refuse, and if the comment is so outrageous as to warrant further action, then bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk, again politely.
3. If a consensus is reached there to remove it, then the author can again be given the opportunity to remove the comment. At this, point, however, once community consensus exists that it should be removed, other members of the community may delete the comment, if the author refuses.
4. If, and only if, the author replaces the comment four times, should an Admin be summoned, via a WP:3RR violation complaint.

I don't know where we "came in", and I don't know where we are now (which is what I'd like to sound out), but I do know that some editors have insisted that this specific procedure be followed, and have repeatedly restored deleted material (including content that in my opinion was grossly inappropriate) for no apparent other reason than that this "proper procedure" had not been followed.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That "proper procedure" was no more than the attempts of one or two editors to codify a protocol for how they would like the Ref Desk to operate. In other words, it was in practice, no more than an essay. Rockpocket 22:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lambian, the very next sentence to the passage that you quoted says "There are also grounds for a "speedy deletion" by anyone, such as death threats, etc., but only the most severe cases of disruption warrant such actions (see WP:DIS)". So that version takes the #2 position too - it just puts the border in a different place than you might choose. Gandalf61 22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I don't see 2 and 3 as being mutually exclusive. 2 can obviously apply to some posts, but there are borderline cases where 3 would be a good option. Maybe we can merge them into something like:

• "There are some types of inappropriate content that can safely be removed on sight, but if you're unsure, it's best to discuss the issue on the talk page". JackofOz 23:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a great way to put it. Nothing outright forbidding removal of inappropriate content, but it's not encouraging people to do it lightly, either. What you're saying is exactly what I'd call "using common sense", but your wording explains it much better. Friday (talk)

I like this from Jack. StuRat, what are your thoughts on this? David D. (Talk) 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I favor the 4 step process listed above, along with the exception for "disruption". Note however, that disruption is "something which prevents Wikipedia from operating", such as blanking a Ref Desk page. It does not include info you think is wrong, info you think is dangerous, possible medical or legal advice, off topic conversations, bad jokes, etc. These are exactly the types of things that are currently being deleted unilaterally but should only be deleted with consensus. If it's just too much trouble to get a consensus, then leave it in. StuRat 02:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think deletions such as this should have gone through your 4-step process? It appears to be someone's opinion and yet it was removed, or does this get an exception? Rockpocket 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That does indeed appear to be one of the rare cases which actually merits unilateral deletion. StuRat 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is how long will it take to reach a consensus? Fast enough to prevent it becoming metastasized? If not, it's not fast enough. David D. (Talk) 03:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not conscious that there's any particular urgency to get to a consensus. The Ref Desk has been around for a long time now, and functions extremely well most of the time despite no guidelines. That's not an argument for not having any guidelines, but an argument for any that we do come up with to be very well-considered. As is very clear by now, there are a lot of issues to be taken into account, and everyone deserves an opportunity to fully argue their positions before a consensus is reached. But at the same time it shouldn't be drawn out any longer than it needs to be. Maybe we should have a target to aim for - say, 10 days' time (13 May). Failing to reach a final agreed version by then should not be a make or break issue, but it might help to focus our collective minds on the outstanding issues, to get the job done. JackofOz 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a mix up here. The consensus I am talking about, and assume StuRat was talking about, is the one to delete material from the ref desk. Not the consensus for the acceptance of this guideline. David D. (Talk) 04:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Ten. My suggestion of course applies to this issue, as it does to the whole guidelines. I'm operating out of my "big picture" framework here. -- JackofOz 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The mixup is apparently still there. David D. is talking about a situation where somebody spots an in-their-view-unacceptable ref desk posting and, instead of deleting it on sight, brings the question of whether that specific post should be removed up for discussion on the talk page. If the discussion of whether to remove it takes too long, there may be a full-scale flame war going on, and serious harm caused, by the time any action is actually taken. IMHO Rockpocket's example should clearly be deleted on sight. Rockpocket wanted to hear whether StuRat's preference for the 4-step process extended to that type of posting. Stu? --mglg_(talk) 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That does indeed appear to be one of the rare cases which actually merits unilateral deletion. StuRat 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So here is the problem, StuRat. You admit that there is room for judgment in determining what should be deleted unilaterally and what should not. Therefore no matter what guidelines we draft, we cannot codify anything in absolutes. So when I, for example, consider something to be offensive and something that merits deletion, I will remove it. If you consider it not to be offensive then you revert it. So who is right? Why should your judgment over-ride mine (or, similarly, mine over-ride yours)? Rockpocket 06:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The standard shouldn't be "do I think it's offensive ?", but rather "will nearly everyone agree that it's offensive ?". I think we would all agree that the example provided would fit that category. If anyone reverts a deletion, that's a darn good indication that not everyone is in agreement, and that we should then go through the 4 step consensus building process, instead. StuRat 07:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the reverter could be in a minority of one, and be reverting a perfectly sensible deletion to make a procedural point (just as the deleter could be in a minority of one, and be deleting a acceptable post to make a procedural point). While the decision making by consensus kicks into gear (as you can see how successful that is proving here) the project is essentially being disrupted by a few individuals with extreme opinions. This is my concern with having a codified process: 90% of the material removed is unambiguous, its that other 10% on the fringes that are causing the problems. By not having guidelines we risk permitting uncontrolled deleting, but by having them we risk uncontrolled reverting. How do we get around this? Rockpocket 07:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree on the ratios, I'd say the clear cases of disruption are the 10% and the other 90% of deletions are debatable (some of which may garner a consensus and some of which may not). In either the case of uncontrolled deletions or reversions, the consensus process will stop edit wars and resolve the issue peacefully. I believe that we can prevent bad unilateral deletions by making it clear that unilateral deletions are only allowed for disruption. Then we need to define disruption and provide links, so people know this doesn't include off topic remarks, unfunny jokes, or incorrect answers. Disruption is an intentional effort to prevent the Ref Desk from functioning, such as blanking out a Ref Desk page. While things in those other categories may also merit deletion, they aren't so urgent as to prevent us from using the consensus building process. StuRat 08:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is as high as 90% of deletions are debatable and seriously doubt others would too. StuRat, even if you think something should remain on the desk this does not mean it would it would survive a removal debate. If we are to reach any sort of agreement on deletion then three things must occur. First, there must be some level of trust that deletions are done for a valid reason. Second, there needs to be a mechanism to get them back onto the desk if they are valid (but reverting is not the answer since it just leads to fights). Thirdly, if one user is consitently deleting material found to be acceptable by the majority (or consensus, or supermajority, whatever is agreed upon) then they should be discouraged from deleting prior to a discussion. I see no reason why there should be an outright deletion ban placed on every user unless they are consitently found to show poor judgement with respect to other ref desk users. David D. (Talk) 20:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that 90% of the authors of the deleted material would object to that deletion ? That makes it debatable, IMHO. Let me reverse your statements: First, there should be some level of trust that restores are done for a valid reason. Second, there needs to be a mechanism to do deletions where warranted (but unilaterally deleting is not the answer since it just leads to fights). I see no reason why there should be an outright restore ban placed on every user unless they are consistently found to show poor judgment with respect to other Ref Desk users. StuRat 08:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent, Jack. Flexibility and common sense, in a very concise package. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Noblesse oblige.  :) JackofOz 03:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that my proposed straw poll is useless, but I must say that I absolutely disagree with StuRat's criteria. I strongly feel that needlessly cruel or offensive responses should also be removed, even if they don't qualify as disruption. Same for medical diagnoses or legal advice offered, and also erroneous advice that if followed could result in grievous harm (for example a statement implying that thoroughly heating possibly poisonous mushrooms makes them safe to eat). These are just examples, and I agree we can't codify all cases. What I really would like to see is agreement that, if an editor removes such content, acting in good faith and not unreasonably, other editors should not blindly revert without discussion just because they do not agree with the removal (or removals in general).  --Lambiam^Talk 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I believe almost everyone agrees with you. In the past we've had a problem with people reverting just to make a point, but perhaps that's behind us now. Friday (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe "almost everyone agrees" that deletions can occur unilaterally but restores of those deletions require consensus. Whatever the standard is for deletions, the same standard should apply to restores. Also, when you say deleting "medical advice", etc., you are really saying "what you think is medical advice". We've already had people thinking responses were medical advice when they were just general medical knowledge answers. Also, note that the author of any question or response can be assumed to be in favor of that contribution, so we have, at best, a 50/50 split on whether the contribution should remain between the author and the would-be delator. With the would-be reverter in the mix, it then becomes 2 out of 3 people judging that the material should remain. This effect becomes even more dramatic if multiple authors are involved. StuRat 08:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My answer would be 5. Unfortunately I have to take the 5th on this one, or in my case, invoke S.11c. I'd first require a definition of what category of posts are deemed to be inappropriate. For example, would a completely off topic statement of self-adulation be considered inappropriate? Lewis 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fairly and without bias"

Editors should attempt to represent fairly and without bias significant views published by reliable sources.

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, that is total horse doodle. No single answer can or should be expected to represent all significant views on a subject fairly and without bias. My responses, for example, will inevitably be biased towards mainstream science rather than pseudo-secience and left-wing rather than right-wing political views, simply because those are my opinions and beliefs. There are differing significant views published by reliable sources, but I won't be presenting them in my own answers - I will leave that to other editors. Like I said - obvious really. Just common sense. Gandalf61 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't believe in WP:5P, perhaps you should find a different project? I don't find it difficult to provide answers that represent fairly and without bias significant views published by reliable sources what-so-ever. If you are unable to distance your personal opinions from your answers to specific questions, perhaps this guideline is a hint you shouldn't be answering those type of questions? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that any single answer "should be expected to represent all significant views on a subject." Simply that the verifiable view you choose present should be represented fairly and without bias. I understand that to mean that you represent the source accurately, and don't misquote it or use it out of context. Rockpocket 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Answering "What is the current view on the constitutionality of the Death Penalty in the United States?" with "The death penalty is an unconstitutional violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment," is not an acceptable answer. Anyone who choses to answer that question is required to provide both substantial viewpoints, as expressed more than adequately in our Capital punishment in the United States and Capital punishment debate articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, let me rephrase to better indicate what I meant to say: "Simply that the verified view you choose present should be represented fairly and without bias." By that I mean, to use your example, it would be perfectly acceptable to respond "According to the New York State Court of Appeals in 2004, the death penalty is unconstitutional (see People v. LaValle)." This is representing just one view, but it is verified, notable and represented fairly and without bias. I see no reason this is not an acceptable answer. It is incomplete, I grant you, and of limited value in adressing the full scope of the question, but still acceptable. Rockpocket 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I should also clarify that I'm not suggesting that that is a good answer, or even the type of answer we should be encouraging. Hipocrite's example is what we should all be striving for. However, there is a difference between what we deem acceptable and what is ideal. Rockpocket 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I think our guidelines, to the extent that we have to inform people who are not familiar with how things work, should be clear that pushing one's POV through one's answers is not acceptable, as it is apparent that some don't quite get that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely agree. Rockpocket 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And so every time I mention evolution I must also mention intelligent design, and every time I mention the Big Bang I must also mention steady state theory, and every time I mention the Holocaust I must also mention David Irving, and every time I mention global warming I must also mention the opposing views of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists ? Surely you are joking, Mr. Hipocrite ? Gandalf61 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are just redirecting people to the articles. There's already a search box for that and it works just fine, so no need for the reference desk.

Anyway, back to the reference desks... If in your opinion an answer is not acceptable, you can just write right below the answer what you just wrote above and disprove the poster with all arguments that you have, instead of censoring the other guy... A.Z. 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be operating under a different understanding of the word "significant," than the rest of us are. You also appear to believe that "just redirecting people to the articles" isn't the best possible answer there is. You are wrong in both cases. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We can apply common sense. It's generally fine for someone to give an incomplete answer. Now, if someone appears to be pushing their own point of view in their answers, I agree that this is a problem. Friday (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was informed earlier on that the reason we have this guideline instead of my proposed WP:5p WP:POINT, WP:DICK, guideline was that people need strict rules. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. It appears to me that you are using really loaded language to make your point. You are saying "pushing their own point of view" without explaining what this means, so people who read it think that all you're doing is defending a core policy, defending a pillar (NPOV) and preventing the reference desks from being taken over by vandals who don't understand what Wikipedia is all about. Just explain what you're talking about already. A.Z. 22:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To be as clear as possible? I don't want crappy answers that give readers bad information (bad as wrong, bad as unbalanced and bad as unuseful) on the desk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not like that as well. We really agree. In fact, I think all people and factions agree with that. Then again, you didn't quite define what is wrong and what is right, what is unbalanced and what is balanced, what is useful and unuseful, what is crappy and what is not crappy. You also did not teach us how to recognize when something is wrong or right and you did not tell us why, even if we could recognize what is wrong and what is right, it would be better to just delete this content. A.Z. 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I read that passage is not

"You must present, without bias, all significant views on a topic"

but rather

"The view that you do present should be significant views based on reliable sources".

We don't demand that a single editor's response address every aspect of a question, any more than we expect a single editor to always be able to write all of an encyclopedia article. We expect only that people's responses be based as much as possible in reliable sources. To take an arbitrary question,

Q: What are trees good for?

A1: Trees are often cut and used as construction material. - Sally Engineer

A2: Trees convert carbon dioxide to oxygen through photosynthesis. - Dave C. Biochemist

A3: Wood is still used in many places as a fuel for cooking and heating. - John Stover

A4: Trees help to stabilize the soil, preventing erosion. They provide habitat for many living creatures. - Sally Environmentalist

Many different answers are legitimate, reasonable, and sourceable. Each individual answers from their own area of expertise, supporting his or her comments with sources and links as needed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We all know that already, except for Hipocrite. The thing is that we don't know which ones are the legitimate, reasonable and sourceble, and I think of "sourceble" much differently than Friday, for instance. I think that the sentence "I think something about something" is utterly NPOV and we don't need to wait for the New York Times to publish what our opinions are in order to state them on the desks, and the only issue with such a sentence would be if it just doesn't help too much the OP (or break the law). A.Z. 05:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to include your personal views on Wikipedia. You are not a reliable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal views may be included if they can be attributed to a reliable source: Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone - WP:NPOV. And editors may indeed be reliable sources: You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's - WP:ATT. Just common sense, really. Gandalf61 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood. If you have published a paper in a reliable source, you can cite your paper. Your own, unpublished opinion, however, is not a reliable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the two of you actually agree here, and are arguing about semantics and pathological cases rather than about anything substantial. In a nutshell: In the rare case where an individual's personal opinion has been published in a reliable source, then of course reference to that reliable source is welcomed. In general, unattributed personal opinions are discouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No misunderstanding here, Hipocrite. Your original assertion was a broad and unfounded generalisaion, you presented your opinion as if it were fact, you were insufficiently precise and you failed to check your sources or properly qualify your terms. If you meant unnattributed or unpublished views, you should have said so. Clarity and accuracy are important. Gandalf61 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ten, do you have any comment here, or should I meatball:DefendMyself? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a tag-team wrestling match. (Nor is it MeatballWiki.) Hipocrite, you didn't like what I had to say the last time I gave you my honest opinion about your conduct; you probably don't want to ask for it now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, let's hear it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're spoiling for a fight today. I'm not going to provide it for your amusement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Dave C. is not a biochemist, or he's an animal cheuvanist. Trees convert water to oxygen. :) David D. (Talk) 03:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A linguist might wonder what a "cheuvanist" is.  :) JackofOz 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: linguages is knot my field of expertise. :-P David D. (Talk) 05:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the desks!

I have an idea! We should paste here real questions, answers and diffs of other kinds (including diffs of content removal), so we have something real to work with. Then maybe we can better understand one another by talking just a bit less about abstractions and a little more about the real cases. A.Z. 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean use real examples on this talk page or in the actual guidelines ? StuRat 02:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he is referring to real questions, quips or anwsers, from the ref desk themselves, that were deleted. David D. (Talk) 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC) here are two from my collection [2] [3]

I mean: we take a question from the reference desk and we discuss whether it is appropriate or not. We take an answer from the reference desk and we discuss whether it was appropriate or not and why. We take some diffs of content removal and we discuss whether they were legitimate or not, so each one of us understands better what other people consider allowed and not allowed on the desks. This would sound promising to me, but I really don't know a reason not to make a fork of the desks on Wikiversity to compete with these ones here and see who wins. A.Z. 05:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice to have some examples: 1 is the sort of vandalism we routinely delete everywhere, 2 is a side discussion on WP politics that should have not taken place on the ref desk, but is not harmful to anything other than our self-image. In fact, the information about the practical realities of WP coverage are probably good to tell the public. WP is made by human beings. DGG 04:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "self-image" is something that Friday, Ten, Eric et al are worried about. And their concept of a good self-image for the reference desks is something utterly formal, unhuman, short answers, concise posts, cold, uninteresting, unbold, etc. They'd actually rather build a computer to answer the questions if they could. A.Z. 05:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Inventing opinions that nobody holds is a large part of what has made our progress here so painfully slow. This is not helpful; please desist. Friday (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Try to cooperate, not fight.

I really hope everyone participating here is trying to reach a workable solution, rather than just trying to fight. Comments like this one are unhelpful in the extreme, and really make me question what StuRat is hoping to accomplish here.

Keep in mind, if your goal is to disrupt this process so that later you can point to it and say "Look, no consensus was ever reached" this may not have the effect you wanted. In absence of a reference desk specific guideline, standard project expectations apply. So, StuRat, if you're hoping that lack of a guideline effectively means the reference desk is a "free for all", this simply isn't going to happen. So, please, either be helpful, or get out of the way. Friday (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of misleading edit summaires is a demonstration of disruptive behavior. note that this comment has been edited since my initial comment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But on the chance he is trying to cooperate, we should give him an opportunity to change his approach before he gets completely disregarded. Friday (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guees there's a chance that he reverted to his personal preferred version while he was merely attempting to remove the second reference to the core NPOV policy per his edit summary. I went ahead and removed the second reference, but removed his mistaken reversion to the individual opinions version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to hack together a compromise version. It's got 'should strive to' rather than just 'should'; it conveys the importance of NPOV and RS, but leaves some wiggle room for the questions that may well require a bit of OR or professional judgement. I've trimmed the wikilink for WP:NPOV down to just 'fairly'; I found the 'fairly and without bias' bit to be redundant and clunky. I've fiddled with the last sentence a bit, too. Here's the total diff: [4]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you change it from saying editors aren't required to "represent" all views to them not being required to "be familiar" with all views ? This seems less clear, to me. Also, we should explicitly say that personal views are allowed, as in the language example I give in the following section. StuRat 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While I prefer my version, I can support yours. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I like a bit of wiggle room. We do get a share of questions that aren't really proper reference desk questions but don't hurt anything either. If people can give useful responses to them, so be it. Friday (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A Parable of Density

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

No personal views allowed ?

Hipocrite's version pretty clearly states that no personal views are allowed:

• The reference desk is not a chatroom or forum, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should represent only fairly and without bias significant views published by reliable sources. There is no requirement for an individual editor to represent all significant views on a topic, but editors may not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute.

However, we need to include personal views all the time on the Ref Desk, such as with questions on shades of meaning on a particular phrase, at the Language Ref Desk. I don't believe it to be at all helpful to ban such discussions. StuRat 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read Ten's version? It looks pretty good. David D. (Talk) 15:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't explicitly state that personal views are allowed, which it should. StuRat 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless your personal view is significant has been expressed by a reliable source, I believe it is not allowed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd. There are many questions for which no reliable source exists which can answer the question. To say that we should ignore those questions is a really bad idea. StuRat 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Example? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many examples in this section, like plant identification. Another was a Q asked on the Computer Ref Desk on a prob with a flash drive disconnecting. My answer, from personal experience, was to use an extension cable so the flash drive's weight will no longer cause it to sag in the USB port and lose connection. StuRat 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I'm fine with someone giving a personal opinion in some limited ways. If someone says "I'm traveling to Paris, what sights should I see?" I'd have no objection to people responding with "I recommend such-and-such." We should avoid controversial topics with a 10 foot pole, though. Soapboxing is inappropriate. Friday (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinions in science should probably be avoided too, especially when there is so much published material out there to cite. Same for medicine. Besides the guideline does not ban personal opinion but we should not encourage it. David D. (Talk) 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a common sense issue and cannot be articulated in a guideline (or should not have to be). If someone posts a picture of a plant and ask "Does anyone know what this is?", then a personal opinon is unavoidable and clearly OK David D. (Talk) 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On this, I disagree. That is not an acceptable answer. A better answer is "our article on Paris, France details many of the relevent attractions, and you can find good travel guides at Wikitravel. Their Paris guide is at [5]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is, I think, some room for 'speaking from experience or training'. Friday's example above might be one such case (though I'd give bonus points for answers that pointed to useful references—online tour guides, Wikitravel, etc.). Technical help on the Comp desk would be another. On the Science desk, I can see a question from a frazzled lab tech or grad student along the lines of "My frimsham keeps glerping and my samples are getting wet. Is there a way to fix this?" with "You could try putting some vacuum grease on the franistan, it keeps the wifnel sealed." It's OR, it's personal opinion based on professional experience, and it's reasonable.

There are questions for which experienced, qualified personal opinion is appropriate, and there are questions where it is not. It's why I chose the 'strive for' language in my last edit to the guideline—there are cases where we can't necessarily provide reliable sources, but RS are always preferred over individual speculation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the ToaT, Friday, David D camp on this sub-issuse. On principle, I agree with Hipocrite: If we can provide sourced, verified answers to any question, we should always. However our querents do not always treat the Ref Desk like a true Ref Desk, and so when a question requires an answer involving OR (technical problem solving, maths etc) I'm not against us giving it. The problem with having a guideline explicitly allowing OR is that it could then be used to justify opinions offered on any and every subject. I much prefer a guideline that strongly promotes our standards on verifiability, while allowing common sense wiggleroom. Rockpocket 17:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If we don't explicitly say it's allowed, we will end up with people like User:Hipocrite deleting those responses unilaterally, leading to edit wars, which is what I want to avoid. StuRat 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in all seriousness, how would we stop the opposite happening? I.e. editors using the guidelines to justify pointless, uneducated, offensive opinions in response to every question? I would consider both examples an abuse of the desk. Rockpocket 06:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that personal views are allowed in no way says that you are allowed to be offensive, any more than it means that on other talk pages. If by "pointless" you mean "unrelated to the question", I believe we already state that answers should relate to the question. StuRat 07:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that personal opinion should be both allowed and encouraged. Many of the question of the language desk are things like "what is the most common usage of..." etc. and as language is constantly changing and diffeent in different countries, it's useful to get answers like, "I come from X and i would say it this way." I think there should just be a suggestion that if one is to answer with a personal opinion, they should specify that. eg. "this is just my point of view, but i think this..." and if it is not just a point of view, then people should give references. Storeye 07:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is room for opinion and for referenced facts, but think there is also room for unreferenced facts, as well. StuRat 08:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Storyline trashed

I tried adding information about a recently trashed "One Life to Live" storyline. The storyline involved a high school hostage situation. It was trashed out of respect for the Virginia Tech massacre victims. Apparently, I also added in incorrect references. Plus, someone deleted it. If anyone out there can add the correct information and references, please feel free to do so.72.229.130.76 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This should probably be posted on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk instead of here (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines). I agree, however, that a poorly worded question or one with errors/mistaken assumptions should not be deleted, but should rather be interpreted in a way that it can be answered. StuRat 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, no question from that IP address was deleted from the Ref Desk. As far as I can tell, all of his posts to the Desk are intact (though it would help if he had some guidance in section editing rather than creating a new section for each edit). The edits removed were (apparently) made in article space. Perhaps this (probably new?) editor would be best served at the Wikipedia:Help Desk? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, it was a matter of having an unclosed <ref> tag at the end of what had been added to the article. As I noted (in one of the sections) on the Entertainment Desk, one editor removed the rogue tag, and another removed the entry by Editor 72. --LarryMac 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Providing ethical but wrong answers

"However, this does not mean that editors are required to present views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics," was recently inserted into the guideline, directly after "they should not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute." It appears to state that editors can, in fact, skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute if presenting the other side of that material dispute would be distasteful or violate their personal ethics. As such, I wonder if these are now allowable threads:

---

What is the current legal status of Abortion in the United states? - Questioner

Abortion is the illegal murder of a living child, punishible by death in the United States. - Answerer

---

Who was the president of the United States in 2003? - Questioner

Al Gore - Answerer

Please advise. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused; the absence of a requirement to present views that the answerer finds distasteful does not imply a requirement to answer every question, or a requirement to answer questions incorrectly when the correct answers are distasteful.

If someone is proselytizing on the Desk or making a habit of giving incorrect answers like those, that's a user conduct issue that can be handled outside this guideline. If someone is making bald assertions (like the examples you provide), I would expect there to be correct answers and requests for citation posted nearly immediately. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The bit about not pushing your own POV would certainly apply to the above examples. I don't think we need "However, this does not mean that editors are required to present views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics". We should leave personal views out of it as much as possible, and that sentence does not encourage people to leave their opinions at home when they come to the ref desk. Friday (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I wonder if the section being disputed here is too long, leading to too much legalistic interpretation and not enough common sense. We have (at least) two versions which have sprouted, one specifying

The reference desk is not a chatroom or forum, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources. Individual editors are not expected to be familiar with all significant views on a topic, but they should not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute. Editors who are unable to present views that they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics should refrain from providing incomplete answers.

The other states

The reference desk is not a chatroom or forum, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources. Individual editors are not expected to be familiar with all significant views on a topic, but they should not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute. However, this does not mean that editors are required to present views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics.

On reflection I think we're putting too much into this part of the guideline. It can be shorted quite easily to

The reference desk is not a chatroom or forum, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to fairly accurately represent significant views published by reliable sources.

without losing any of the essence of this part of the guideline. People aren't going to abandon their cherished beliefs (or not) based on what we put in a Wikipedia guideline. If an editor doesn't present all the aspects of the answer to a question, it may be a deliberate or inadvertent omission; regardless, such omissions will happen. Frequently. Other editors will provide expansion and supplementary material; it doesn't matter if it was left out of the original answer due to malice or simple lack of knowledge. Pushing one's POV to a disruptive extent is already implicit in the 'not a soapbox' provision. I'm going to shorten this section unless someone comes up with a good reason not to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good. Friday (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Still too dependent on how that weasel word "fairly" is interpreted. If I discuss evolution in an answer without also mentioning intelligent design, is that "unfair" ? If I refer to the Holocaust without mentioning David Irving, is that "unfair" ? Replace "fairly" with "accurately" and I will be happy. Gandalf61 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed but I don't object to that either- to me the important think is the link to WP:NPOV for people who want a longer explanation of how to handle neutrality on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Amended as suggested. Anything else? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Way too much of a departure from the NPOV formulation: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."—eric 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But the Ref Desk is neither an article, nor does it generally contain encyclopedic content. This is one reason why the Ref Desk guidelines need to stand apart from the main Wikipedia rules, without being utterly inconsistent with them. JackofOz 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat 06:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with Ten and with Jack. The actual text of WP:NPOV (as opposed to its "nutshell" summary) says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". That standard applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole, but it cannot be applied to every single individual contribution - that would be an impossibly high requirement. NPOV is an emergent attribute that arises from collaborative effort. Gandalf61 10:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. StuRat 07:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented the latest version of this proposed change in the guideline, before it gets forgotten. Gandalf61 08:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus on that change, so I'm putting it back. StuRat 08:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay - sorry to jump the gun. Can I at least change "fairly" to "accurately", which I think adds pecision to the statement ? Gandalf61 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that change. StuRat 08:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed

Editors should strive to fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources. Individual editors are not expected to be familiar with all significant views on a topic, but they should not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute. However, this does not mean that editors are required to present views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics.

into

Responses should fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources, and not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute. Editors who do not wish to present views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics, can simply refrain from responding.

believing this would be an uncontroversial simplification. However, the change was reverted with edit summary That's not simplifying, that's completely changing the meaning. How does this completely change the meaning, and, perhaps more importantly, why is this controversial?  --Lambiam^Talk 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lambian, you have changed the intention of the previous version, which was meant to say that responders can post answers on the RDs without being required to represent all sides of a question. Your version seems to say that I am not allowed to post answers on the RDs unless I am prepared to represent the views of astrologers, satanists and the Monster Raving Loony Party. Now, those are all significant views, and it is certainly correct that they appear in Wikipedia article, but I do not personally want to write about them. I do not see why this should disbar me from answering questions on the RDs and I will not sign up to a guideline that says or implies this. This is a dealbreaker for me. Gandalf61 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Under normal, non-paranoid reading, neither version implies that you must represent all possible views in a response. First, there is the word "significant". For most subjects there simply are no multiple significant views, and the subjects for which the Satanist view is significant are truly rare. Secondly, if someone interpreting the guidelines, instead of trying to understand the intention, is prepared to bend the meaning this far, then it should also be the case that under the present formulation (the first of the two above) posters are likewise required to represent the Raving Loony Monstrosities in the eventuality that they happen not to find the MRLP view – however monstrous, loony, or raving – distasteful or unethical. The cop out is not available then. If the formulation "does not mean that editors are required" provides them a licence to intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute, then I'm dead-set against this clause. If it does not mean that, then why do we need this sentence? What does the clause allow editors to do that they otherwise would not be permitted? I'd further like to point out that the clause was removed by your own edit, so how can this be a dealbreaker for you?  --Lambiam^Talk 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lambian, I was prepared to accept Ten's shorter version of this bullet - and indeed tried to implement it - because I thought we had consensus that an editor was not required to represent all significant views in their answers, including views that are distasteful to them. I accepted Ten's argument that this was common sense and did not need to be stated explcitly. StuRat reverted me because he felt that consensus had not in fact been recahed - and your edit has shown me that he was right. So now it has become a dealbreaker for me - I have realised that my previous stance, accepting a shorter version, was rather naive. Gandalf61 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Now could you clarify this for me. How is the version you prefer, in the way you interpret it, materially different from this interpretation:

Editors should strive to fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources. Individual editors are not expected to be familiar with all significant views on a topic, but they should not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute. However, this clause does not apply to editors who find some of these views distasteful or in violation of their personal ethics. Such editors are instead allowed to intentionally skew answers to reflect only those sides they find agreeable.

?  --Lambiam^Talk 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fairly" is a weasel word - "accurately" is better. "Skew" is a loaded term. I have put a more neutral and precise version into the guideline, but from your hostile tone I doubt we are close to agreement on this. Gandalf61 18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am again sorry, this time to see that you read a hostile tone in my question for clarification. The simple truth is that I am lost in my attempts to understand where you stand. There are two versions A and B that in my interpretation are materially equivalent (except under malicious and paranoid interpretations). Then you announce that a change from A to B is a "dealbreaker". I explain how I interpret things and ask for clarification. You reiterate your position without providing further clarification. Clearly – or so I assume – your interpretation of these versions is different. But the only way I can construe a material difference is by assigning the interpretation given above to A. However, I find it hard to believe that this is what you think the text is supposed to mean. So I ask if you could explain how your interpretation differs from what I wrote, so that I might be able to understand your position. At the moment I neither understand what you want in a positive sense, nor what it is you are afraid of. Perhaps some further clarification about my position will help. As far as I'm concerned, the whole paragraph can go. I don't see a problem that cannot be addressed as it arises. If occasionally some respondent gives skewed responses, surely other respondents will step in, as has always been the case before, and in any case I don't think such respondents will be held back by whatever we put in the guidelines. I do think that the present paragraph is a horrid piece of text, an eyesore, and an insult to RD volunteers seriously consulting the guidelines in the hope it will help them improve their responses.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The purpose of my edit was to provide a kind of compromise between the version you appeared to prefer, based on your edit, and the version to which StuRat reverted: materially equivalent, but nevertheless with a – somewhat superfluous – reassurance. I'm sorry you did not understand that; I thought that purpose was rather obvious.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, could you comment on my interpretation of your dispute in the next section? I'd like to know if I've correctly interpreted the point(s) of contention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the shorter version?

Hey, what happened here? StuRat, could you share with us what the problem was with the concise version proposed above?

"The reference desk is not a chatroom or forum, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to accurately represent significant views published by reliable sources.

The only objection to it seems to be from you, and you were the one who reverted the change to the guideline. (Please, if there's anyone else with an objection, raise it here as well.) It seems to me that, as usual, we're all on the same page here, but the semantic disputes are being mistaken for actual disputes. The shortened version avoids what amounts to an overly-wordy attempt to codify a number of things that (see my comments above) just amount to common sense. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Following Lambian's edit (see above) I would like to withdraw my agreement with the shorter version. I would now like to retain an explicit statement that an individual editor is not required to represent all significant views in their answers. Although this should be common sense, it does not seem to be obvious to Lambian and Hipocrite, so I now think it needs to be spelled out. Gandalf61 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The version before Lambian's edit essentially said "If you want to present POV A but not POV B, then feel free to do so". The version after Lambian's edit essentially said "If you want to present POV A but not POV B, then keep your mouth shut". This is no "simplification", this completely reverses the meaning. StuRat 03:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you think I'm bereft of common sense. I thought that my change was an uncontroversial simplification, which means that I saw (and see) no material difference between the two versions. My interpretation of the last sentence in its original form was that is was meant to be a reassurance against the (slightly paranoid) potential objection of readers that the guidelines might be interpreted to require them to give responses that are distasteful or against their personal ethics. I thought I saw a simpler way to take away that worry. If that was – apparently? – not the intention of the clause, then what is it? (See also my posting above.)  --Lambiam^Talk 16:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure no one thinks that you're bereft of common sense, and that this misunderstanding will encourage everyone to choose their words more carefully in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)After your edit here, I think Lambian has clarified his position; I hope it eases your concerns about his interpretation. I don't profess to read minds, but I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that this dispute is still semantic rather than real. I think (and correct me if I am mistaken) that Lambian is concerned that not having an explicit statement to the effect that editors must represent all significant views will be an invitation for editors to present selective, skewed, misleading (dare I say incorrect?) information from fringe perspectives. If that is the case, would that concern be addressed by explicitly linking WP:NOT#SOAP in the 'not a soapbox' part of the short guideline? (I've added the link above.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need, and have never seen a need, for editors to represent all significant viewpoints. I'm happy with the first sentence ("The reference desk is not a chatroom or forum, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions."), and do not see what purpose is served by the rest. So I do not (and did not) have the concern you think I have. I did have a problem with the following sentence (and particularly, but not only, the clause that seemed to suggest some editors have a licence to present a skewed view), but more for esthetic reasons – it sounded wacky and out-of-place – than because I thought it might be a serious problem. The purpose of my edit was to make a move in the direction of Gandalf's improved version by presenting a "compromise version" in the hope it would not be immediately reverted – in hindsight a pathetic hope. Little did I expect that this edit would turn into a brush fire, fueled further by my attempts to seek clarification. I hope this makes my position clear.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To continue my not-mindreading, Gandalf's concern appears to be that someone who chose to read the guideline in a particularly twisted way might interpret it to mean that an editor who fails to present every single significant perspective on an issue would be sanctioned. To take a slightly silly example,

Q: If I wanted to get a road from one piece of land to another across several miles of water, what's a good way to do it?

A: How about a suspension bridge?

a particularly obnoxious individual could argue that the answer fails to address all significant points of view, because it neglects cable-stayed bridges and causeways. (There may be additional options, as well.) I genuinely don't see this as a problem, because such an individual would get whacked with a wet trout by people who were being reasonable and sensible.

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

I like the concise version. I think the word strive is important here, because it implies that it is very hard (impossible) to present every single POV, but it is still nice if respondents try their best to be NPOV and verifiable (which is the common sense part). Saying that "editors should strive to do X" is different than saying that "editors should do X". -- Diletante 16:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the semi-protection from this talk page

Anon I/Ps also have a right to have their opinions known here. If you are concerned about Light Current making comments here, then continue to delete his comments, but that's no justification for banning all anon I/Ps from participation. StuRat 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the extent to which he disrupted the page earlier today? Moreover, him excepted, how many anons have edited this page? I count two, and both appear to be logged out regulars. The page will be unprotected in due course, but if you disagree you can always take it to WP:RFP#Current requests for unprotection. Rockpocket 08:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither my talk page nor StuRat's is protected at this time. I encourage any legitimate IP participants who are inconvenienced by the temporary semi-protection of this page to notify one of us. Due to persistent vandalism by a banned editor, we are temporarily unable to allow anonymous edits on this page. I would be pleased to forward comments and suggestions to this page. Note as well that by establishing a Wikipedia account you will be able to participate fully and normally. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless they happen to read this, how would they know to do so ? StuRat 06:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to this section, there is also a template providing instructions at the top of this page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The template doesn't tell them whose talk page they should go to have their views presented here. StuRat 08:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing a lot of IPs editing this page, so I don't see that it's a big problem. Friday (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody should be excluded from editing, that's the issue, even if it is only 2 people. StuRat 06:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider that next time you encourage the troll by reverting on sight efforts to deal with his disruption. Three admins have independently declined to unprotect it at this time because there is no evidence of anons wishing to contribute. If you don't like it, there is a place for such requests. Rockpocket 06:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask again, but..

Can we call it a guideline yet? Since StuRat was the one who reverted the guideline tag twice, I asked him above to clarify. But with lots of talk page activity it's easy to miss an older conversation. So, StuRat (or, anyone else who would revert the guideline tag) are there remaining objections? I don't mean minor tweaks, I mean dealbreakers. If anyone reverts a guideline tag, I have very high expectations that they will work constructively to fix whatever problems they perceive. Friday (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For reference, StuRat's complete list of concerns is available up the page, at #StuRat's suggestions. I think we might be just about there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see StuRats suggestions on ref desk subpage, without the discussion (we can keep that here). Then we can strike out the issues that are no longer on the table. In this way we can focus on the deal breakers and we all know which issues have reached concensus. Despite the massive back and flow here I am encouraged that this process is moving forward. Let's try and tie up all the final loose ends. I'd suggest that since these are StuRats deal breakers he gets to decide when to strike out each section. David D. (Talk) 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There does seem to be an ongoing problem, however, that even after we come to a consensus, the text gets changed to a version that nobody agreed to, yet nobody seems to revert it to the agreed upon version. For example, we have definitely agreed that removing responses, just because they are incorrect (or technically, because we believe or have evidence that they are incorrect) is wrong. However, this line has been repeatedly removed (it seems to be in as of this writing, but only time will tell if it stays there). So, how do we prevent this from happening again and again ? StuRat 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See Mglg's comments above: [6] [7]. Tho i don't think the idea of having guidelines need be abandoned, the current approach should be. We are too much concerned with changing the tag on this page, looking for compromise wording which can be so variously interpreted as to mask our differences of opinion. This document is not and end in itself, and there are no prizes awarded to the successful mediators. In my opinion there is common ground on some issues, but focusing on the document itself and arguing over wording is probably not the way to indentify it.—eric 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure- the core concepts behind the guideline will always be more important than the guideline page itself, just like any other guideline or policy. But, in my opinion, there are no major differences of opinion that need to be rectified. There may well be a couple of folks who believe we should encourage personal opinion on the ref desk, but this is just too alien to Wikipedia standard practices to be seriously considered. Maybe I'm way off but I think we're close to having reasonable agreement. Or, maybe I'm just impatient. Friday (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that any guideline we put out is an invitation to use it as a weapon in disputes. It had better be crystal clear and reflect an actual consensus on the substance rather than just the words before we make it official. --mglg_(talk) 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that this page could be used as a sword or shield is hampering our efforts. If it sets anyone's mind at ease, i for one am not looking for any weapons and realize that such a sword does not have much of an edge to it anyway.—eric 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks eric for pointing out such a clear example of how guidelines can be used as a weapon an how doing so can antagonize users. --mglg_(talk) 20:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing that in my opinon is still on the table: the unbalance between putting very little pressure on original responders to provide sources, and putting a lot of pressure on doubters to do "due diligence" before even asking for a reference. Why do we want to have four sentences (in the Factual disputes and verifiability section) to discourage people from asking for references, and only the softest of language ("Answering questions by referring to articles or even reliable original sources is consistent with these key content policies") to encourage responders to provide sources in the first place? Do we not (almost) all agree that

1. source information is not a strict requirement for responses, but
2. an answer with a source reference is much more useful that the same answer without the reference, and
3. there is no reason to discourage anyone from saying "That's interesting – where did you get the information?" ?

If a new user asks "What is the half life of uranium 235?" and gets the answer "704 million years", they have no idea if that number can be trusted or just came out of some jokester. If the same answer is accompanied by a link to an LLNL data sheet, on the other hand, their query is entirely answered. Given that we all know this, don't we want to use stronger language (say, a subheading "Do refer to reliable sources whenever possible") to firmly encourage (not require) original responders to include references? Alternatively, "Do provide source information for your response" would ask responders without references to at least admit that their source is "I seem to recollect that..."?

And why would we want any barrier at all for asking for references? References are good, agreed? I might ask for a reference even if I had no doubt about an answer, but found it so interesting that I wanted to know more. The only argument I'm aware of for discouraging reference requests is StuRat's concern that repeated such requests could be used as a form of personal harassment, but that seems a flimsy reason: anything that constitutes abusive behavior would violate other rules and can surely be dealt with on an individual basis. Thus fear of such abuse is not a reason to distort the guidelines. --mglg_(talk) 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

mglg, you seem to be missing that there are many responses, perhaps even most, where refs are not available or not even desirable. For example, a solution to a particular math or computer problem, an interpretation of which wording "sounds best" on the Language Ref desk, checking a student's science homework, etc. Saying that it would be better to have sources for the response "9² = 81" is just wrong. StuRat 07:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Stu, I fully agree that there are many questions that can be answered acceptably without references. This is of course the precise reason why the guidelines specifically point out that "it is not always efficient or useful to apply the [verifyability] policy strictly", and why they never claim it is a "requirement" to have references, but merely that having them is "much more useful" and "strongly preferred". That it is more useful is certainly not "just wrong" even for your example above: a user that needed to ask what 9² equals would benefit greatly from the responder taking 30 seconds to locate and refer to the square (algebra) page in addition to supplying the plain answer. Similarly, somebody who asks about which wording "sounds best" would appreciate if somebody found an exhaustive discussion of the matter on some grammar site, etc. We are not saying that responders must supply references, just that it is helpful to try to do so. Which it is. --mglg_(talk) 04:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If we are checking a student's math on a test problem they got wrong, and they had 9² = 83 in the calculations, we merely need to point out the mistake. Directing them to page which discuss squares of numbers would not be helpful at all, and we therefore shouldn't say that sourced answers are always better. For some answers, they are better, for others, they are not. StuRat 18:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'd like to see it changed accordingly. Friday (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, go ahead and show us a version. David D. (Talk) 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I'd like to see your proposal. Rockpocket 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of my and eric's comments a few paragraphs ago, I hesitate to suggest wording before we have established even more of a consensus on the policy question itself. Anybody else that agrees/disagrees? --mglg_(talk) 20:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll say that I agree guidelines are less than useful when common sense should be enough. Unfortunately, common sense is obviously too subjective for partiucipants of the ref desk and this has led to months of arguments and discussion, most of it due to the fact that positions are misinterpreted. I don't see that changing if this guideline is left to rot. Whether the guideline is useful or not, what this discussion does achieve is a conduit for communication, such that the usage of common sense itself becomes more clear from all the different perspectives. Without those perspectives being clear there can be no level of trust between both sides of this debate. The key here is what is the role of the guideline? It should never be used as a weapon other than to help new users who become active on the ref desk. One would hope that among the current ref desk regulars the guideline would never be mentiond again after the ground rules for common sense are established. Sorry for the wishy washy reply. In short, the guidelines are less than desirable but the process to reach the guidelines might solve the ref desk disconcordance. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the problem is the exact opposite to what you suggest. I believe that the large majority of people here have a very similar view of what the Desk does and approximately how it should happen. This wide agreement is being masked by concerns that result from overly-legalistic and tortured readings of the various draft versions of the guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you may be right. How to proceed then? David D. (Talk) 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We could collectively decide that anyone who seems more interested in fighting than collaborating just isn't worth spending time on. Friday (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be a large, almost unanimous, concensus. Is there precedent for this? David D. (Talk) 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If we call for approval of the guideline and there's only one or two objections (ideally, objections to which there exists a reasonable response) then we can safely proceed. At some point, one has to decide that lone holdouts can't hold a process hostage. I don't know if we're there or not, but see my comment below. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I think that despite the epic game of "What do I think is the most evil interpretation my devious opponents could squeeze out of this guideline with utter disregard for common practice, commmon decency, and common sense?" that has been played further up this page, people have just about run out of objections. I think we're nearly there. If people are willing to accept and acknowledge the following few points,

1. Guidelines are flexible. Common sense will always override a strict reading of this document.
2. Wikipedia isn't a court of law. Wikilawyering based on semantics will get short shrift.
3. Wikipedia policy is almost always descriptive rather than prescriptive. We're attempting to put into words the way the Desk largely operates now, because the Desk pretty much works as it is. Trying to impose a massive shift through editing this guideline would in any case be a futile effort.
4. Guidelines can be edited. If we discover errors – confusing bits, dangerous interpretations, missing sections – things can always be added or taken away later. These aren't stone tablets.

then I think we're pretty close to the finish line. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ten, I was close to agreeing, but this edit by Lambian has put me back in the "undecided" camp again. I completely agree that answers should represent sigificant views from reliable sources, but I will not sign up to a guideline that requires me to represent all significant views on every topic, regardless of my personal ethics and beliefs. This is a dealbreaker for me. I thought we had consensus on this, but now I am not so sure. Gandalf61 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It says "significant views" not "all significant views". If someone was omitting significant views due to their personal opinions, this is the sort of intentional skewing of answers we all agreed we wanted to avoid. Or, I thought we agreed, anyway. Friday (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I am allowed to present an incomplete set of significant views as long as my choice is not influenced by my personal opinions ? So how am I supposed to decide which views to represent - toss a coin, maybe ? Throw darts in a dartboard ? Lambian's edit says "Editors who do not wish to present views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics, can simply refrain from responding". I am one of those editors, and Lambian's edit was telling me to "refrain from responding", i.e. he was telling me to leave the RDs. Gandalf61 20:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're very determined to find a fight or insult in people's edits to the guidelines, I suspect you'll find it whether it's there or it. I agree with the substance of what he's saying - if a person wanted to response to geology or biology questions only to give the young earth creationist view, for example, we're better off without that kind of answer. Really, I think we should just tell people to be neutral, and defer long explanation of what that means to the WP:NPOV page. Friday (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be reading too much into his comment. When he says "refrain from responding", I would tend to believe he meant "...to a particular question", not "...ever again at the Ref Desk". Some editors may have very strongly held personal beliefs; Friday's example about young Earth creationism above might qualify. If such an editor were only willing to provide answers that would be effectively useless to the person asking the question, then yes, it would probably be best for them to find a different question to answer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the line "Editors who do not wish to present views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics, can simply refrain from responding" does not belong in these guidelines. That's saying that every answer must provide all POVs. This is a bad idea. The sum of the responses to a question should ideally include all POVs, not each response. StuRat 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ten, the fact is that I would like to see a guideline that allows me to respond to geology questions without having to mention young Earth creationism. Although I understand that it is a significant view, I personally disagree with it. I have no problem if someone else's answer mentions young Earth creationism - I respect their POV as I expect them to respect mine - but I do not want to include that particular significant view in my own answer. Now Lambian's version seems to be saying that I cannot respond to questions if I have personal opinions about them, like my opinion that young Earth creationism is incorrect. And Friday seems to be saying that I can leave out young Earth creationism as long as I do it accidentally, but not if I intentionally exclude it from my answer - if I intentionally exclude it, Friday says my answer is "intentionally skewed", and he does not want to see such "skewed" answers on the RDs. If the guidelines insist on "fair and unbiased" answers then they require me to mention young Earth creationism in the interests of balance. This is the part that I fundamentally disagree with. Gandalf61 07:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat 08:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

None of that is relevant. Nobody's saying you have to mention young earth creationism when asked about science- don't be silly. We're just talking about NPOV and undue weight. If you have questions about them, go read WP:NPOV and ask on the talk page. All your objections have had standard well-known responses for years. Friday (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gandalf has a valid point. We also shouldn't be required to give both the biological perspective and numerous psychological perspectives when asked about the causes of mental disease. Each person can answers as best they can, from their own perspective, and have faith that others' perspectives will fill in the picture once all responses are in. This process should be encouraged, not discouraged, by our guidelines. StuRat 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and nobody is disagreeing. Check the guideline, this objection has already been taken care of. There's a sentence explicitly saying "An individual editor is not required to provide a fully comprehensive answer". Friday (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

{rmv indent}Friday, the consequences that you dismiss as "silly" arise because I am following your own logic in order to help you realise its flaws. To quote your own words above: "If someone was omitting significant views due to their personal opinions, this is the sort of intentional skewing of answers we all agreed we wanted to avoid". Young Earth creationism is a signficant view. If I respond to a question to which that view is relevant, but deliverately omit to mention that view because I disagree with it, then according to your own logic I have provided an "intentionally skewed" answer, which in your book is a bad thing. Or are you saying it is okay to skew answers as long as they are skewed in a direction that you happen to agree with ? I have no problems with WP:NPOV, but I do disagree with your simplistic interpretation of NPOV. I suggest that you rethink that interpretation and consider the rather absurd implications of your statements above. And please do not dismiss my views as irrelevant - that is not a mature response. Gandalf61 18:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is that this statement can be interpreted at least 3 ways: "Editors who do not wish to present views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics, can simply refrain from responding"

1) "...may not mention those views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics, while continuing to supply other views in response to the question".

2) "...may not mention those views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics, but should then not give any answer to the question".

3) "...may not mention those views which they find distasteful or which violate their personal ethics, but then should not respond to any questions on the Ref Desk".

My interpretation was the second, and Gandalf's is either 2 or 3. If a statement can be interpreted so differently, it's not good to have in a guideline. StuRat 18:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Please, go read the "undue weight" section I referred to. Young Earth Creationism is not a "significant view" if the question is about geology. So, I do think your objection is silly. We just need to use common sense along with an understanding of existing policies and guidelines. Friday (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. StuRat, your objection is to a bit that's already been removed. Friday (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Friday, it is your own extreme views and your idiosyncratic interpretations of Wikpedia policies that lack common sense. As you seem to have lost the ability to engage in a polite and civil discussion of these matters, I am done here. Gandalf61 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that just means you are done discussing this with Friday, not giving up on writing the guidelines completely. StuRat 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Recap

Ten asked the same "Is it a guideline, or what?" question a week or two ago, see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines#So.2C_what_is_it_then.... By my reading of that discussion, there was a large handful of editors who were OK with it, and I believe A.Z. and StuRat were the remaining objectors. So, I'm hoping they and whoever else may have remaining major concerns will use the section below. And, Ten's list of 4 points above are right on, I hope everyone keeps them in mind. Friday (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It all looks good. At some point maybe somebody can draft something along the lines of "it's not a freakin' race, take the time to research your answers and give proper references," but that's not a showstopper. In any event, I'll carry on answering on the desks as I have been, which seems to be going OK. --LarryMac 00:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I understand that you are trying to be constructive, but "a handful of editors" is offensive to me. I would prefer if you said their names, even if they are in fact more than a handful, even if they are a dozen. A.Z. 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but that's way over my head, A.Z. Can you explain what's offensive about referring to a group of people in agreement with something as "a handful of editors"? Cheers -- JackofOz 05:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can. I should have explained better. I am the minority here, because I don't agree with the guidelines as they stand. Friday said that only I and StuRat are the —pay attention to the phrasing now— the "remaining" objectors. Well, that implies that there were more objectors before, and something happened and fewer and fewer people objected the proposal as the time passed, and now there's "only two to go". By saying it like that, it looks as if Friday does not care much about our opinion. I don't like it that Friday chose to qualify us —the objectors— with the adjective remaining. It is as if Friday is not considering that I and StuRat are going to be able to convince all the others of our opinion.

Friday told me the other day that I made a "nonspecific complaint" when I said that "there is no consensus" without explaining more what I was talking about. I actually said: "there is definitely no consensus about the guidelines". And Friday answered: "Editors have a choice. You can complain, or you can participate. If you elect not to participate, you might find nobody pays much attention to your complaining. The current guideline draft seems to me to have a pretty decent consensus among those who have been participating. As always, specific suggestions for improvement are much more valuable than nonspecific complaints or assertions that there's no consensus." Friday now says that a handful of editors agrees with the proposal and uses this as an argument for the proposal to become a guideline. I think this is nonspecific. I want it to be specific: I want to know precisely what Friday means. I want to know their names so I can talk to those editors, so the editors themselves can choose to say whether they agree with Friday or not, whether Friday is telling the truth about them or not. It looks to me as if Friday is creating a cabal against me and StuRat, when he doesn't bother to say the names of the editors, and just put all of them together in a bag and says "here's a handful of people who agree on the matter", and only StuRat and A.Z. oppose them. Why choose to say "handful"? Why choose to say "handful" when he can say "Ten, Friday, Eric, JackofOz, Hipocrite agree, and StuRat and A.Z. disagree". I want to be treated as each one that is a part of the majority. I want that, if my name is going to be said, their name is said as well. If their name is to be hidden behind "handful", let mine be hidden behind "minority" or something similar, then: but this option would be wrong and it would be ugly: the handful against the minority, it would look like. Now, by saying "A.Z. and StuRat disagree, and the others agree", I think that the first impression —that Friday respects our view, since Friday bothers to say our names— is faded when one sees that Friday did not bother to say who is the majority.

I hope you could better understand now what I meant. I know I can be confusing when I write. A.Z. 05:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This may well be really important to you, A.Z. but it really is distracting from the point. Any chance you could take it outside? Rockpocket 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion? It has to be a place that everyone involved can see. A.Z. 06:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And I don't think it's distracting at all. I think my post addresses important concerns of this process to built a set of guidelines. And this is important, even though my post doesn't address any issue about the proposals themselves. A.Z. 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Still can't agree to this without...

• I've seen lots of responses, but they seem to be mainly semantic arguments and weird examples of perverse ways that the guidelines could be read. No matter how good they get, someone can always misinterpret them- we cannot prevent this. Also some of the problems appear to be English comprehension issues. All I can suggest is that we can't teach people how to understand English here- the guidelines must be written with the assumption that those reading them have the language skills to understand. I also note that StuRat has twice simply reverted rather than fixing whatever was wrong, and has yet to list a single objection here. Friday (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• So, does anyone have remaining objections or can we call it a guideline? Some of the current disagreements are over things that have already been changed, so I don't think we need to worry about them. Friday (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I still have many objections, such as no prohibition on argument from authority or ad hominem attacks, the current assumption that only services provided by a library ref desk can be provided here, and the lack of requests for due diligence before challenging a question (recently deleted). StuRat 04:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• My response is the same as before when you brought this up. We already cover it with telling people to be civil, and telling people about verifiability. The due diligence issue has been changed a bit, since some people objected to it as seeming to discourage people from wanting sources. I'd say we're ready to call this a guideline, then. Friday (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't, and won't, so long as you just ignore my objections, and the objections of others. StuRat 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I will keep that in mind, for when the day comes that I do ignore your objections, rather than patiently answering them, even repeating myself if necessary. If it's important to you to have things in there, it's up to you to make an effort to work them in such that other editors agree with them. Friday (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing of responses vs. due diligence by doubters

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

Good.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't like the change. You have completely removed any mention that before challenging an answer, you should also do your own research. In one instance, because of this total lack of due diligence, I was forced to waste a lot of time trying to track down sources which never should have been requested in the first place (the factual point in question wasn't even related to the question). StuRat 07:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Stu, the treatment of reference requests is effectively identical to one I suggested earlier (at 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC), above), to which you responded "That looks pretty good, I like it." --mglg_(talk) 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I was looking at the wrong edit (it would help if you could provide links). If you mean this edit: [8], that looks OK to me, although I still prefer the version you replaced. StuRat 06:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the edit being discussed here. I'm glad you find it acceptable. --mglg_(talk) 07:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Analogy

"The Wikipedia reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to a library reference desk." (the proposal as of Saturday morning)

I think this is rather silly. I think that the reference desk should be the Wikipedia Reference Desk, and we should forget about real world reference desks altogether. It's like the village pump: it's not a real village pump, as we know, but it can still have this name! The thing is that no-one complains by saying: "hey, we are a village pump, so stop doing things that are not usually done around real-world village pumps!" I respect the good intentions of the people who still insist that this is some sort of real world reference desk, but I think it's just... silly, as I said. A.Z. 04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, where we get upset at the village pump is when people do treat it exactly like a real village pump. One day a few years ago, someone drew water there, and it royally messed up the servers. Friday (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its fine, as it gives those not familiar with the project a comparison with something tangible. The statement itself it entirely correct (we do attempt to provide comparative services) and its worded in a descriptive, not prescriptive, manner. All good. Rockpocket 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, doesn't the name "reference desk" already give a comparison with something tangible, just like the "village pump"? I'm not trying to change the name of the project, I think that "reference desk" is fine, as long as it's treated the same way that "village pump" is. I bet there are no guidelines for the village pump saying "we try to provide gatherings comparable to those of a real village pump". A.Z. 06:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the wiki-link to the library reference desk article as adding value, as it provides an overview of the scope and purpose of a reference desk for those not familiar with the concept. Some people might think the Desk is a forum or place to chat - the link is a quick way of dispelling those misguided ideas. Rockpocket 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But the reference desk is a forum, just check the dictionary. A.Z. 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant internet discussion forum. Rockpocket 07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's only a matter of semantics. It's all subjective here. Don't say "they'll think it's an Internet forum". Say what you mean! Say what is it that the reference desk should not be for, otherwise I'll just say "well, it is an Internet discussion forum as far as I'm concerned". Accordingly to the article, "An Internet forum is a facility on the World Wide Web for holding discussions and posting user generated content, or the web application software used to provide this facility." All it takes is for me to say that everything on the reference desks right now I shall label "discussion". So, instead of using loaded terms like "forum" and "discussion" which could mean basically anything, strive to be more objective. A.Z. 07:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, its somewhat beside the point. You clearly know what I meant, therefore arguing the semantics is no more than wikilawyering. One is a forum for discussion of topics on the internet, the other is a virtual desk manned be people who volunteer to help provide references. They have similarities, but so do cats and dogs and it doesn't take a genius to tell them apart. Please, A.Z., can we avoid the meta-discussions over every single minor issue and try and stick to the point here? Rockpocket 07:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's really good to read, Rockpocket. I wasn't expecting you to say that. The thing is: I have no idea about what you mean. I mean it, Rockpocket, and you may not believe it, but I'm not playing with words here: I do not know what you mean and this is not a minor issue, that's the entire issue. If you write "this thing is not a forum", I don't have a clue what you're saying. I'll just probably be scared and run away, afraid of the arbitrary removal of content by people who judged my posts to be "forum-like", whatever that is supposed to mean. A.Z. 08:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I'm sorry. Let me make myself clear. By internet discussion forum, I mean a website where people will leave messages for each other in threads, thereby having a conversation, either for the purposes of simple social interaction or to carry out a debate/argument on a specific subject. An example might be Popbitch a gossip forum [9] or Politicalhotwire, for political debate. Hopefully you can appreciate that there are similarities between these and an online version of a library reference desk, yet agree that they are also inherent differences. Rockpocket 08:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what "this is not a forum" means beyond "this is not a chat room". Can you explain the diff ? StuRat 08:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the quote, "this is not a forum" from, and what diff are you referring to? Rockpocket 08:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean now (I though you meant diff, rather than difference). Compare and contrast Internet forum with Web chat site. Rockpocket 08:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would you send me to two articles to try to figure out what you mean, instead of just telling me ? Or, perhaps I should have sent you to compare and contrast articles on plain talk and beating around the bush. :-) StuRat 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I have more constructive things to do than provide trollfood. You really wanted to understand the difference, you would read them and move on. If you wish to argue for the sake of it, you can find someone else to humour you. I bid you adieu. Rockpocket 09:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a fair question, which in the interest of preserving the world's dwindling supply of colons, I'll take up in a new section below. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with A.Z. here, we shouldn't limit the services which we provide to those provided at a library ref desk. For example, I can't picture any reference librarian checking a student's math, but that's exactly the type of thing we do at the Math Ref Desk. If we include the comparison at all, we should say "The Ref Desk offers a superset of the capabilities of a regular library Ref Desk, offering those services and much more." StuRat 06:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit like the thin edge of the wedge, though? It's fine that we say "the reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to a library reference desk", because that's true, and reflects its core purpose. Once we start talking about possible other functions, the question arises - what other functions? and that demands answers. Once we start to enumerate them, we're in trouble. "Comparable" doesn't mean "identical". The sentence doesn't prevent users from asking us to check their maths homework, but neither does it invite such questions, nor, imo, should it. JackofOz 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If the analogy is imperfect (which it is), and we aren't willing to explain where the analogy breaks down, we shouldn't use the analogy at all, it just causes confusion. StuRat 08:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So, we should not invite these kinds of questions at all. This way, we don't have to deal with the problem to determinate what the reference desk is, as we would be in trouble. But we shouldn't stop the users from asking for us to check their maths homework either, because, well, that's a good thing that the reference desk does. A.Z. 07:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up my opinion, A.Z. No matter how expansively we might list all the things we have done in the past and would be prepared to do in the future - and it would be a very long list - someone will come along and ask a curly question of a type we've never had before. It's a futile exercise, because people in their illimitable uniqueness will find ways of regarding a Ref Desk in a way that was never anticipated, but which may be something we take on board. Or not. JackofOz 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So, don't list them. Don't list any of them. Let's stop engaging this futile exercise once and for all. Or do you suppose that we are trying to do anything different from what you just described? Yes, we are, I admit it. We are being even more futile. We don't want to list all things that we have done in the past: we also want to determine which ones are good and each ones are bad, which ones fit and which ones don't, which ones will be allowed from now on and which ones won't, and all of that summarized in just a few paragraphs. Well, if we do use just a few paragraphs, people will be able to interpret it as it pleases them (yes, the guidelines as they are now can be interpreted to allow everything or to disallow everything, as they are highly subjective). If we start to use a lot, a lot of paragraphs to explain everything in details, here comes the original futile exercise again... A.Z. 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave it. The wikipedia ref desk is functionally like other reference desks, and this statement is therefore informative. I don't buy the argument about the village pump, yeah there is no pump, but there is no desk either, these things are besides the point. At the level of description we are talking about it is appropriate to talk about village pumps and reference desks. -- Diletante 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would write a response myself, but StuRat speaks better English than me, so I'll just copy his post: "We shouldn't limit the services which we provide to those provided at a library ref desk. For example, I can't picture any reference librarian checking a student's math, but that's exactly the type of thing we do at the Math Ref Desk. If we include the comparison at all, we should say "The Ref Desk offers a superset of the capabilities of a regular library Ref Desk, offering those services and much more." A.Z. 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the statement in its original phrasing; I feel that it encourages and discourages just what we want. The proposed "superset" turns it into something meaningless. I don't see it as the purpose of either ref desk to check math homework (and thus we should not encourage it), though neither do I see it as so far out of bounds that we should actively attempt to prohibit it, just as I would not expect library management to encourage students to ask for this at a brick-and-mortar ref desk, nor to chastise a librarian who nonetheless did this. Matchups 11:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would, indeed, expect a real Ref Desk librarian to be chastised for checking a student's homework answers, which is one reason why there is a difference here. StuRat 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What about question guidelines?

This guideline says it is about defining guidelines for appropriate responses. Where are the guidelines for asking questions appropriately? -- Diletante 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So far our assumption has been that askers won't find or read a large guideline. So, we get by with the headers, which contains the nice and brief Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoask. Friday (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By and large there are two kinds of questioners: those who read the headers but don't really need to, and those who really need to read the headers but don't. :(  --Lambiam^Talk 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, we'll be saying the same thing about this guideline in a few months, too.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"chat rooms" or "discussion forums" vs. the Reference Desks

A number of people like to assert that the Wikipedia Reference Desks are not "chat rooms". Other people object that this is a meaningless statement, because it's not clear what the term "chat room" means in this context, nor is it clear what the asserters are trying to disallow.

The answer starts with a reminder of what one of our desks is. It's either:

• a place where we improve the encyclopedia by figuring out why it didn't adequately answer the questions users tried to ask of it,
• a place where we help users find resources to answer their questions,

or maybe

• a place where we try to answer users' questions.

But it is not primarily a place where a bunch of "regulars" meet to "hang out", to banter back and forth, to trade in in-jokes, to debate imponderables, to try to one-up each other with erudite references or wild speculation.

This is not to say that there can't be any regulars, or banter, or jokes, or erudition, or speculation. These things are fine in moderation, but whenever they get out of hand (as they do tend to do), they get in the way of the primary purpose of the desk, and are discouraged.

One way to assess whether your own conduct on the desk is appropriate or not is to ask what your motive is. If the main reason you come to the desk (as an answerer) is to help the users asking the questions, or to improve the encyclopedia, you're in the right place and your answers are probably (mostly) appropriate. But if you're coming mostly to show off, to crack jokes or display wit and erudition and to speculate or debate wildly about imponderable questions which have no answers -- in short, if your primary motivation is your own enjoyment -- there's a good chance you're going to annoy people by distracting from the stated task at hand. (And you have to answer the question honestly. If you claim that you're only here to help the users, but actually, deep down, you really really love the thrill of the debate and the jocularity of the banter, you're probably on thin ice at best.)

The dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable banter (etc.) will never be precisely fixed; the sands will always be shifting here. Those who insist (for whatever reason) on precise rules and definitions are bound to be disappointed, because past a certain point, those rules and definitions will only be useful for arguing over, not for retaining the high caliber of the desks. (And if there's one thing worse than a long, tendentious debate about an imponderable question on the Reference Desk, it's a long, tendentious debate about the Reference Desk guidelines themselves.)

Again, no one trying to discourage "chat" should be trying to utterly suppress every last shred of wit or informal humanity, because those things, in moderation, are not only appropriate, they're important. Unfortunately, since the sands are always shifting and the lines can never be defined, we'll probably never stop arguing about them...

—Steve Summit (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what "this is not a forum" means beyond "this is not a chat room". Can you explain the diff ? StuRat 02:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've been using the terms here, no difference at all. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, there is no need to say "not a forum", as "not a chat room" already covers it. StuRat 03:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone proposing we say it is "not a forum" in the guidelines? Rockpocket 03:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You said: "I see the wiki-link to the library reference desk article as adding value, as it provides an overview of the scope and purpose of a reference desk for those not familiar with the concept. Some people might think the Desk is a forum or place to chat - the link is a quick way of dispelling those misguided ideas." And the reference desk can be considered a chat room: I really don't know what it is that you are trying to "forbid" when you say "this is not a chat room". I am afraid of edit summaries saying "not a chat room", though. A.Z. 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume they mean things like "Hey John, is your cat still coughing up hair balls on the rug ?" "Yea, but the vet gave me some meds to give it. So, how's you mom's arthritis ?" ... StuRat 04:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't like the reference desk to become something like that. But, then again, I don't know why. A.Z. 05:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm fine with "not a chat room", but dislike "not a forum", which seems to be more restrictive. StuRat 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I too feel that "forum" has a more sober feeling to it, so that saying that the reference desk is not even a forum could be interpreted to mean that human communication is banned altogether, even if it is less "naïve" than talking about your cat and your mom. A.Z. 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Before we all get too carried away over this again, can I just point out that I was not, and am not, proposing we use the phrase "not a chat room" or "Not a forum". My use of both those terms was simply as a counterpoint, to indicate that others may misunderstand what the Desk is. My understanding of the Desk differs, at least in some way, from both of these other forms of internet communication. I was, and still am, under the impression that all of us (perhaps with the exception of A.Z.) generally appreciate that. If that is not the case, and the term "forum" does not have the same meaning for you as it does for me then fine, that is no big deal. But for the love of God, can we please stop discussing the difference between a forum and chat room, and move on to discussing something that is actually relevent to the guidelines? Rockpocket 06:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, it looks to me that we're discussing what is the reference desk. You said that it's not a forum nor a chat room, so we have to discuss what are those things after all, for us to be able to understand how each one of us thinks of the reference desk. All of this seems to be relevant to the guidelines. My concrete suggestion concerning this, which generated this whole thread, is that we take out the analogy with real world reference desks. StuRat suggested that we should say that they are "comparable with real world reference desks, but with much more services". Do you have something else in mind? If your suggestion continues to be that we keep the analogy, and your justification for this is that people should not think that the reference desk is a forum nor a chat room, then we'll have to discuss what is a forum and a chat room, to see whether we agree with you or not, and why. A.Z. 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, the Ref Desk is inherently a forum (because, as A.Z. so eloquently put it, "saying that the reference desk is not even a forum could be interpreted to mean that human communication is banned altogether") - but we don't need to state that it is a forum. The Ref Desk is not a chat room, and we also don't need to state that. JackofOz 07:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not relevent to the guidelines because no-one is suggesting we include those in the guidelines. No-one. The only person that even mentioned it was me (and, believe me, I really wish I hadn't now.) I know exactly what I meant and it makes perfect sense to me. I have spent, literally, hours explaining that it was nothing other than an aside to WP:NOT. Its that trivial; there is nothing left to discuss. If you think it the Desk is the same as an internet forum, then that is just fine, I can see why you might think that. My understanding of an internet forum is slightly different, and that is also fine. I say tomato, you say tomato. Please lets just call the whole thing off.

Regarding the analogy: everyone else who has commented appears just fine with it, therefore I don't see any consensus for removing it. Rockpocket 07:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with saying "not a chat room" but not fine with saying "not a forum". StuRat 08:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the current proposed-guidelines page does have the following as its second What the reference desk is not item: The reference desk is not a chatroom.... (I happen to think it is important to have that phrase there, by the way.) The disagreement, however, seems to be not about "chatroom" but about "forum", which really no-one is arguing for including, so we can indeed move on. --mglg_(talk) 07:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said I'm OK with "chatroom" either. I see no need to say that. I can't imagine anything good as a result of that phrase being there, but I can imagine people using that as an excuse to delete content.

Rockpocket just committed a fallacy when he said "I don't see any consensus for removing it" and thought this to mean that there was any reason for leaving it there. The fact that there's no consensus to remove something does not imply that there is consensus to leave something there. A.Z. 07:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting very tired of your attempts at mind reading, A.Z. Instead of reacting to what you think I mean, try actually reading what I say and reacting to that. I said "I don't see any consensus for removing it" which means "I don't see any consensus for removing it". I implied nothing else from that, so quit telling me I "committed a fallacy" when the only fallacy is in your bad faith inferences. I note you have been warned about this before, also. Rockpocket 08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You said "everyone else who has commented appears just fine with it, therefore I don't see any consensus for removing it." What were you thinking of when you said that? You just said that you didn't mean to imply that, because of the lack of consensus for removing it, it should be left there instead. OK, so I'd guees that you think that we should discuss the matter a little bit more until we reach consensus either to remove it or to leave it. But you said before "please lets just call the whole thing off", which I think I can be safe to assume to mean that you don't want to discuss this subject anymore. What's your idea, to discuss something else for now and then return to this subject afterwards? A.Z. 08:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How many different ways would you like me to say the same thing? Let me try again: When I said "I don't see any consensus for removing it", I was thinking: "I don't see any consensus for removing it". Can you see how that works? Since you seem to want to know my thought processes, let me walk you through them: You said you thought the text as it stands was silly, a number of editors said they didn't. The result of that exchange: no consensus for removal.

When I said "please lets just call the whole thing off", I was jokingly alluding to the song I had just paraphrased. Feel free to discuss whatever you want to reach consensus, but please desist from speculating about my unspoken thoughts and then using them in straw arguments. Rockpocket 08:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so that was it. I didn't know the song :-) I apologise for calling you fallacious, then. A.Z. 09:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I favor keeping the "not a chatroom" bit, just to (hopefully) discourage excessive discussion. Friday (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rude to say "this is not a chatroom". It looks as if people needed someone to be telling them what to do, because they would start talking about their mom's and cat's if no one told them "hey, this is not a chatroom!". I could be OK with the term "chatroom", if the phrasing was different. I would prefer, however, that the term "chatroom" wasn't there at all and, instead, there were something like: "Tangential and off-topic discussion and chatting can impair the functionality of the desks because [insert good and convincing reason here]. For example, [insert illustration here]" A.Z. 19:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see "chatroom" replaced by "discussion forum".  --Lambiam^Talk 19:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting, but it would be best if you gave us more reasons to do that, other than the fact that you think that you are going to be happy if that happens. A.Z. 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, it circumvents the problem you identified that it might be perceived as rude. Also, it is evident that it is more relevant and urgent to remind people that the RD is not a discussion forum, than that it is not a chatroom. Finally, I think everyone can think on their own of reasons why they would be happy with such a change, but we need to know if there is sufficient support for it, so if not enough people don't speak out, or keep reverting without discussion, we will make no progress towards consensus.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against saying "not a forum" or "not a discussion forum". StuRat 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion above? As an editor so eloquently put it, "saying that the reference desk is not even a forum could be interpreted to mean that human communication is banned altogether". Another editor explained that this meant that "the Ref Desk is inherently a forum", probably because it is a fact that there is human communication on the desks. A.Z. 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I read all of the above, and I don't agree that these are reasonable interpretations. Try this. Enter a flower shop and ask the shopkeeper: "Am I here at a discussion forum?" And if they say something like: "No, this a flower shop", reply with: "So you mean all human communication is banned here!". Don't forget to study the puzzlement on their face. In the end, nothing will keep people who ardently desire to interpret a text in weird ways, if they work hard enough on it, from succeeding. Saying that the RD is not a chatroom could equally be maliciously interpreted to mean that all human communication is banned. Saying that logical fallacies are not allowed could be interpreted as discrimination against people who are logically challenged, or (with some justification) as a veiled personal attack on one editor. Saying that you may not appeal to authority can be interpreted, by the paranoidally inclined, as a prohibition on citing expert sources. And so on and so on. If you continue to insist on paranoid malicious interpretations of the text, we will not get anywhere. Please summon some common sense and use the normal interpretation of the words to get at the intention behind the text. A discussion forum is formed for the purpose of an open discussion of issues of public interest. The very essence of such a forum is the confrontation of ideas and opinions. You cannot participate in a discussion forum by replying to a question whether we don't agree that abortion is murder by referring to some encyclopedic articles. If you consider the statement that the RD is not a discussion forum to be unwarranted, it implies that you want to leave the viewpoint open that the RD is a discussion forum. So if someone replies to the abortion question as indicated, you apparently wish to reserve the right to tell the respondent that this is an improper answer because, after all, the RD is a discussion forum. Well, the RD is not a discussion forum. It is not intended for the open discussion of issues of public interest. The RD is a place where people can pose questions for information, and where we work to find and present the information that provides the answer. The oldest version of the RD I could find, of February 22, 2002, already contains the text: This page is for general info requests. The help desk page will, we hope, serve much the same function as a library's help desk. Do you have a question that you want answered by Wikipedia? Then ask below! If you want a discussion forum, convince people that there should be a discussion forum. Write a cogent proposal, presenting your arguments how this will help the project and explaining how the Wikipedia forum is supposed to function, and advertise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). But do not try to transform the RD into one, and definitely not by fighting teeth and claw against forming a consensus on guidelines for the RD unless it can be used as a discussion forum.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up again, despite it being an old and tired topic that keeps coming up, is that it keeps coming up.

Whether or not the guidelines explicitly say "the Reference Desk is not a chatroom", we need to understand what some people mean when they say "the Reference Desk is not a chatroom", because it's something they say all the time, and if we don't understand what they mean, there's confusion and extra argumentation all around. (I remember well my first foray into these Reference Desk policy debates, back in November or December of last year, and somebody -- it might have been Hipocrite -- kept saying "the Reference Desk is not a chatroom", and I had no idea what he meant.)

My understanding of what the phrase means waxes and wanes. I "think" it's shorthand for "The Reference desk is not primarily for banter, or displays of wit, or philosophical debate, or excessive conversation not related to the conversations at hand". And I do think -- despite the fact that we're often unsure what it means -- that the concepts it refers to are among the key ones we need to agree on, and that a verbal shorthand for this set of concepts (as long as the shorthand is widely understood) is not entirely a bad thing. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We could go on forever debating whether it's a forum or not. But that is not the central issue here. The real question, the only question we have to settle here, I think, is whether it's appropriate to mention in the guidelines anything about it being a forum or not being a forum. What we actually think it is, is a separate question that doesn't pertain to the guidelines. I can no longer see the point of using the word "forum" anywhere in the guidelines. Or "chatroom". Maybe I'm just getting a bit jaded with this whole process. -- JackofOz 12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't use illogical arguments

Argument from authority and ad hominem attacks must be avoided. That is, don't claim that your response is correct, and others are wrong, because you are an expert in the field and others are unqualified to answer. Anyone may answer on any topic. If you are an expert, then you should be able to provide strong evidence for your answer and strong evidence to disprove other answers with which you disagree. If you can't provide strong evidence, then you may well be the one who is incorrect, even if you are an expert in the field.

I've added the above section, please comment here. StuRat 20:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all true, but I don't think it's needed. People who use arguments from authority just make themselves look ridiculous. A.Z. 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've seen them used all the time, like when one editor claimed to know North Korea's motivations because they once visited the country. This hardly qualifies them as an "expert", even if true, IMHO, but they made that claim, nonetheless. StuRat 20:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the editor made herself look ridiculous: no-one would take that seriously. A.Z. 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with A.Z., there shouldn't be any arguments or attacks so it is redundant. Rockpocket 20:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true, you may make a logical argument for, or against, a particular answer. For example, if somebody claimed that Germany would not have been defeated in WW2 without nuclear weapons, one could certainly argue that none were used, or even threatened to be used, against Germany, which was defeated entirely by conventional means. You may not, however, argue that they are wrong because you have a degree a military history and they do not, and you certainly can't argue that they are wrong because you once visited Germany. StuRat 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there shouldn't be any arguments. I think there should be valid logical arguments, not fallacious ones. A.Z. 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There could be a language issue here. Perhaps RP is using the common meaning of the word "argument", which refers to an uncivil fight between people, involving name-calling, etc. I refer to the formal meaning of the word, which is probably the one used by A.Z., as well, meaning any polite debate on an issue. StuRat 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, my opinion differs. "If somebody claimed that Germany would not have been defeated in WW2 without nuclear weapons" and I thought that was incorrect, I would ask for a reliable source for that assertion. Thats what we should be encouraging, not engaging in attacks or arguments, polite or otherwise. Rockpocket 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So you wouldn't point out the error, but would just ask for a source, instead? An obvious error like this should be pointed out immediately. StuRat 20:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not interested in hearing the conflicting opinions of knowitalls who have too much time to spend debating on a Ref Desk. I would rather learn from an expert in the field, hence the request for a source, or provide an expert source of my own thereby allowing everyone to learn from an expert in the field. Rockpocket 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So you think only an "expert" is qualified to state that nuclear weapons weren't used in Germany in WW2 ? I'm astounded. I consider this to be common knowledge. StuRat 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Common knowledge to you, perhaps, but presumably not to the person that stated it. Moreover, the original statement was not "weapons weren't used in Germany in WW2", (my bold) it was "Germany would not have been defeated in WW2 without nuclear weapons". Being in possession of nuclear weapons can be a influential in conflict resolution without ever being deployed (c.f. the Cold War). So some military historians may well believe that Germany would not have been defeated without nuclear weapons [being in the possession of the Allies]. I don't know whether that is the case or not, so if an expert holds that opinion, then it would be informative to me to know that. I'm sorry if that "astounds" you, but I fail to see why asking for a references at a reference desk is so astonishing. Rockpocket 21:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the person didn't provide reliable sources is an argument. A.Z. 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I would state "the person didn't provide reliable sources" (an argument). I said I would ask them to provide a reliable source (a question). Please stop misrepresenting the comments of others. Rockpocket 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is still an argument. I think you are not getting what I mean. You said "If somebody claimed that Germany would not have been defeated in WW2 without nuclear weapons" and I thought that was incorrect, I would ask for a reliable source for that assertion." That's an argument. Stop assuming that I misinterpreted your comments. A.Z. 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh. If you interpret asking for a source as an argument, then fine. It can mean whatever you want it to. Tomatos/tomatos, rmember? Rockpocket 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is important in this case, since you are saying that arguments do not belong here at all. A.Z. 22:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty damn obvious to everyone else I was not including the asking of questions in my definition of arguing. To think so is just plain dense, as I'd be advocating we all sit and look at a very blank Reference Desk all day. This is getting ridiculous, A.Z. do you have to debate the semantic minutiae of every single word I utter? We are not drafting a legal patent here, its a guideline. There will always be different interpretations of words and phrases, can you not please just accept that others have opinions that differ from yours? You insistance on reductionist debate is both infuriating and completely counter-productive. Indeed, if you wished to purposely filibuster this process you could barely be more effective. I, personally, have had enough and will simply be ignoring any comment you make here unless it is of direct relevence to something in the guideline. If you wish to clarify something with me and require a response, please ask at my talkpage. Rockpocket 23:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think the explication "That is, don't claim that your response is correct, and others are wrong, because you are an expert in the field" does not correspond to the traditional meaning of "Argument from authority" as a logical fallacy. (I know this, because I an an expert in the field of logical fallacies.) Can't we phrase this in a simpler and more positive way, something like: "If you feel a need to correct an answer that you believe to be wrong, then – if at all possible – please provide a reference to a reliable source, to avoid meaningless appeals to authority or other unverifiable sources of knowledge."  --Lambiam^Talk 21:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How does my version differ from the traditional meaning ? StuRat 21:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In what is traditionally considered "appeal to authority", the speaker appeals to a (supposedly) higher authority, not one's own authority. An example is when someone says: "So you think you know better than Powell that we aren't stretched thin, just in Iraq?"[10] Another example: "Who knows better—you or the Lord?"[11] Or this: "So you want to say that the ledgend DJ SCREW (R.I.P) was wrong for saying Lil Flip was the Freestyle King!! You Crazy!!"[12] Although the last example concerns a matter of taste or opinion, the essential form is the same.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, I think all forms of appeal to authority are improper, whether the alleged "authority" is the responder or somebody else. StuRat 04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how his version differs from the traditional meaning either. You are using an argument from authority right there, when you say: "I know this, because I am an expert in the field of logical fallacies." A.Z. 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., Lambiam meant that as humorous irony. --mglg_(talk) 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's how I took it. StuRat 22:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. It was a funny comment, then, but he didn't appear to provide any other argument supporting his view. A.Z. 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RockPocket here: we should not explicitly forbid, or otherwise discuss, any specific forms of argument, because we don't want to paint the desk out as a place to argue in the first place. The correct response to a factual dispute is to supply reliable sources, and that is what we want to encourage. Therefore I oppose even Lambiam's compromise version. --mglg_(talk) 22:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe argumentation to be inherent to the reference desk. A.Z. 22:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming at this from the "how to argue properly" angle isn't good in my opinion- we don't want to encourage debate, logical or not. I think explaining how to apply the verifiability policy does everything we need done. I've no objection to "no ad hominem", but we already tell people to be civil so IMO it's redundant. Friday (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't quite the same:

Ad hominem only: "I believe your answer is incorrect, since you have no degree in the field."

Personal attack only: "You're an idiot."

Both: "Your answer is wrong because you're an idiot."

StuRat 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

North Korea thread

Off topic discussion #1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm so used to having my words twisted and perverted by a shabby little cabal that I though I would resurrect the Korea thread that Mr. Rat is referring to and let people make up their own minds. I have never argued 'from authority', though I think it far better to draw on informed sources than to speculate in a mindless and solipsistic fashion on this, that or the other, whether this be elephant's graveyards, pigeon genocide or the cleaning of 'skid marks', and other such joys. I have never removed anything from Wikipedia, but I propose to remove this superflous and silly addition to the guidelines to the limit of my 3RR. I will continue to do so day by day if necessary. Before doing so I would appreciate guidance from an admin. Anyway, here is the thread in question. I will, of course, discuss any of the issues raised by this with those whom I respect. Clio the Muse 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Extract from the Humanities archive for 7 January, 2007 A US invasion is silly, NK can't possibly think that's a possibility. A Chinese invasion on the other hand, seems quite plausible to me. It would allow China to expand with very little world opposition, unlike when they invaded Tibet (or if they were to invade Taiwan). They could then govern it like Hong Kong, allowing a degree of independence, keeping the economy from collapsing, thus preventing a flood of refugees into China. China might also benefit from increased trade with South Korea. And, maybe in a few decades, NK could be united with SK. StuRat 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Might I suggest that you actually visit North Korea, or at least read around the subject a little more before making blanket declarations of this kind. For whatever reasons, silly or not, Pyongyang perceives America as the greatest threat to its security, a fear made all the worse by the invasion of Iraq, the first link in Bush's Axis of Evil. The best guarantee of North Korean integrity is not Kim Jong-Il's weapons programme, but China, which would never tolerate either serious military or economic actions against the regime. Also you might care to look a little more deeply into the whole course of Korean history. Then you might really begin to understand why China would not in any light sense consider invasion.Clio the Muse 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Are you claiming that only people who have visited NK are qualified to comment ? Have you ? StuRat 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Yes; I have. But you entirely miss the point. To make the kind of sweeping assertion you have you either need direct experience, or you need to have looked into the question in some depth. Your statement is so far removed from the facts that it is patently obvious that you have neither the experience nor the insight. Your observations in the matter are therefore fatuously incorrect. Clio the Muse 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you, Clio, for illustrating my point so well. The only arguments you offered that my POV was incorrect, and that yours was correct, was that you had visited the country (a poor attempt at an argument from authority), and your circular reasoning that A) my argument is incorrect, therefore B) this shows I don't know what I'm talking about, therefore C) since I don't know what I'm talking about my argument must be incorrect. I then went on to explain the difference between what NK claims (that they are worried about a US invasion) and what they actually believe (that by using the "we're scared of a US invasion" card, they may be able to hold on to their nuclear weapons and also get financial aid for their crumbling economy). Had Clio actually provided any evidence of her POV, or that mine was wrong, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now. StuRat 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Both of them didn't provide a single reliable source. A.Z. 23:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, Clio did not, but I did. See the full discussion here (note that Clio gave the wrong date): Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_January_6#North_Korea_Solutions. StuRat 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Please don't revert war over this, Clio. Since StuRat inserted this, not one person has expressed support for it (not even A.Z.), and at least four have expressed that they think it is not required. The consensus is looking very much like there is no support for its inclusion, if this doesn't change it will be removed. Rockpocket 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you, Rockpocket. I do take your point, and I hate revert wars. But I see this addition as nothing more than a paper thin attack against me, confirmed by Mr Rat's subsequent elaboration. I would prefer the hate fest to be confined to Wikiversity. Clio the Muse 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Support for what? What is it over which she wants to revert war? A.Z. 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see. Clio is also against forbidding arguments from authority. I am against this as well. We have to assume that any and all logical fallacies are inherently forbidden, and we should not have to state that anywhere, as they are no more than lies. A.Z. 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) There is a major diff, you think it's not needed because such arguments are already forbidden on the Ref Desk, while Clio thinks they are perfectly fine and apparently plans to keep on making them. StuRat 23:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC) How amusingly eccentric of her, to defend her right to use logical fallacies on the desk. A.Z. 00:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC) There are many people here with sufficient wit to know exactly the point I was making in my Korea argument. But for all others it was simply this: think, experience, read, reflect before making blanket pronouncements. Clio the Muse 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC) And your "evidence" that I didn't do those things is apparently that you disagree with my answer. This is not acceptable evidence, nor should you even be commenting on the fitness of other editor to offer a response. Your arguments should be backed up by facts, not ad hominem attacks and argument from authority. The fact that this type of argumentative style is still defended shows how badly we need to say that this is not permitted on the Ref Desk. StuRat 23:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC) We don't need to say that, because no-one is taking her seriously. You disprove her argument by showing that it is fallacious, and that's it. A.Z. 23:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I believe some people do fall for such logical fallacies. And, even if they don't, it still wastes time and energy to debunk each occurrence. StuRat 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) So, you wish to delete her posts everytime she resorts to fallacies? If someone falls for it, then that is a huge problem that should be dealt it. No-one should fall for fallacies! Every human being is capable of knowing on their own how to identify a fallacy when they see one (though they may make mistakes), so there's no need to patrol what they are going to be able to see or to filter the logical fallacies. Let them be; you may be the one that is wrong about them. If you are really right, you should be able to prove it: no sources are needed to show that an argument is logically fallacious. A.Z. 00:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I don't wish to delete them, I wish her, and others, to stop using such faulty logic, and instead provide actual evidence. StuRat 00:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I wish the very same thing that you do, then. I only think that your suggestion will not be effective at all in convincing her and others to do that. A.Z. 00:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC) If some Admin would have pointed out to her that personal attacks are not allowed, perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to restate it here (she ignores it when non-Admins say it). But, they don't, so it is. StuRat 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC) The dialogue between you two makes me think of the kinds of relief the Bard intercalated in his most tragic plays.  --LambiamTalk 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Touché! It certainly provides me with some comic diversion, Lambaim. Clio the Muse 00:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Maybe you should ask him to marry you, since you both have the same tastes. The Humanities desk is but a click away. A.Z. 00:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Perhaps Lambian and Clio can be our new Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. StuRat 00:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The Chilling Effect

Off topic discussion #2
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently noticed a very disturbing sign at the RefDesk. No, this isn't another one of my personal attacks against Clio, in fact it really has little to do with what she said and all to do with the response by AMP'd here [13]. To quote: "I will not go the way of Loomis and squabble with the Muse". Clio can say whatever she wishes, and I of course am committed to stearing clear of her for the sake of civility. What's really disturbing about the whole thing is that my recent block seems to have had a chilling effect, at least for AMP'd, and God knows how many others who would otherwise respond with their views, but don't, due to the precedent I'm unfortunately partially responsible for setting. Who knows what ideas we all may have lost out on due to the fact that AMP'd, and likely many others feel forced to hold back from expressing themselves if such expression is in disagreement with an "elite class" of certain other editors, against whom disagreement is felt to be forbidden. As I said, I fully understand that it's best for me to avoid any direct confrontation with her, and I maintain my pledge to continue in that manner. The troubling part is that others have also been sent the signal that they too dare not disagree with her. The chilling effect is effectively the death knell for a project such as the RefDesk. I'm not sure what sort of guideline would be helpful in reversing it. All I know is that this development must be dealt with somehow. Lewis 23:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Revoke WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for the reference desk. A.Z. 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC) A general observation here for all editors. I enjoy rational debate and intellectual exchanges of all kinds, exchanges with those who are able to avoid personalising issues to an absurd degree of irrationality; all those, in other words, who are able to avoid twisting and misinterpreting my words out of all context. Anyway, here we go, here we go, here we go. Clio the Muse 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I am in favor of you being able to say that because I am against forbidding personal attacks. A.Z. 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Hmm...yet another unprovoked personal attack. What to do...what to do... Well, I won't be baited this time around. All I'll do is sum up the foregoing: First I stated that I was bothered by the fact that AMP'd felt gagged. You can sift through my words with the most powerful of magnifying glasses and the finest of fine toothed combs, but nowhere, nowhere in my post was there anything even close to a personal attack. A.Z. then responded with his suggestion, which I dare say, is a rather drastic one, and one I hope we'll never have to resort to. And finally, Clio graced us with her presence to basically personally attack me as: Irrational Unintellectual One who personalizes issues to an absurd degree of irrationality Unable to avoid twisting and misinterpreting her words out of context Well, of course those are hurtful remarks, yet I refuse to reply in kind. Actually, I'm far more curious about what AMP'd wanted to say but didn't out of fear of the same hurtful treatment. I'd say to A.Z. that I consider his suggestions to be a last resort. Personally, I would suggest that before taking such drastic measures, we once and for all draft a guideline concerning fairness. Last time I spoke of fairness, Friday reacted as though I had uttered a four-letter word. My suggestion, therefore, is that among the guidelines, we once and for all draft a guideline that commits the Admins to apply all the other guidelines equally and fairly among ALL contributors, without bias. Having just been personally attacked, and having not responded in kind, I now fully expect an Admin to issue Clio a warning, censuring her for her unprovoked personal attack. Failing that, I'm with A.Z. If such guidelines can't be implemented equally and fairly among ALL contributors, they do more harm than good and must be scrapped. Lewis 00:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC) When I saw AMP'd's remark, I took it for a joke.  --LambiamTalk 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC) No problem if it was a joke. I can tell you that I myself am afraid of being blocked indefinitely because of the administrator protection that people like Clio the Muse have. The administrators seem to be too stupid to realize that disguised personal attacks are much worse than the honest and straightforward ones. A.Z. 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I don't want any administrator to issue her a warning yet because of the personal attacks on me: I'm against that. But I want the administrators to promise that, if they ever issue me a warning because of any personal attacks on her, then they will immediately issue her all the various warnings for all her previous personal attacks on me. A.Z. 00:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Ah! But A.Z.! That would require the Admins to actually act with that ugly, inappropriate requirement known as fairness! To date, I've only come across one Admin who's actually acknowledged that fairness is indeed a good thing. Maybe I'll ask him for his take on the whole thing. Lewis 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Good luck getting them to agree to that. BTW, since this thread seems unrelated to the guidelines, but rather to Admin behavior, would anyone object if I moved this thread to my talk page ? StuRat 00:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I will not have my words on your talk page. And I want this whole thing left here. Clio the Muse 00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I certainly don't want your words there, either, but this topic seems totally unrelated to the Ref Desk guidelines, so should be moved somewhere. StuRat 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Take it all to the farcical Wikiversity, then, minus my comments, to that place where people seemingly believe in black magic and the like. Clio the Muse 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC) This whole thing is from the start a problem all about administrators! That's why I think it is more effective to try and change the RfA once and for all, StuRat. These guidelines are but a waste of time if adminship doesn't change: they're like trying to change a minor little law in a country ruled by a dictatorship. There is a cabal, and we need to acknowledge that and say it out loud, so we can eventually bring it down. The cabal is obviously manipulative and evil, or else they would never have the powers that they have. The whole thing starts with those ridiculous RfAs. The people selected by that evil process chose to protect Clio the Muse; our only choice is to fight them! A.Z. 01:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Please go and do it somewhere else.  --LambiamTalk 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Guys, move this, leave it, delete it, do whatever you want with it, I give up. Lewis 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Do not give up, Lewis: there are still decent people here. Stop telling me to do it somewhere else, Lambiam. My comments on this page were pertinent to this page. I'll comment on other pages things pertinent to other pages. A.Z. 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (this was written before "Enough! Give it up! was posted below) Hi Lewis. Given what we've been discussing recently by email, I thought I'd come in at this point. Firstly, I'm sure you remember what Churchill said about giving up. Enough said. You've called what Clio wrote a "personal attack". But was it? She didn't mention your name, and prefaced her remarks with "A general observation here for all editors". (By comparison, you did mention her name in your message, although that was obviously necessary to provide the context). She talked about the kinds of people she enjoys debating, ie. those who avoid "personalising", "twisting" and "misinterpreting" her words. If you really believe you don't engage in such behaviours, then how can you conclude that Clio's remarks apply to you? Regardless of who she may have had in mind, she could well be justified in thinking "If the cap fits ..." (and I'm not saying it does fit, just so we're clear on that). I think Clio's "here we go, here we go, here we go" was unfair, and certainly incommensurate with what I see as your positive, constructive, serious-minded and well-intended proposal. Her remark could be interpreted as baiting, something best dealt with by refusing to rise to the bait. It might also indicate that she is not as far down the track of letting go of old disputes as you are. Equally, if you want to avoid confrontation with Clio, you might think about avoiding such cynical phrases as "Finally, Clio graced us with her presence". Back to the original question, I also took AMP'd's comment as a joke, and it looked very much like you also regarded it as such at the time ("Wise choice, AMP'd! Ok I'll shut up now."). I have certainly disagreed with Clio recently (see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Royal maladies – 4th post down), and have no qualms in disagreeing with anyone who says something I don't accept, no matter what our previous history may have been. Cheers -- JackofOz 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Enough! Give it up! I have never understood this feud between Loomis and Clio, I have never understood how StuRat (and now apparently A.Z.) got sucked in, but one thing I thought I understood was that you two were supposed to stay away from, and stop baiting, each other! So why are you here baiting and debating each other?!? This is a huge waste of time and energy, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing! Drop it, please, drop it! —Steve Summit (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Steve, I would certainly be pleased if you, or some other user, decided to send this whole 'Chilling Effect' thread into the oblivion where it belongs. Clio the Muse 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

, but not limited to,

I agree with Friday[14] that the words italicized in "The Wikipedia reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to, but not limited to, those of a library reference desk", the first sentence of the lead paragraph, are an unnecessary complication and do not belong there. While working hard to keep assuming good faith, but fearing this may be a losing battle, I cannot help observe that insistence on presenting an extended view of the RD services, even in this very first shot at an explanation of what the RD is, fits a pattern of trying to subvert the purpose of the reference desk by morphing it from an information service into a discussion facility.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an attempt to change the Ref Desk, but to accurately describe it as it currently operates. We clearly do many things beyond what a brick and mortar Ref Desk does, like checking math homework, giving computer programming advice, identifying insects, interpreting song lyrics, etc. To state otherwise is simply incorrect. StuRat 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If the guideline were to state: The Wikipedia Reference Desk never does anything beyond what a brick and mortar Ref Desk does, that would, indeed, be incorrect. But it does not state that. If you do not state everything that may possibly be true, it does not mean that what you state is incorrect. For example, our article on Wikipedia does not mention any function beyond that of an encyclopedia in its lead paragraph – in fact, not at all in the whole article, although it goes into considerable detail on how the project operates. Does this mean the article on Wikipedia is incorrect, because it does not mention the occasional checking of homework at the Reference Desk (and, in fact, not even the existence of a Reference Desk)? Of course not. Our article on the New York Public Library also does not mention their reference desk, although they do have one[15], and even an on-line information service[16]. The issue at hand is: is the lead sentence better with or without the parenthetical phrase? I say: it is better without. The phrase conveys absolutely no useful information to anyone reading the introduction. If they already know how the RD operates, they don't need to read the introduction. If they are new and are trying to figure out its function from this sentence – which is only the very first sentence of a much longer text – then it is a complication that does not tell anything about how the RD operates. Would you really, truly, be in favour of changing the lead sentence of our article Adze from "The tool known as the adze (adz in US) (IPA: /ædz/) serves for smoothing rough-cut wood in hand woodworking" to "The tool known as the adze (adz in US) (IPA: /ædz/) serves, among other possible uses, for smoothing rough-cut wood in hand woodworking", because (as the article states itself) the adze can be used for other cutting operations? Or to complicate the lead sentence of Telephone because it only mentions sound, and not the use of the telephone for transmitting images? Let us keep these guidelines simple and focus on useful advice to respondents.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In many of those cases, the answer is yes, I would widen the articles: I would say that Wikipedia strives to exceed the limitations of a paper encyclopedia, I do think the addition of sections on the New York Library's ref desk and on-line information service would improve that article, I do think the opening sentence from the adze article should hint at them having multiple uses, I do think the telephone article should mention that they can be used to transmit sound or other information. A newbie reading these guidelines (or just scanning the first few lines) should not feel discouraged from asking a question which would be discouraged at a brick and mortar library, such as any of the examples I gave previously. StuRat 09:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Then let me simply note that we fundamentally disagree on the best ways of presenting information.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. StuRat 10:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We already exceed what a real ref desk can do- people from all over the world can ask questions. If we want "but not limited to" we should have in mind something specific, I would think. Otherwise it's pretty meaningless. I'm not sure I see how checking homework is something we ought to be encouraging, myself. Friday (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW I concur with Lambiam on an additional thing- this implication that the ref desk will somehow rise up and save the world, if only we unshackle it by encouraging discussion of the world at large, is so bizarre as to not really be worth much consideration. I note a distinct lack of discussion forums saving the world, despite the internet being full of them, so I hope I'll be forgiven for not finding this a terribly compelling argument. Friday (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I fear the "but not limited to" phrase would be used to justify all kinds of nonsense, despite the subsequent information on "what the ref desk is not." --LarryMac 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Friday, Lambiam, LarryMac and (if I interpret her correctly) Clio: To muddle up the lead sentence with an unclear phrase that could be read as opening up the desk for almost any other uses is a really bad idea. --mglg_(talk) 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with those above. The lead phrase, out of any, is the one that should be most clear and succinct.Highlighting superfluous weasal words simply muddies the water, in my opinion. Rockpocket 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "not limited to" is not weasel words, it's quite clear, meaning the online Ref Desk does more than a brick and mortar Ref Desk. StuRat 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Its not specific, so it tells us nothing except provide a handwaving get-out clause for whatever anyone wishes to use it for. Rockpocket 02:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused at the type of examples the catch all " but not limited to" is trying embrace. StuRat mentions homework but I think i missed the specific discussion, is there a diff? For me this phrase does nothing but cause trouble and I disagree with its insertion in this guideline. Technically anything goes under such wording and it will lead to wikilaywering in the future rather than a preferred common sense approach. Besides, an anything goes clause makes the whole guideline void. If without this wording answering potential homework questions was somehow banned i might see the point but this is far from the case. David D. (Talk) 19:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone only refers to the homework example, while I gave several other examples as the 2nd response for this section. Here they are again:

"This isn't an attempt to change the Ref Desk, but to accurately describe it as it currently operates. We clearly do many things beyond what a brick and mortar Ref Desk does, like checking math homework, giving computer programming advice, identifying insects, interpreting song lyrics, etc. To state otherwise is simply incorrect." StuRat 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Sitting on the fence can be quite an uncomfortable position, especially in the case of a barbed wire fence. :-) StuRat 03:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for asking questions.

Shouldnt there be some gidelines for asking the questions as well?--HappyEater 12:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

See above, #What about question guidelines?.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Archived

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

Change of status

Jack partying like it's 1999. This person is far too handsome (or ugly, I can't quite tell which) to be JackofOz; will the real Jack please identify himself?

I see that, as of yesterday, the formerly "proposed guidelines" are now "guidelines", courtesy of Friday. I have no problem with that per se, and I'm glad that they're now out there.

But I have a question about the process, for my own illumination for future reference. Who has the authority to say that that which was once proposed has now become accepted, and why? (I'm not disputing Friday's action here, just enquiring). Was it a case of there being general agreement about the main bulk of the text, with discussion continuing only about relatively minor matters, and Friday recognised that that was the case and acted accordingly? Would it have been inappropriate for any one of us to have come to same viewpoint and do what Friday did?

In any case, it slipped under my radar until just now. I just think we need to acknowledge that an important milestone occurred yesterday, because otherwise it would have gone unheralded. A lot of people have put a lot of time and effort into getting these guidelines to the stage they're now at. I think that congratulations all around are in order. And thanks particularly to Friday for spotting the elephant in the room. So, where's the party?

Finally, I know that this is a a wiki and anyone can change anything. But maybe we ought to think about a slightly different approach to future amendments to the guidelines. What I'm suggesting is that any future changes (other than obvious typos, of which there don't seem to be any at the moment) be discussed at the talk page first, not just made unilaterally. I'm just thinking aloud here. Maybe this wouldn't work, because we can't physically prevent people from just editing the guidelines. On the other hand, changes sometime get made and then get reverted by the next editor who doesn't agree with them. So, if we agreed to flag proposed changes first, and then make them only with consensus, it might help avoid some of the hostility that has occurred during the recent past. Maybe a message on the guidelines page telling people not to change them without prior discussion would be useful. JackofOz 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been some debate up there ^^ for a week or so about who has serious issues about the guide lines as they stand, what needs to be done to make them acceptable to those people and whether there is objections to it going live. Anyone could have made the change at any time, but it would simply have been reverted if there was no consensus. I, personally, think they are stable enough to be proper guidelines now and I get the feeling that is shared by the majority of contributors. I would also support discussion rather than unilateral changes from now on. However, I there there are enough people watching that a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle would also work (this is what seems to have been happening over the last few days anyway). Rockpocket 06:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There is no defined process; guideline proposals become guidelines when they have reached the consensus stage, and there is no "canonical" method for detecting when a consensus is reached. At some point in the past they were guidelines, until someone noticed that some regular contributors were completely ignoring them, and boldly replaced the box by something like "failed proposal – kept for historical reasons". Hereupon a protracted and tiring process started of trying to renegotiate towards consensus. For quite some time now we had been inviting editors who saw dealbreakers to speak up, as in this request:

"StuRat, you've twice removed the guideline tag, reverting two different editors in the process. Your objections that we know of have been answered. You're saying there are remaining dealbreaker by your reversion, but you have not said what they are. If you're going to say it's not a guideline yet, you have to explain why."[17]

No answer has been forthcoming; moreover, based on the discussions, I must say that we may perhaps not all agree on all details of all points, but I see broad consensus among almost all contributors that these are workable as guidelines (assuming they are applied in good faith with a modicum of common sense, as opposed to wikilawyering with absurd interpretations). So I'm glad someone was bold enough to take the step.

I occasionally edit other guidelines, and even policy pages, to tweak the text to something clearer, or simpler, or better expressing what I feel the intention to be (for example, this edit). If I think the change is not controversial, I just go ahead and do it. Most of the time I am not reverted. If I think the change may be controversial, then, depending on the case, I will either apply it but flag the action on the talk page, or only propose the change there. If only everyone behaved sensibly, that would also be fine here.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered and discussed many of the "dealbreakers", as have others, only to be ignored in the discussions and have their changes reverted. The page has now been fully protected in a form that fully favors one POV, denying any further possibility of us reaching a compromise version. StuRat 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

People are more likely to cooperate with what they perceive as a good faith effort to improve the guidelines than what they see as unreasonable objections and wikilawyering. If you find that people are ignoring you, it may be that they've simply given up. Friday (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has any special privilege in calling a thing a guideline. I was bolder than I'd normally be because I thought this situation needed it. Friday (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Admins do, as you changed it to a guideline, and another Admin later locked it down, preventing anyone else from reverting you. Perhaps this should be called the BOLD, lockdown to prevent a revert, pretend to discuss while really ignoring any arguments from other POVs cycle. StuRat 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideally

Ideally, one has inexhaustible patience in dealing with other editors. Clearly, I am not ideal.

On page Wikipedia talk:External links/workshop, one of many examples, I find the text

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, in which case the link would remain as a reference. However, in some cases this is not possible because of a site's copyright issues, unencyclopedic level of detail, or other reasons.

If I understand one of our esteemed editors, they would maintain that – since integration is clearly not always ideal (for copyright reasons) – the word ideally is misplaced here and should be removed. I, on the other hand, think it is used quite aptly here and removing it makes the text less clear. Likewise, in our guidelines, I think that

Ideally, answers will refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources

is better than the weaselly

In many cases, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources

Am I mistaken?  --Lambiam^Talk 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken, "ideally" implies that this should be done in all cases, if possible, while this is not true for any of the examples I gave previously. StuRat 06:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, could you repeat the examples in which there are relevant Wikipedia articles to which, however, the response should preferentially not link? I must have missed something.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ideally" implies it should be done if it can be done. How on earth can linking to a relevant article or reliable source not be an ideal we should be strongly encouraging in all possible cases? Rockpocket 07:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "ideally" means that answers which don't refer to an article are somehow second-rate, when, in fact, for many questions there is no relevant article. This does not make answers to such questions second-rate, and we should not imply that it does. StuRat 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Who mentioned second rate, this appraers to be your interpretation not what anyone has said or meant. I believe your interpretation is incorrect, and the word 'ideally' does not imply "'this should be done in all cases" but "'where possible". Clearly it is not always possible. David D. (Talk) 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The two relevant defs under Wiktionary:Ideal are:

1) being optimal or relating to the best option for something.

2) being perfect, having no flaws or defects.

Neither of these apply here. Providing sources is not always the "best option" for all questions. And, an answer without sources is not always "flawed" or containing "defects". StuRat 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Being optimal" (def one) is not incompatible with "Clearly it is not always possible". This has become tedious. David D. (Talk) 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You do at least see that def two implies that answers without sources are flawed, don't you ? StuRat 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone claiming the usage of def two in this case? David D. (Talk) 19:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless it is clarified, many will interpret it that way, as I did. StuRat 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, you were thinking it meant def two, or at least, might be interpreted as such. Remind me, what is your preferred wording again? David D. (Talk) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I changed "Ideally" to "In many cases": [18]. To me that made it clear that sources are useful in many cases, but not all, something "ideally" doesn't make clear at all. This seemed like such an obvious and minor change to me, I had no idea I would get so much flack for it. StuRat 03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine a style guide that advises its reader: Ideally, your prose will be clear and pithy. This clear and pithy recommendation will not ban transparent but long-winded prose; in fact, it recognizes that the ideals of clarity and concision are not always easily combined. If you change this counsel to In many cases, your prose should be clear and pithy, you take away its power, and trigger the reader's expectation that a list of exceptions is to follow. In the absence of further elucidation when your prose should not be clear and pithy, the altered instruction is pointless as a guide.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a correct usage of the term, since the goal is for all writing to be clear. The goal is not for all Ref Desk responses to contain refs, however, so this is not the correct term to use here. StuRat 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:

i·de·al·ly – adverb

1. in accordance with an ideal; perfectly.
2. in theory or principle.
3. in idea, thought, or imagination.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

i·de·al·ly, adv.

1. In conformity with an ideal; perfectly.
2. In theory or imagination; theoretically.

Some more examples of real-world use:

• The astrometric grid is a model of the positions and motions of a carefully selected collection of astronomical objects. ... Ideally the grid will consist of objects with no companions and of constant magnitude that are uniformly distributed over the entire celestial sphere.[19] Meaning: although, for obvious reasons, we can't reach this ideal situation, we try to approximate it.

• Ideally, the compost pile should be at least three feet wide by three feet deep by three feet tall (one cubic yard). ... However, piles can be larger or smaller and work just fine if managed well.[20]

• Ideally, such a workshop is held at district level because this is the level that is closest and most relevant to local people in terms of stakeholder participation and knowledge on the local situation.[21] Meaning: but there may of course be other concerns and issues making this infeasible.

• Ideally, we are looking for someone with a natural resources background who can program in C, Fortran, Basic, and/or Visual Basic and who knows Oracle.[22] Meaning: but we will seriously consider other qualified and strong candidates, for example who don't know C but know Java well.

The examples could be extended endlessly.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

Is it OK for respondents to offer answers based on guesswork or speculation? I feel that that should be strongly discouraged. Obviously, not everyone agrees.[23] What do others think?  --Lambiam^Talk 07:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Lambian. It should be strongly discouraged in the guidelines. Rockpocket 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise the whole thing is a nonsense. Clio the Muse 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree, but I freely admit to this. However, I quite clearly labelled my response as speculation, and I don't think the questioner gave us a lot to work with. As in all cases, common sense should prevail, but more and more I think these guidelines are being designed to beat every last lick of common sense from all of us. --LarryMac 11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiLawyering.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously an answer that points to reliable sources is best. But an answer that is speculation or a guess or opinion is better than no answer at all - as long as it is clearly labelled as such, as in LarryMac's example. Which is more or less what the Provide source information section says at the moment, so that is fine. I wouldn't want to see the guidelines used as a mandate for deleting unsourced answers - that really would be WikiLawyering. Gandalf61 13:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Off topic discussion #3
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree, it's OK if it is labelled as such. People should make it more clear when they are speculating. Clio the Muse should have done so, but she didn't even recognize that she was speculating when she said: "Pyongyang perceives America as the greatest threat to its security, a fear made all the worse by the invasion of Iraq, the first link in Bush's Axis of Evil. The best guarantee of North Korean integrity is not Kim Jong-Il's weapons programme, but China, which would never tolerate either serious military or economic actions against the regime." A.Z. 15:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC) A.Z. these adversarial posts have to stop. Ask for a source or look for a source but stop attacking the user. It's not like these types of opinions are not all over the editorial pages of major newspapers in all countries. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC) The point is that it was speculation, since it wasn't written in the form "so-and-so believes X, and here's a source that proves that's what they believe", and the Ref Desk is absolutely full of such speculation. I'm not saying that speculation is bad, per se, but rather agree with A.Z. that it ought to continue to be allowed, so long as it is properly identified as such. Many questions can't be answered without speculation. Our guidelines should reflect this. StuRat 17:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Please, then, return to this section of the Computing desk and mark your entries as speculation, as they were completely incorrect for the macro language in question. --LarryMac 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) OK, I've now done so. StuRat 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I understand the point but there is absolutely no need to personalise the point. Trying to score points against others to make a point dilutes anything of worth in the comment. We know where this is leading and it needs to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible, especially given the productive discussion that has been ocurring recently. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Having one editor say they are opposed to speculation, when they engage in such speculation themselves, IMHO, was something that needed to be clarified, which is what A.Z. did. StuRat 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC) When does this tit for tat stop? David D. (Talk) 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC) What "tit for tat" are you talking about ? If I claimed I was opposed to something and engaged in it myself, I'd expect to have that brought to my attention, wouldn't you ? StuRat 18:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Discuss the issue not the people. Continually pointing fingers is a way to prolong arguments not resolve them. David D. (Talk) 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) We are discussing the issue. StuRat 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC) My response was a polemical retort to a groundless assertion. If you are incapable of even understanding that simple point it is time you considered taking your 'talents' elsewhere. Clio the Muse 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I have no idea what you mean, and I saw no convincing reason for me to take my talents elsewhere. A.Z. 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Do not worry about this, David: everyone can see exactly how twisted, perverted and personalised this whole thing is becoming, a la the very funny Wikiversity. It's time for us to agree guidelines by majority, not consensus, because the offensive against Clio has clearly become the chief strategy for some. Clio the Muse 18:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC) When Clio says "some", she means Lewis, StuRat and A.Z., just so everyone knows. When she says "everyone", well, that's a mistery. A.Z. 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) That old black magic has me in it's spell. Clio the Muse 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have archived this because, I feel, it reached its natural conclusion and, further continuation is not constructive in establishing guidelines. David D. (Talk) 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

The unarchival of the discussion above has been requested by the first user signed below. There is no evidence that further continuation is not constructive in establishing guidelines. The users involved were discussing pertinent issues. If consensus is not gained opposing the request, the discussion will be unarchived.

• Support A.Z. 15:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Discussing editors instead of issues is not helpful in improving the guidelines. We've had enough brushfires as it is.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• We are not discussing the editors. A.Z. 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you have something personal to say, take it to a talkpage. Its not constructive for these guidelines. Rockpocket 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have nothing personal to say right now, and the discussion was focused on the topic "speculation". A.Z. 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines locked down to favor one POV

The guidelines page can now only be edited by Admins. This change was made, of course, after it was reverted to favor the POV of the Admins here. Any attempt to get a change made so it no longer favors the Admin POV, will now require an approval from those same Admins, which obviously isn't going to happen. I therefore consider these guidelines to be invalid, as there is no mechanism to ensure that they reflect the consensus. StuRat 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no admin POV here. There are opinons from many users some of whom are not admins. Admins are users too, they do not always wear their admin hat. The fact the guideline cannot be edited at this moment in time does not prevent further discussion on the talk page, although it sounds as if it might prevent you from participating. That would be a shame but your choice. Why do you consider that the current guideline does not reflect the current consensus? David D. (Talk) 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to look at speculation, most people here engage in it, although some deny it. To have a guideline which bans this current practice is absurd. Yet, we can't fix the guideline. Changing a page to favor one POV and then locking it down is also not allowed. StuRat 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider that the current guideline does not reflect the current consensus? David D. (Talk) 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you an example. I suppose it's a bit like Prohibition, where many politicians claimed that they didn't drink alcohol, and voted to ban it, much to the detriment of the US. I fear the hypocrisy of those who claim to oppose speculation, when they really support it (at least when they engage in it themselves or somebody they agree with does), has now led to the same Prohibition era here, much to the detriment of the Ref Desk. StuRat 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If the evil guideline eats some of your speculation, let us know and we'll take it out back and flog it. Friday (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you start tossing around unfounded allegations, StuRat, you should remember WP:AGF. Both the request for protection and the protection itself was made independent of "the admins here." Therefore these allegations of conspiracy are to suggest Majorly, in particular, abused his position. Secondly, you should note that you appear to be alone in countering the edits of, at my estimation, 4 other people. If you are unhappy the page was protected, perhaps you should have thought of that before edit-warring. Finally, when was the last time anyone removed anything from the desk just because it was speculative? Yes, speculation is inevitable sometimes due to the nature or phrasing of the questions asked. Is that a problem? Not particularly. Is it something we should be encouraging? No. In other words its tolarable for the questions where its unavoidable, but not when it is avoidable. Thats were common sense comes in. Rockpocket 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The current guidelines say that speculation is not allowed. This is simply incorrect, as you seem to recognize above. Where is this request for a lockdown, anyway ? User:Majorly hardly seems independent, as he recently tangled with A.Z., I believe. And there likely would have been more balance in the reverts had the lockdown not been timed to take effect while the balance favored one POV. StuRat 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines only say that we expect respondents to provide answers that are factually correct, and not just based on guesswork or speculation. It does not say verboten. If you try to understand what the intention of this sentence is – I know this is difficult, but if you try really hard, who knows, you might succeed – then perhaps it will dawn on you that this simply means that if a questioner asks what the capital of Nigeria is, you do not blurt off "Lagos" as if you know it just because you know it is a big city in Nigeria and most capitals are larger cities, or similar ill-informed and incorrect responses. Too many responses that are given are plain wrong, most of which could easily have been checked by the respondent before responding. The text you have a problem with is in the lead paragraph, which – as is usual in articles – aims to give a concise overview of these guidelines, establishing context, and summarizing the most important points of what is handled in more detail later. Do not read this as if you are a lawyer, please. It is just a corollary of the overarching aim that we strive to give the answer that best provides the information sought by the questioner. We keep the Wikitrout at hand, to be promptly used in emergencies.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not being "concise" to say something that is simply wrong, in this case that speculation is not allowed, when it clearly is. StuRat 20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is only "simply" wrong if you insist on interpreting it in an unreasonable way. Do you really not understand the intention? Do you really want to change this into: "No speculation is allowed except for the cases listed in §§1213–1225, 1460a and 1462"? Or are you trying to show that the new tag near the top of the page is "simply" right?  --Lambiam^Talk 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone read "refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork or speculation" and not see this as banning speculation ? StuRat 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We may understand one another, now. I suggest and I will accept that the guidelines say: "If a questioner asks what the capital of Nigeria is, you do not blurt off "Lagos" as if you know it just because you know it is a big city in Nigeria and most capitals are larger cities, or similar ill-informed and incorrect responses." This should be written instead of the current sentence. I will not interpret this to mean that it would be, for instance, OK to say that the capital of Brazil is Rio de Janeiro, only because it wasn't the capital of Nigeria that people asked for. I think this is a really good opportunity to achieve real consensus. I think everyone can abide to that phrasing and everyone will be happy. A.Z. 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you the same person who wrote:I think it's rude to say "this is not a chatroom". It looks as if people needed someone to be telling them what to do, because they would start talking about their mom's and cat's if no one told them "hey, this is not a chatroom!"? I think A.Z. forgot to change his easily guessable password, and now some rude person has hijacked his account.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that what you wrote now is rude. A.Z. 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines should not be protected, and this talk page should not be semi-protected. (IMO.) --Steve Summit (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. StuRat 15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and it looks like they're set to expire in a couple hours anyway. Friday (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag

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

Unfortunately

Unfortunately it looks like we have to follow the procedure JackofOz gave above:

What I'm suggesting is that any future changes (other than obvious typos, of which there don't seem to be any at the moment) be discussed at the talk page first, not just made unilaterally. I'm just thinking aloud here. Maybe this wouldn't work, because we can't physically prevent people from just editing the guidelines. On the other hand, changes sometime get made and then get reverted by the next editor who doesn't agree with them. So, if we agreed to flag proposed changes first, and then make them only with consensus, it might help avoid some of the hostility that has occurred during the recent past. Maybe a message on the guidelines page telling people not to change them without prior discussion would be useful.

But, as we all have seen, again and again each discussion point gets bogged down in a mist of pettyfoggery mixed with (sometimes thinly) veiled personal attacks, which is exhausting and irritating to the participants. I'm not participating here because I like it, but because I want to see guidelines established that allow us to move on and not run indefinitely in the same rut. Unless we come up with some discussion protocol, discussion on proposed changes will not make the hostility any less, I fear. Perhaps each proposal for change should follow a format similar to AfD debates: (1) a header ==PfC : Some Label==; (2) a description of the proposed change with a succint rationale; to be followed by (3) a succession of argued Support or Reject statements. Someone non-partisan should close after say 5 days. (Just trying.)  --Lambiam^Talk 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I vote for Jack as the "non-partisan". StuRat 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Having been out of town for a day and a half, I've just seen this. I disagree that any one editor should have the power to have the final say about these matters. I certainly don't want to be in that position. I want to have the freedom to make own, at times highly partisan, comments on whatever the issue is. Prior to the early 1960s, whenever the British Conservative Party needed a new leader, there was no formal process involving anything so tawdry as canvassing support for candidates or actually voting - the new leader would simply "emerge" and, if they were in government, present himself (it was always a him back then) to the monarch, who would then choose him as the new Prime Minister (although he/she had the discretion to choose another person). How the party could tell exactly who that person was, I have no idea. And neither did they in the end, which is why there was a debacle when Harold MacMillan resigned (see Alec Douglas-Home#Appointment as Prime Minister), and they changed their system. However, consensus on Wikipedia seems to operate on much the same lines as the Conservatives did back then. Sorry for this digression, but it seemed strangely relevant. JackofOz 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an unreasonable approach, but I'm not convinced it solves the problem we have. If people write on the talk page with the intention of arguing endlessly rather than with the intention of reaching a workable solution, no amount of different formatting will make their contributions constructive. Friday (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We would have a cut-off for each debate of 5 days. Now the average discussion period required for each change is about 18262 days.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I can see the benefit there. Not sure where we'll get the steady stream of volunteer discussion closers, but it could be worth trying. Friday (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Off topic discussion #4
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's not surprising you would favor this, Friday, after having reverted to your version (in violation of your RFA promise to follow the one revert rule), prior to the lockdown. You must have felt this revert was quite important to violate your promise, knowing that it would be locked down soon and thus you had to ensure that your version was current when this occurred StuRat 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. If I really controlled some vast conspiracy, do you think I'd bother usnig it on Wikipedia? Friday (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC) It's not a "vast conspiracy", it only takes one Admin, who cares more about "winning" than about their RFA promises. StuRat 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC) If you must pick a fight with me about my RFA, please keep it at User_talk:Friday#I_thought_you_promised_to_follow_the_WP:1RR_rule_in_your_RFA. This page is for constructive discussion of the ref desk guidelines. Friday (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) It's hardly "picking a fight" (reverting to your version before the page is locked down is "picking a fight"), but I will keep the discussion there, as it may distract from setting up a process to discuss changes to the guidelines. StuRat 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I am confused about your comment, StuRat. Unless you're seriously arguing that Friday, Radiant!, and Majorly all colluded and conspired to modify the page, request page protection, and actually protect the page just to stymie you, your parenthetical remark above has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. I'd like to add my support to Friday's request that you keep such off-topic, unrelated comments off this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have archived this because, I feel, it reached its natural conclusion and, further continuation is not constructive in establishing guidelines. David D. (Talk) 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there some procedure for reaching consensus in cases in which a small but active minority keeps raising objections based on the demand that every sentence in the text can only be interpreted in one way and can withstand even the most malicious interpretation violating all common sense, and that each sentence on its own has to tell the full story to boot, instead of being interpreted in context, and rejects all explanations by coming up with more such petty objections? I am not here to be part of a high-school debating club. There has to be some way for getting this to some form of closure.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting that the guidelines not say something untrue, like that speculation is banned on the Ref Desk, is hardly a "petty objection". StuRat 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Ban?

What is this repeated talk of "ban" here? There seems to be a disconnect in the mind of some participants between the purpose of these guidelines and their interpretation. They are here for the benefit of respondents who want to see what is expected of them. Wikipedia has many guidelines that are formulated in a prescriptive way. An example are the Talk page guidelines page, which states: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. It is hard to maintain that a contribution like this one is conducive to that purpose. In fact, the Talk page guidelines state emphatically: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views, as well as Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Does that mean that expressions of personal opinions as above are "banned"? No, but they should be discouraged, the point being that they become a problem when they start interfering with the purpose of the talk page – as they sometimes do.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's just a vocal minority of editors who tend to interpret things in the most extreme way they can, so that "such-and-such is discouraged" comes out sounding to them like "such-and-such is completely forbidden and you will be banned if you ever do it." This bizarre extremism has gotten in the way quite a bit, but there's nothing for it. I think all we can do is let it disrupt our work as little as possible. Friday (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the word "discouraged" here (although it still wouldn't be correct to say that unsourced answers are discouraged in all cases), we are talking about the word "no" as in "no speculation". That doesn't mean some speculation, or occasional speculation, it means none whatsoever. This is just plain wrong, as just about all of us engage in speculation and many questions can't be answered without it. StuRat 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And nowhere can I find the phrase "no speculation." The word "speculation" appears in the current guidelines exactly once, in the following - "refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork or speculation." This does not say "if you speculate you will be shunned, ostracized, and held up as a figure of ridicule for all to see." It's a simple line in the introductory paragraph of the guideline. When will we stop with these Through The Looking Glass semantic games? --LarryMac | Talk 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please define "semantic games" and link to the policy which says they are forbidden. Sorry, couldn't resist. Friday (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think "refrain" means if it doesn't mean "don't do it" ? StuRat 05:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In this context, I think the phrase "refrain from" means "avoid," "eschew," "resist the temptation to". Yes, I cherry-picked those synonyms from dictionary.com. Because I'm trying for a common-sense interpretation. We are not working on a legal document; again, it's a guideline: "By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory." So you know what? Do what you want. Insert whatever language you want. "The reference desk is like a library ref desk, but it's bigger, better, faster, and there are chocolate fountains and the walls are made of sponge cake and nobody grows old and nobody ever has to die." I give up. --LarryMac | Talk 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I like that text. I'm sorely tempted to replace the entire guideline with that quote – along with external links to WP:DICK and WP:SENSE – and be done with it. It's pretty much how the Desk has always been run, and it's prone to a lot less of the silly semantic bickering going on now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fairly and without bias - reprise

On 3rd May I suggested "accurately" as a more precise altermative to "fairly and without bias" - see lengthy discussion above for why. The change was part of a compromise suggested by Ten which had broad agreement. At the time Friday said "I don't think it's needed but I don't object to that either". Now Friday and EricR team up to change it back to "fairly and without bias", and Friday says "agree with Eric. "fairly and without bias" is much closer to what we're aiming at". I see it is waste of time trying to get any sort of balance into these guidelines against such unreasoning and unreasonable fanaticism and petty point scoring. I just wanted to highlight that particular switcheroo, and say that my patience with this farce is exhausted. Gandalf61 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith, wizardly one. With all of the discussion that has happened in the past week, maybe that particular item was forgotten. I see no evidence of "teaming up," but even so, to come out of the gate kicking and fighting like you have is not going to help us move forward at all. --LarryMac | Talk 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The objection that this somehow requires complete answers never held water. I don't see where the earlier discussion indicates that there was a general preference for "accurately" over "fairly and without bias". But, as I said before, "accurately and without bias" would be ok with me too. Friday (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In a fit of unreasonable fanaticism, I have replaced "fairly" with "accurately". We now return you to your farce, already in progress. Friday (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a quote from meta's NPOV page would help:

While NPOV is an ultimate goal in writing an article, it's difficult to achieve immediately as a single writer. It is thus sometimes regarded as an iterative process (as is wiki writing in general), by which opposing viewpoints compromise on language and presentation to produce a neutral description acceptable to all.

This might be viewed as an adversarial system, but hopefully a polite one. One is expected to approximate NPOV to the best of one's ability and welcome improvements brought by others in good faith...

No one is saying that a single response must represent all possible views, as the balance of the paragraph clearly states. Accurately is meaningless in this context, and i expect that an editor with some experience in article space would be confused as to why that term is wikilinked to NPOV. I didn't make this particular change because i disagree with anything you've said, but because accurately is a pretty confusing way to describe NPOV. Do you intend that we shouldn't misrepresent our sources or that we should be precise and meticulous in our responses? Is it not O.K. to just quickly summarize a viewpoint? Accurately seems to almost imply the opposite of what you intend, fairly and without bias is often wikilinked to NPOV thoughout the project and doesn't seem to cause any problems. We already have a sentence which states that partial answers are fine, why not just add in some extra explanation if you think it's required?

What we can and should expect is that editors will make some reasonable attempt in their response. Don't try and exclude other significant views or jump on the soapbox to present yours. Leave room for "improvements brought by others in good faith" instead of turning the thread into an argument. Even though we may only be providing a partial answer, we should try to do so "fairly and without bias". I'm also enough of a fanatic to think that there are some questions where we should try just a little bit harder to cover all the bases in that first response. Some of the half-troll or argumentative questions seem to cause less conflict when there is a good response right off the bat pointing to Wikipedia's coverage.—eric 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Gandalf's version. The main problem with the old version is the "without bias", which implies that all views must be presented, so as not to show bias towards any one view. This is both impossible and undesirable, as people should feel free to only respond with answers from their field of expertise, if they wish. A biologist is only expected to give the biological POV, for example, not the psychological perspective. StuRat 05:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page due to edit warring. Come on guys, you all know that discussion is better than edit warring especially when the page has already been previously protected, please get consensus on this page before you act when the protection expires. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need this. The problem right now is a single disruptive editor, not a general edit war. Friday (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

So now we vote on changes to this page? If there's behavior here which prevents reasonable consensus-building, we should address it instead of enabling it.—eric 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

PfC: guesswork & speculation

Proposal: to add to the sentence in the lead

"In a nutshell, we expect respondents to provide answers that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct"

the clause

", and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork or speculation".

Rationale: The tendency to give responses based on guesswork or speculation often leads to incorrect answers and should be discouraged. Indeed, the main text of these guidelines does so, and it is fitting to include this aspect in the lead paragraphs.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. --LarryMac | Talk 13:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely. Friday (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. While guesswork and speculation are necessary elements for some questions – I have on occasion answered questions that were best treated as Fermi problems or even science fiction 'what-if' scenarios – they shouldn't be anywhere near the most-used tools in our toolbox. (Even then, we should be explicit about the assumptions we make, and provide sources and reasoning to support those assumptions wherever possible.) Our stock in trade is factual, well-referenced responses; it's just what we do. To people who suggest that this clause would be used to do something absurd like remove comments or punish responders solely for giving a speculative response, I can only offer the principles in WP:SENSE, WP:IAR, WP:DICK, and WP:LAWYER. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support because unsupported guesswork and speculation are worthless. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support per ToaT. Rockpocket 17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Many questions require speculation, and most editors engage in speculation (including many who deny they do so). To say that we should refrain from such responses would harm the Ref Desk. "A reasonable amount of speculation is sometimes necessary to answer a question". One recent question which qualified was (paraphrased) "What is the probability that there is life on other planets ?". The answer including the Drake equation and link, along with some speculation on the possible range of values for each variable. This was entirely appropriate for the question. StuRat 20:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• The point is that this question is best answered by referring to answers given by qualified people. What value does the uneducated opinions of random internet people have? Very little, compared to the opinions of people who are qualified in that field. That said, nobody's suggesting we stamp out all speculation with an iron fist. Friday (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not true. Bush's opinion about whether WMD existed in Iraq in 2003 was no better than that of a non-expert. It was, in fact, considerably worse. The opinions of so-called "experts" are no better than the opinions of others. If, on the other hand, they have hard evidence, then that's another matter. StuRat 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support a common sense reading of this makes it clear what is expected of those answering question on the ref desk. When i read this i do not get the impression that speculation is outright banned, it is clearly written from the perspective that not all question are the same and good judgement should be used. I seriously doubt that this could be used as an excuse to delete a speculative answer (i believe this is StuRats worry, not explicit here, but previously articulated). Unfortunately, i can imagine the alternative wording being used as a justification for speculating on all answers. Ref desk does not need to be handicapped by the latter usage and so I support this more moderate usage. David D. (Talk) 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is my concern, yes. Perhaps we could add "Responses should not be deleted because they contain speculation" to clarify this. StuRat 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The desk is filled with speculation, and I like it, and the readers like it, and the respondants like it, and the askers like it. We should encourage speculation, instead, but not with imposed guidelines: essays could do it. One thing we should do is to strive to learn more about how to speculate without being fallacious: this would matter and would help the desk a lot. No-one made any attempt to prove the very disputable rationale above that claims that "the tendency to give responses based on guesswork or speculation often leads to incorrect answers." In fact, I really don't know what is that "tendency" supposed to mean. A.Z. 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: I suggest we split "reasoned speculation", which is allowed, from "wild guesses", which aren't, by adding the following:

", and, while reasoned speculation is allowed, please refrain from responding with answers that are based solely on wild guesses". StuRat 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support compromise. StuRat 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support compromise. The truth is that we're always going to get some editors making wild, uneducated guesses, but this may serve to cause some of them to think twice. Even if it doesn't, it's better to have it in the guidelines than not. JackofOz 04:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: create a template to clearly label wild guesses as such. Add to the compromise version above "unlabelled wild guesses". A.Z. 04:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support template. StuRat 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does the wild guess of an anonymous 12yr old from Iowa with too much internet time on their hands, equate with the provision of reliable and verifiable information at a Reference Desk? It doesn't. Strong oppose. Rockpocket 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose judging the value of people's guesses based on their age! A.Z. 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are no age limits on contributors here. Furthermore, most 12 year olds may be better qualified to respond to questions about recent pop culture than adults. Exceptional 12 year olds may also be well qualified to comment on other topics, as well. StuRat 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unfair and not intelligent to reduce the contribution potential of 12 year olds to topics on recent pop culture. It seems to reveal a rather bad (in my opinion) and untruthful bias towards 12 year olds: many of them like to do things unrelated with pop culture, and many of them dislike pop culture altogether. The mere fact of one being an adult tells nothing about the contribution potential of that person, just like the mere fact of one being 12 years old also doesn't.

I would like to see a lot of 12 year olds on the reference desk. A lot of people of all ages, countries, sexes, etc. I read this essay the other day about young Wikipedians. A.Z. 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see editors address the points made by other editors, rather than make irrelevent, distracting straw man arguments. We don't always get what we want, unfortunately. C'est la vie Rockpocket 02:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent seeing that old stereotype of our fellow thatched beings depicted as walking logical fallacies. They too have a right to be here and should feel welcome. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought your point was that the young boy (or girl) was young and therefore his (or her) guesses were wrong. Ergo, we should not allow wild guesses. Did you mean that all wild guesses are... I don't know, "bad"? Or always unuseful? I don't see anything wrong with them. They may be wrong 90% of the time, and find out 10% of the time something that could not be found out any other way.

Plus, if people are allowed to make wild guesses, they will practice and will start becoming good at it, and their rate of success will increase. If you just forbid them, a lot of people will never get their answers.

Guesses may also be a tip or provide a new insight on the topic or just give an idea for someone to find out a more proper and reliable response. That happens all the time. Recently, StuRat suggested that humans could not make soup until the iron age because they didn't have the right material for the recipients. Then eric found out a book about potter and the temperatures that it can take — something about which he would not have thought if StuRat had not guessed before and brought up the subject. A.Z. 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not suggesting that being 12 years old makes one's wild guess wrong, nor was I suggesting that Iowans are crap at making wild guesses, nor was I suggesting that ones guesses get more wrong the longer ones spends on the internet. My point is that a wild guess is not helpful because the person that makes it could have an IQ of 3 and have no clue what they are talking about, or they could be a MENSA-card carrying genius and the world expert on the subject. The OP doesn't know who is making those guesses therefore they need reliable sources to be sure that information is reliable. That was the point. I hope that is now clear (and please try and resist the urge to oppose my discrimination against the wild guesses of those with IQs of single figures). Rockpocket 03:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If the questioner is not someone with a single figure IQ, they should be able to know the difference between responses with sources and wild guesses, and should be able to evaluate how that information can help them with what they need. See also this thread that has been archived. A.Z. 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, A.Z. A response such as "The answer is xxxx" might look authoritative, but it may in fact be just as much a wild guess as anything else, and an unacknowledged one at that. The OP has been given nothing to be able to judge the quality of the answer. JackofOz 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The OP has been given nothing to be able to judge the quality of the answer, so they will not assume that it is wrong nor will they assume that it is right. A.Z. 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, people can judge an answer in many ways, such as the logic of the argument made, the professionalism of the answer, spelling, grammar, etc. While it is possible that a highly illogical, poorly written answer full of spelling and grammar errors might be right, it is unlikely. Similarly, a logical, soundly written answer may also be wrong, although this is less likely. If the question is "Do people ever have extra teeth ?" and the answer is "Yeashur whynotz cuz peeps has lik eggstra towsnstuuf sometimes", then I would be skeptical. If the answer was "I would speculate yes, since normal variation in such traits is essential in order for evolution to occur", then I would tend to be more accepting of the answer. StuRat 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that just mean that you have been given something to be able to judge the quality of the answer? A.Z. 03:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A.Z., I think that that conclusion is an assumption in itself, and not one that I share. We have no way of knowing, other than them telling us (which most of them don't do), how the OPs regard our answers. The point I'm making is that a response is not automatically wrong just because it doesn't contain sources, or just because it's a wild guess. Neither is one that contains sources automatically correct. It would be very helpful (not just for the OP, but mainly for the OP) if wild guesses (or even tame ones) were acknowledged as such by the guesser, because it shouldn't come down to "the OP should be able to work out which answers are of value and which aren't" (my interpretation of your comments 3 posts above). JackofOz 03:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

At the end, it comes to "the OP should be able to work out which answers are of value and which aren't". The volunteers can try to give the most complete, well-reference, meaningful answers, but that's all they can do. The OP will decide what to do with the answers, and will judge whether they are helpful.

I am also in favor of the guesser labelling their wild guesses as such, although in a lot of cases this fact is obvious. If the guesser doesn't label it, another editor can do that just by typing a few words right below the guess. I see no reason to forbid or disencourage guesses. A.Z. 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I. But how is another editor any more equipped to know that a previous answer is a guess than the OP is? It's up to the editor themself to say "This is just a guess, but I think xxxx", or words to that effect. That way, everyone knows what's going on, and nobody has to make any assumptions. JackofOz 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to agree. I think that many editors working together will eventually find out which answer is more correct and which answer the OP needs. A vounteer may guess something and not even realize that they are just guessing, and that their answer is not verifiable. Other volunteers may point the mistakes and misunderstandings. If the volunteers don't agree, it's up to the OP to decide what to do, based on the information that they have. Even if all volunteers do agree, the OP should still not just take the answers for granted, but rather judge for themself whether they make some sense.

It all works better if people explain that their guesses are guesses, that their speculations are speculations, and which sources they have. A.Z. 04:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the last sentence. But I don't quite see how someone could not be aware they were guessing. Without being Rumsfeldian about it, there are (a) things we know we know, and (b) things we think we know, and (c) things that seem plausible; we don't know whether they're right or wrong, but we think it's worthwhile reporting such thoughts because they might just be right. It's category (c) that I regard as guesses. JackofOz 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Per your definition, everyone knows when they're guessing. Perhaps I was adding a bit of the "b" definition to what I considered guesses. A.Z. 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PfC: Ideally

Proposal: to replace the sentence in the lead

"In many cases, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources."

by

"Ideally, answers will refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources."

(differences indicated by bold).

Rationale: "In many cases" is weak and does not express the intention; see further my contributions earlier on this talk page at #Ideally.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. --LarryMac | Talk 13:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. Friday (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. 'Ideally' just indicates that the principle described is something to which we aspire. If a reliable source exists, we want to provide it. Sometimes that's impossible; this isn't a perfect (dare I say ideal?) world. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not far enough "Answers should link to relevent Wikipedia articles or cite reliable sources." Because they should. Answers that don't like to relevent articles or cite reliable sources are some guys chatting on the internet about stuff they think - ignorable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• To me, "Ideally, answers will link to.." means the same as "Answers should link to..." Friday (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, fine. The change improves the guideline. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support as above. Rockpocket 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not all questions would be improved with a link. If somebody posts a calculus test question they got wrong and we spot a basic math error, it would be insulting to provide a link to basic mathematics. Thus, it is simply wrong to say that answers lacking sources are "not ideal". StuRat 20:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support i agree not all questions would be improved with a link, however, the way it is worded StuRats math example would not be expected to link to basic mathematics. Again a common sense approach will make it obvious if a link is required. There is no doubt that links do improve most answers so ideally seems to be a very appropriate word to use here. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, because it says "Ideally", which means "Ideally, in all cases". To make it clear, you could say "Ideally, in some cases". StuRat 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. This is your selective interpretation; ideally does not mean in all cases. This has been discussed above and most poeple disagree with your interpretation, which is why most people here, after consideration, are supporting this wording. David D. (Talk) 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• If this can be interpreted in different ways, why not make it clear with "Ideally, in some cases" ? StuRat 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Surely the intention is to allow wiggle room. With your suggested wording your are opening up enough room for abuse. We don't want that much room. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• How can clarifying what we both agree is the meaning possibly lead to abuse ? It's leaving the possible misinterpretation (that it means "Ideally, in all cases") which will lead to abuse. StuRat 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Ideally" adds no value, and can be interpreted many ways. Same for "In many cases" - which cases? Not all answers will require a link, even where such a link exists. Sometimes a short plain English explanation is a much more appropriate answer than a link containing many pages of text. Not all answers will be able to point to a link; sometimes, no such link exists. Please see my suggested alternative compromise below. It refers to "trivial cases", which I hope is self-explanatory. If the questioner reads the answer but still wants to see an alternative source, we can then provide one. -- JackofOz 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• How about if we just delete the line completely, would you support that, Jack ? StuRat 07:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see the very point of the sentence. What is it trying to achieve? What is it trying to prevent? Why should we wish those goals (whatever they are) and how is that sentence supposed to help us getting there? A.Z. 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise:

"In many cases, answers should ideally refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources." StuRat 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support compromise. StuRat 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested alternative compromise:

"Except for trivial cases, answers should wherever possible link to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources." JackofOz 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I wouldn't call all those cases which don't benefit from sources "trivial". StuRat 07:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose both. As per your concerns above, which cases ae trivial? Anything could be considered trivial. "Ideally" does add value because it suggests is is something we should always strive to achieve. The reason for this is because, even if it the response is trivial in your opinion, it may not be in a readers' eyes so it certainly adds potential value if you can provide verification whenever possible. If verification is impossible to provide, the phrasing doesn't suggest the answer is banned or should be reverted, it simply means we have not achieved our ideal - to provide a reliable and accurate reference for every question. Rockpocket 05:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This again contains the logic that any answer lacking a source is inferior. I reject this, as in the many examples I've given previously. StuRat 07:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And I believe that the addition of a suitable source to any answer can only enhance the value to the OP, it can't reduce it. However the absence of a suitable source for many answers can severely reduce the value and can't enhance it. Therefore from the OP's perspective, the ideal situation is for us to provide a source whenever possible, since its the only no-loss situation. If you can give me an example of an answer where the addition of a suitable reliable source actually reduces the value to the OP, then I may consider changing my opinion. Rockpocket 07:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already given that example. If a student posts their solution to a calculus test question which they had marked wrong, and it contains a simple math error (say they forgot to carry when adding two numbers), it would be insulting to provide a link to addition and pointless to provide a link to calculus. StuRat 16:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, those are quite clearly not "a suitable source". If there is no suitable source, one would not be able to provide one. Moreover, you haven't explained to me how, even those unsuitable sources, reduce the value of the answer to the OP. Rockpocket 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But the sentence doesn't say "suitable sources", meaning "sources suitable to the question", but rather says "reliable sources". There are many questions where "reliable sources" are not suitable, and we should not be encouraging people to provide reliable sources in cases such as those provided in my examples. Another example is where people just go overboard on links, linking every other word for no apparent reason, since they seem to think "the more links the better". StuRat 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. A source that may be suitable for an answer to one question may be completely unsuitable for an answer to a different question on the same subject. Some questioners may like to read a long piece of text, others may prefer a short one-line answer. The suitability of any link will depend on what it is the questioner wants to know and how complex or brief they want the answer to be. -- JackofOz 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jack. And this is where common sense once again is required. We can't actually know how complex or brief, general or detailed they want the answer to be, unless they are extremely explicit in their question. So we should always attempt to verify our answers, but using a modicum of common sense. In cases where a source may not add any real practical value (i.e. what does 1+1 equal?), if my answer was 2, common sense tells me that adding a source is pointless. However, if I wished to answer 2 then expand and describe the theory behind numeric addition, then a source would be extremely useful. I still maintain that the ideal is to provide appropriate reliable sources, because they can only assist the OP (as long as they are not misrepresented and given appropriate weight, as per Lewis' concern below). Allowing for vague exceptions - "in most cases" - simply muddies the water unnecessarily, when we all know that ideals are never absolute in the real world. Guidelines set out what we aim to achieve in general, then we work within those using our common sense. The tactic of recounting, frankly unlikely, examples to illustrate exceptions is viewing the guidelines from a ruleslawyer mentality. This isn't a legal document, so we don't need to cover our backs for every eventuality. Its more of a mission statement, so we should set out what we aim to achieve. Rockpocket 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Rockpocket's assertion that "the addition of a suitable source to any answer can only enhance the value to the OP, it can't reduce it." On the contrary. The addition of sources, especially secondary sources can and does very often give a specious response a false air of authority, as it's virtually impossible to determine how "suitable" a source is. I'm opposed to the requirement that secondary sources are at all preferable, as they can do as much harm as good. Primary sources, on the other hand, are quite a bit more certain to be reliable, and I have no problem with them. Backing up one's argument with secondary sources, especially lately, are often no more than attempts to transform one's subjective opinion into an objective one through the back door. (By the way, the foregoing argument is not my own, rather it was pretty much entirely inspired, or shall I say "sourced", from an article by James Heartfield which can be found here [24] ;--) Lewis 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You are basically saying that sometimes suitable sources are unsuitable sources. I agree that if a suitable source happens to be an unsuitable source, it may be the case that it does not enhance value. In my experience, however, in more than 99.9% of the cases, suitable sources are not unsuitable. Do we really need to make an exception here for unsuitable suitable sources?  --Lambiam^Talk 12:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some sources can do more harm than good, but omitting those sources is censorship, and, by doing this, you are imposing your view about which sources are good or bad. The best way to deal with the problem is to properly educate the OPs about the logical fallacy that argument from authority is. We should strive to make it clear that secondary sources should be critically analyzed and their assertions should not be taken for granted. A.Z. 14:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should verify first that the questioners wish to be "properly educated" based on such bizarre and idiosyncratic views on censorship and logical fallacies, before you set yourself to this noble yet daunting educational mission.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should. Maybe the questioners do wish to be ignorant, after all...

You are calling my views on censorship and logical fallacies bizarre and idiosyncratic, without explaining why you say that. You just call my views names and you go away. If I start to debate with you now, if I ask you what are your views on censorship and logical fallacies, if I ask you just what is wrong with my views, you will say that this discussion is distractive, you will say that I have no common sense, you will say that I am trolling, you will say that I am disruptive, you will say that I am spitting in your soup and trying to argue that there's nothing wrong about it, you will say that I am trying to write a dictionary, you will say that I am preventing the guidelines from being implemented, you may even give me a doughnut at the end. Well, if you're gonna do all of that again, at least choose another adjective: "bizarre" is getting tireing already. A.Z. 01:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PFC: NPOV

Proposal after: An individual editor is not required to provide a fully comprehensive answer - a partial answer may be improved on by subsequent answers.

ADD Responses must not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute.

This seems obvious, but it has been made clear that NPOV requres additional emphasis. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good. We're not trying to suggest that everyone cover every answer from every angle, but in cases about questions where there is a material dispute, we should take care to be neutral. Friday (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it is absolutely necessary, but neither am I adverse to its inclusion. Rockpocket 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect that this is redundant with the 'not a soapbox' provision, but its inclusion isn't harmful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support; useful clarification.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "Responses must not intentionally skew answers" part is OK, but the "Responses must not ... reflect only one side of a material dispute" part is wrong. It is entirely acceptable for a biologist to give the biological POV on an answer, even if that only supports one side of a "material dispute". StuRat 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Err. If we pretend certain words aren't there, we can pretty much change the meaning of anything. Do you have a problem with the entire sentence as written, or only your edited version of it? Friday (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have a problem with it as written, as I've stated quite clearly. I propose a compromise version: "While each response is not required to present every POV, try not to intentionally skew answers toward one POV." StuRat 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• So the only difference is "try not" versus "must not"? If we're talking about intentionally skewing answers, "must not" is much better than "try not". Friday (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise:

"While each response is not required to present every POV, you must not try to intentionally skew answers toward one POV." ? StuRat 21:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support compromise. StuRat 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose compromise. This fails my inner logic test. If a response is not required to present every POV, then it's OK to present only one POV. That's fine, because each editor generally has only one POV. But in providing that one POV, how is the editor not opening him/herself up to the charge that they skewed the answer towards that one POV? Is each of us required to know all the possible POVs in existence about the question, and provide a balanced selection of them? How would that work if I only know my own POV? JackofOz 03:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• What about: ", in many cases you must not intentionally try to intentionally skew answers..."?  --Lambiam^Talk 22:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• • How about ", in many cases you must not intentionally try to speculate about some answers unless your reliable source is a skewed soapbox..."? You're right, Lambiam, it's getting silly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm dusting off a comment of mine from a week ago. It's waaay up the page somewhere; I've tidied a bit of the wording, but its essence is unchanged. The bold text is new.

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

I think just about everyone here can agree with the statement above. We've been chasing the same damn words around for more than a week, and wasted thousands of kilobytes and hours of time that could have been better spent on something useful.

All the pettifogging comes down to people trying to codify a few common sense ideas:

1. Editors should try to give complete, balanced answers;
2. Any given individual may not be able to give a complete answer, but can still contribute from his expertise; and
3. Editors should not use the Desk as an opportunity to soapbox.

I give up. The guideline is in good shape. It says reasonable things, when read in a reasonable way. I'm tired of the wikilawyerly, paranoid, quibbling, semantics-diddling reading and rereading and rewriting.

Unless and until someone has something to add that is either novel or obviously destructive, I'm staying out of the way of this process. I never really had a taste for loophole-hunting and playing 'what's the most twisted interpretation'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Suggestion: Make the word "intentionally" bold (as in intentionally) and I will accept it. I am really compromising myself, since I would prefer that there were no sentence like that at all. But I believe that there's already a general consensus not to delete the reference desk, and not to forbid speculation, and not to forbid POVs. Let's move on for the time being. When the desk becomes more mature, the guidelines will be naturally changed to exclude the whole sentence. A.Z. 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note the box at the top

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