Miscellaneous desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 24

Anonymity

I asked a question like this before but didn't get that many relevant answers so here I go again. Why does it seem that several times, when people request anonymity, the exact reason is not mentioned or implied? Isn't it more convenient for news to say "said someone who wishes to remain anonymous because he is not authorized..." or "said someone who spoke on condition on anonymity for ethical reasons" instead of simply "someone who wishes to remain anonymous says..."? That way, wouldn't such anonymous stories be more credible? And what are likely reasons why the reason is not mentioned? Is it obvious? Is it not important to the story? Or did they specifically request that the exact reason why they want to be anonymous will not be disclosed either? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for anonymity may be a clue to who the speaker is. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, if they reveal that the reason is because they have committed a crime, this may make an investigation more likely. Many whistle-blowers, for example, can be charged with a crime (because laws are designed to protect the powerful people they are exposing). StuRat (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the New York Times does provide justification for each use of an anonymous source. You can read specific details of their policy here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Our source wishes to remain anonymous, because he obtained this info from the boss's wife while he was banging her, and hopes this doesn't affect his chances for a promotion." StuRat (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The Wall Street Journal like to attribute information to (unnamed) "people familiar with the matter" -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, the newspaper may be covering for someone who wants the information to come out as a leak for his own purposes. It was a public secret back in the mid-to-late 1980s that much of what was leaked "anonymously" in Ottawa originated with one Brian Mulroney, who was using the media to send up trial balloons to gauge the popularity of certain intended actions before publicly announcing them. --NellieBly (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion page/Talk page

At one time, you could start a 7-day discussion just by suggesting that the WP tab labelled "Discussion", which led to the talk page for the article, user or project, be changed to "Talk". Now, without any apparent fuss, it is "Talk". When did this happen? Bielle (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of months ago, but I don't recall exactly when. RudolfRed (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion (from January 2012). --Viennese Waltz 07:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like times have changed, but in the opposite direction from that which you thought. I make that a five week discussion. I missed it, too. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dweller. I spearheaded a proposal to make that change a few years ago, but was shut down tight, and by a sitting Arb, no less. I am glad to see sense finally prevail. Bielle (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this issue way back in about 2004, soon after I arrived on WP. I couldn't come to grips with why a tab marked "Discussion" got you to the "Talk" page. I had to work it out by trial because I never saw any explanation that this was what to do. I was told it was inappropriate to have a Talk tab as this would encourage chatter unrelated to the purpose of the page. Yet, talk pages are always titled [[Talk:Article name]], not [[Discussion:Article name]], as the above philosophy would lead one to suppose. I learned to live with these crazy inconsistencies, but I too am glad to see a new world order. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all sure of this? I could swear it has said "Talk" for quite a long time. However, I'm using the "classic" page layout rather than whatever it is now, and maybe it was changed there some time back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, 100% sure. I tried the "beta" version or whatever it was called, but didn't like it and went back to the original set-up. It always had a "Discussion" tab, until one day earlier this year it suddenly changed to "Talk". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. Maybe having a shorter word there accounts for the gap between the tabs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem when I started with the discussion/talk. Now I'm trying to figure out why the "article" tab and the "read" tab. Do they actually do anything different? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what Article tab and what Read tab? I've never had either of those. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles say "Article" in the upper-left tab. I don't recall ever seeing a "Read" tab, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Monitors

I'm working in my office, where each computer is connected to two monitors. The taskbar on mine stretches across both, and when I click "maximise" on any window, it stretches across both. Now I know that it can be set up such that the taskbar is one only on of the screens, and hitting "maximise" fills up only the screen in which that particular window is in, and not other screen. Can anyone tell me how to go about doing it? We're using Windows Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition. Thanks in advance. 199.29.247.15 (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would get a better answer on the Computing RefDesk. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the Windows Server interface at all, but have you poked around in Control Panel > Monitors/Displays to see if there aren't options in there that you can check or uncheck? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IQ

I just tested my IQ on a non-official IQ test, and it came out as 123. I am in 7th grade. What is the average? And what is needed to be in Mensa? Can you show me a table of IQ expectation, based on age? Legolover26 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our article on IQ. For a properly constructed IQ test, the average score will be 100 with 95% of the population falling between 70 and 130 (that is, plus or minus two standard deviations). Internet "IQ tests", though, will generally not be accepted as having met this standard, and so a web page that says you have a given IQ is of little value. While there's not much value in an IQ-per-age table (as IQ tests are controlled for the age of the test taker), intelligence is believed to peak roughly around age 26 (for certain contentious definitions of "intelligence"). Mensa International's standard is being in the 98th percentile or higher, which is roughly equivalent to being at plus two standard deviations: so, an IQ (properly measured) of greater than 130. — Lomn 20:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically IQ is correlated to age, so it won't vary by age. The average is always 100. Different tests use different standard deviations though. The most common values are 15 or 10. So depending on which version you're taking, you're either 2 standard deviations above the average, or slightly less.

Of course that assumes the test is valid. Shadowjams (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My favourtie line from the IQ article is "Whether IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence is debated. It is difficult to define what constitutes intelligence..." HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Wikipedia is not a direct source, so unless it is cited, you cannot know important things like that for sure. Legolover26 (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you took a general test for adults then you did very well. Now you need to concentrate on your schoolwork, learning how to hand in your work by deadline. Read lots of everything, write a bit, learn to work in a team. Without those skills high iq won't be worth much to you. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A considerable degree of caution should be exercised with regard to online IQ tests. Some aren't what they seem, but are a front for certain rather questionable groups. They administer the test, always tell you you're special and way above normal, and then try to sell you supposedly educational materials that will, they say, help you realise your potential. A cynic might think that they're preying (sic) upon your vanity (we all have one of those) to sell you stuff. By the way, most people are too stupid to understand this answer, so if you did understand it, you're clearly a superior mind who is held back by the moronic epsilons that surround you. Call 1-900-[deleted] to find out how you can overcome the doubt-sayers and live your life to the optimum. 46.208.143.154 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IQ tests primarily test your ability to take IQ tests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. IQ tests don't actually measure "intelligence", they measure your ability to take the specific IQ test you are taking, and little else. If is a functionally useless number, which serves to unfairly define you. People who score low on IQ tests will consider themselves unable to complete tasks they could do easily, because they're told they aren't smart enough. People who score high on IQ tests are treated with having accomplished something which has little value. Focus on what skills you have, work to develop those to maximize your happiness, and don't be defined by an ultimately worthless number. If the education system assumed that all children are capable of performing at the highest level, and expected them to, they will. If we expect them to be defined by numbers on a limited number of tests of questionable utility, the system will continue to produce substandard outcomes. --Jayron32 02:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Jayron's position, though it certainly has a wide following, is far from unanimously held. See g factor (psychometrics).

As for high standards in education, yes, I agree; it's important to give children strong intellectual challenges and have high academic standards. Unfortunately this is often done completely wrong; it's understood as "load elementary-school kids down with a ton of homework" or "make all eighth graders take algebra, whether or not there are enough eighth-grade teachers who can actually teach algebra, as opposed to teaching cookbook techniques". Doing it right is hard, and whether it's even possible, given existing constraints, is an open question. --Trovatore (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to find out the correlation, if any, between IQ scores and income level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, if you have a degree, you will get a higher income, and if you have a degree, you will also have a higher IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolover26 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually true. I'll have to see if I can find the research into this from a couple of years ago, but basically getting A-levels does indeed increase your likely future salary, whereas getting a degree (in general) does not. Getting certain, useful, difficult degrees does increase your future salary, but getting a Media Studies degree does not. And IQ is a rubbish predictor of future success, particularly if you're looking at the fringes: an IQ roughly 1SD above average is useful for future success, whereas 3SD is a disadvantage, for example. The amount of work you put in is much more significant, as a bright child who never does any work isn't going to do much. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(U.S. centric position) Some job positions I've looked at require a bachelor's degree minimum in order to be considered for the position. Doesn't matter what the degree is in; most likely this is due to the decreasing value of the high school diploma. In any case, even if certain degrees such as engineering or accounting carry high average salaries, this does not mean that the college graduate is likely to attain that salary out of college due to statistical outliers. Same logic applies (especially) for a law degree. Thanks to business culture, you could be the smartest person in America and thus never be able to get a job.--WaltCip (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vast literature on the rate of return of higher education. Rates of return in the UK are positive for all subjects, and are quite different for men and for women. According to the latest HESA stats the lowest paid graduates aren't those who took media studies, but those who go into agriculture. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this conversation thread has now veered way offtopic from the OP's question. Shadowjams (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IQ is positively correlated with income. It is negatively correlated with being convicted of a crime. It's negatively correlated with having children out of wedlock. It's silly to say that IQ tests are meaningless - they obviously measure something that has a real impact on people's lives (on average). Though it's a bit dated, the American Psychological Association's statement about IQ is interesting - I especially encourage people to read the 7 bullet-pointed concluding statements at the end (what's this, a reference on the reference desk?) Buddy431 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is intelligence? I define it to be creativity. Does IQ tests test this? Money is tight (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By your own definition you're an extraordinarily intelligent person. The grammatical creativity you show in "Does IQ tests test this?" is outstanding. Keep it up. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, don't be snippy. The civil answer to that question is, "Yes, they does." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loud music in bars

Why do they play such loud music in bars? I was in a bar earlier this evening to see a show, but the music being played in the hour or so before the show was extremely loud, so that conversation was well-nigh impossible, and it was a relief each time the music momentarily stopped. My companion found the volume so oppressive that he laft early and missed the actual show altogether. Why do they do this? Does anyone actually like this music?--rossb (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on personal observation from both sides of the bar, I can suggest two possible reasons.

The bar staff like it: individual patrons may be in the bar for only a couple of hours each, but the staff are in there much or all of their working day, and (since they are in de facto control) they play what they like, how they like it, to alleviate their own boredom.
People drink more slowly when they're talking to each other: if the music's volume precludes conversation, the patrons will drink more, increasing the take.

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.211 (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But losing (or deterring) patrons lowers the take. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously doesn't deter too many considering the number of bars and nightclubs in the world that play loud music. Dismas|^(talk) 01:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one basic principle of answering any question ever, or indeed for asking any question ever, don't try to prove that something which happens millions of times shouldn't happen. Its a fruitless exercise. The reason why bars play loud music is because they make more money than if they don't. Bars are businesses, businesses try to maximize profit, and if playing loud music didn't make them money, they wouldn't do it. --Jayron32 02:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all bars play loud music, only some do. The same is true of restaurants. There are also bars and restaurants which cater to patrons who actually want to be able to hear, both in the establishment and for the remainder of their life. StuRat (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is that a subset of bars play very loud music because they cater to a demographic that likes its ambient sound level high enough to make conversation almost impossible because it would rather numb brain function than stimulate it, an end ably aided by consumption of ethanol. Maias (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The music might facilitate meeting new people. In a quiet place the confidence necessary to speak to a stranger is understandably a factor hindering the mixing of a variety of people who may not know one another. The high volume subsumes people into a commonality of environment. Bus stop (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Bars sell more drinks this way, per the first responder. 2) People of a certain age and disposition like loud music, especially for dancing. 3) It makes it possible for people to meet and seduce others who might find them boring or socially incompatible if they attempted conversation. (Caution: 2) and 3) are based on OR conducted two to three decades ago.) Marco polo (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) They sell fewer drinks to me, because I won't go. HiLo48 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That logic would only apply if most people were like you. But there are also many who don't mind loud music, prefer it, or even demand it. And, even if most people were like you, there could still be a niche market for the bleeding eardrum crowd. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider that many people who don't like loud music don't hang out in bars, either, so turning the volume down won't bring them in. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) Disposition, maybe. Age, no. I'm 21, and I can't stand music that loud, not even the good kind. 3) Not interested in casual encounters. Basically it's fair to say that bars actively seek out the LCD of our society.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid crystal displays ? StuRat (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

There are indeed two reasons for loud bar music: one is so that you'll drink instead of talk, but another is so you won't notice that your cocktail is watered down. Whether it's true or not I don't know, but one bar owner I know is convinced that the sensory overload from loud music and flashing lights make it less likely that patrons will actually be able to tell that their drinks are too weak. He said it was "common knowledge" among bar owners. --NellieBly (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the "trying to seduce others" part, is it really in the interest of patrons to do that? I mean, if you actually find a girlfriend in a pub you won´t need to go there any more, thus they will lose a client.--80.28.202.253 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you win the lottery you might stop playing, but the sponsors need it to be known that people do occasionally win. —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are singles bars' customers looking for steadies or for one-nighters? —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]