Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reference desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Another way

Another way to deal with off-topic ramblings and chat and questions is to guide the questioners and respondents back on track. This invariably causes less grievance than removing material. Selective insertion of new headers can also make rambling threads more orderly. Carcharoth 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Would you be willing to write a section on "Dealing with off-topic conversations" ? I think your suggestions will easily gain consensus, and thus make an excellent addition to the proposed Ref Desk Policy Page. StuRat 11:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to take part here for a few days before doing that. Thanks for the vote of confidence though! Carcharoth 11:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, and you're welcome. StuRat 13:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL comes into play here, and WP:AGF. -THB 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Which way? Do you mean assume good faith with off-topic ramblings? Off-topic ramblings should start their own section, or subsection header. It is a common courtesy to the reader. If I come along later and add such section headers (making it clear that I added them), then that shouldn't be a problem. Only the most thin-skinned of people would think I was being incivil by helping in this way. And of course, being polite is a pre-resquisite. Not "get back on topic NOW you snivelling little twerps!!", but rather "hey, do you remember the original question, I wonder how this all relates to that, there are some interesting connections here...", and gently chivvying the topic back towards the centre (the question). The responses can certainly circle the question, but shouldn't go off at a tangent. That is disrespectful to the questioner, though it might be just as educational. Carcharoth 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the analogy of circles and tangents. Usually the postings do come back to the original Q, but the circle may have a rather larger diameter than required. In the early posts, therfore, it may appear as if we are going off on a tangent!--Light current 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm good point. Remember that those seemingly off topic responses often spark valuable discussions that would have never occured otherwise. The OPs thank us for those. --⁪froth^{T C} 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec) There's nothing wrong with providing more information than was asked for. We're not forcing it down their throats. I think it's actually a good thing. -THB 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of Sam Clark's remark. But the troll accusation seemed like a personal attack on a likely new contributor, so I moved it here rather than asking the poster to remove or rephrase it, which would clearly have been more desirable, but I think that WP:NPA justifies moving a troll accusation here immediately pending consensus of whether it is appropriate. How long would we have to leave a personal attack on the project page pending a response from the accuser before moving it here? 1 hour? 5 days? Do we want the original questioner to read it and then we pr the accuser remove it from the page only after the newbie has abandoned Wikipedia in disgust? Edison 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

May we edit the posts of others ?

My instinctive answer is no, but with some exceptions (basically that some additions are OK, as long as you don't change the meaning):

I feel it's good to edit a poor title, like "Question". I like to change it to "Question (about the combustion temperature of ants)" so they can still find it if searching for the word "Question". Also note a technical limitation, that having two sections with identical titles causes a problem. Specifically, links "get confused" in this situation, and always go to the first section. So, I frequently change two "Car question" titles to "Car question (engine)" and "Car question (transmission)", or, if they can't easily be distinguished, just "Car question" and "Car question 2". StuRat 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding links. I frequently change plain text in the question to links, either to help other readers understand the question or to help the original poster find an answer (I then tell them to click on the link for the answer). This allows me to keep the question and answer more compact than if I have to repeat all the words, as links, in my answer. StuRat 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reformatting the question. Leading spaces are frequently in the question, which makes the text scroll off the right edge of the screen. I fix this, when I see it. StuRat 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What does everyone else think ? StuRat 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just learnt what causes that annoying thing when the text scrolls off the right-hand side of the page! I'm very happy now. And I've just corrected a question on the Science RD where that had happened! :-) Title changes are good, but leave it recognisable enough so the questioner can find it again. Adding links - a matter of style. If you do it that way, fine. Others almost certainly just type it out again. The minimal space/time saving is not worth codifying this as a rule. Carcharoth 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we make a rule that it must be done that way, only that it can be done that way. However, if the consensus is against this, then I'd be fine with retyping it all. What I don't want, however, is to do something, assuming it's OK, only to be told it's forbidden. Therefore, I'd like a clear rule on this. StuRat 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done these things, too, even changed an incorrect spelling here and there to get a link to work. A librarian would correct the spelling on the dirty little scrap of paper with a misspelled "questin" on it for you. The formatting is a necessary evil. We also use the unsigned tag. My view is that formatting is okay. I don't reword the sentence. I have added or adjusted the heading. -THB 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The standard etiquette on Wikipedia talk pages is that editing heading names is fine, and redoing things like spacing and indentation is fine, and even moving comments around is ok as long as it's an effort to preserve (or make clearer) the order of the discussion. Adding links to peoples' comments or correcting their spelling is generally quite frowned upon. One particular note in the context of the ref desk: I think it's very confusing to everyone when people reply to a question by wikilinking the original question—first because it doesn't draw the attention of the questioner to the links in the same way retyping them would, and second because it misleads other question-answerers into thinking that the user had already looked at the Wikipedia article when they asked. -- SCZenz 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, SCZenz. From now on I am not going to wikilink in the original question. -THB 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes good point. I try not to edit their question in any way except to correct those leading spaces which make the code box appear, and I also use {{unsigned}}. If there are applicable wiki links I put them in my own post --⁪froth^{T C} 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also {{signed}} which may be less likely to 'bite' new users, even if it is a bit bulky--VectorPotential^{The Reference Desk} 20:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred to be able to continue to wikilink in the original post, but I will respect the consensus and retype the links instead. StuRat 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I too, used to link in the OP, but I can see it is not ideal for the reasins given above. Therefore I will retype any links instead.8-)--Light current 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Basic question for consensus

This statement is from Reference interview: Bopp & Smith defines Reference interview as the

"Conversation between a member of the library reference staff and a library user for the purpose of clarifying the user’s needs and aiding the user in meeting those needs" .

Can everyone comfortably agree

with this definition of reference interview and that
the Reference Desk is, by definition, the place where this activity occurs?

-THB 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

god this page has gotten really long in the last few days. i have no clue as to what the definition to a reference interview is, but i agree that this is in fact, where the definition you presented takes place. which means support =p Xiade n 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This page just started 3 days ago; look at the archives! O_O --⁪froth^{T C} 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, THB, I agree with that. StuRat 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- it must stop. There is to be no further discussion at the Reference Desk talk section page. Typing anything additional will only aggrevate the problem. The problem must not be aggravated further. Further aggrevation must stop now. Now is the tyme for the stoppage of the aggravation. Do not aggro. Train to zone!!! Theavatar3 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What? o_o --⁪froth^{T C} 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm THB, since we have a page on this very subject, I suppose it would be quite contrary of us not to start from these premises--Light current 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea of a reference interview looks good. You'll note that everything in the conversation is geared toward figuring out which sources of information are the correct ones to refer the library patron to. -- SCZenz 16:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, last time I looked (admittedly a few months ago) people tend to ask quetsions and then never be heard from again (unless they are very polite). So the idea of an interview is less useful than it appears. It seems to be rather that people ask questions, and a flurry of discussion and answers results among RD regulars, and then the question is archived. The original questioner taking part or responding (even if just to say thanks), isn't all that common, at least that is what I thought. Carcharoth 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it's just a question and answer. A good bit of the time there is some give and take. But do agree about that being the purpose? Given, it doesn't always work out that way. -THB

These days I mostly contribute to the computing desk and other than trivial questions it often turns into a back-and-forth with the OP. But it definately doesn't work that way at RD/M or RD/S --⁪froth^{T C} 20:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can easily agree on seeing it as the RD's main purpose. But the RD has much more to offer. For instance, I love the mathematics page, where a bunch of excellent editors go out of their way to offer tremendous and valuable help with mathematical problems of every kind, in a way you'd never find in any library. The language desk offers translations of words and short text segments, interpretations of phonetically rendered phrases, deciphering of scripts, lessons in grammar and stylistics and much much more. The humanities desk helps you find the creator and title of a work of art based on an image, the title of a book or film, based on a vague description. All wiki-linked and referenced, of course. These are just a few examples off the top of my head, I could link every single one of them to the archives if you insist, and the list goes on and on. WP's RD has the unique opportunity to be more. ---Sluzzelin 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Sluzzelin, and believe that the definition is broad enough to encompass all these things in more, and that's why I was hoping for consensus on this particular definition of the RD's purpose. The need is defined by the user (with the assistance of the "staff" if necessary and possible.) The purpose of this whole project (Wikipedia) is to make information and knowledge available. -THB 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, it can and it should, with this enormous potential here in terms of sheer bulk and scope of free staff resources, 24/7. ---Sluzzelin 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe everyone is assuming this and just not stating it explicitly, but I think it's worth emphasizing that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to deal in all knowledge or information, but rather that which is verifiable through proper sources. Friday (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Friday, I agree with you 100% on this. But I would call them reliable sources, not proper sources. Edison 06:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Starting from scratch makes things difficult

I think a large part of the difficulty is that we seem to be starting from scratch, not from a shared understanding of Wikipedia practices. So I ask those unfamiliar with policy to please keep a few things in mind:

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy- we don't have firm rules. We find that we rarely need them.
Policy is a description of what gets done, not a set of rules about what must be done.
Use common sense.
Wikipedia has a set of cultural expectations, not all of which are even written down.
We don't need to re-invent the wheel. We need to start from standard Wikipedia practice, and build from there.

In short, if someone tells you that something you're suggesting is contrary to accepted Wikipedia practice, please consider taking them at their word. If you want to change how Wikipedia generally operates, that's probably going to be off-topic for this page. I would like to see us all try very hard to keep the discussion here on-topic. (And yes, I've been guilty of getting off-topic too.) Anyone who sees this happening is welcome to try to nudge things back on topic. Thank you for your consideration. Friday (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are the original discussions about initially setting up reference desks? It would be useful if the present parties discussing this issue had access to them.--Light current 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As is standard practice in many places, the archives are listed at the top of the page. I took a quick glance through the first few, and didn't notice much in the way of discussion about the purpose- it's almost like the folks in those days automatically knew what it was for. Friday (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The very top of archive 1 has something interesting:

New policy of If you know an answer, give only a very limited answer on this page. Just post a link to the Wikipedia article that contains the answer (although you might have to supply a few missing details, relevant to the specific question, here on this page) decided on by mike dill and LMS

It sounds to me like these folks understood well that the point of the project is the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it appears to have just appeared like a white hole from nowhere! No discussions on purpose, protocol or rules. Maybe no one thought it would be that popular then! 8-)--Light current 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that we can learn something from this. People were using common sense, and an understanding of the goals of the project. We could use a truckload or two of that right now. Friday (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We still dont know the goals of the original RD inventors/editors.--Light current 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the original idea and talk probably originated on someones talk page or village pump or some other talk page. There may have been quite a lot of prior discussion (just like we're doing here) --Light current 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm looks like Larry Sanger (LMS) was involved in the early days. Thet name sounds familiar to me! 8-)--Light current 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Heres what he wrote when he left WP:

P.S. Here's what I posted when I left in 2002. Still good advice:
All the best to Wikipedia and Wikipedians. May you continue

to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,

to be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate,

to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,

to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project,

to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,

to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and

to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

--Light current 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not in some science fiction story, stranded in a space station for generations and trying to rediscover the purposes of various machines and things (Heinlein, Orphans of the Sky; among others), policy is what we make it to be today. The early RD regulars didn't have some secret knowledge of managing the RD, and I doubt if their policies then could cope with the massive amount of traffic we recieve now. This is a nice retrospective but it's not really valuable to the policy making. By the way, exhaustive debate has proven valuable to wp policymaking, not sure what larry was thinking rhere --⁪froth^{T C} 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There absolutely has been disagreement on the basic purpose of the reference desk. Gaining consensus on the purpose of the reference desk is like an organization having a mission statement. Everything else must support the purpose or it should be eliminated. -THB 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A Really good answer to a lot of questions that have been asked around here...

Is in this link: Association of Reference Desk volunteers

I suggest you go there. and then fight on that talk page(which doesn't exist)

That was actually referred to above under the heading "Lollipop Guild". If you read the page, a lot of it is very offensive and condescending. -THB 22:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

? i found none of it to be offensive, and very little to be condescending. where is this violent and condescending material u speak of?Xiade n 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No thanks, we prefer to fight here. It's closer to our homes. Thanks anyway. --Justanother 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted question

Friday, you just deleted a question about Playmates while I was answering it. I strongly believe that question should not have been deleted. I'm a little disappointed, too. -THB 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

this (in case of not knowing what 'this' refers to, look at the paragraph above my post) is a prime example of something that should be put on friday's talk page, not the discusion thread. Xiade n

possible trolling removed and restored

I removed what looked to me like a non-serious question. It was posted by Kjvenus, who from the looks of User talk:Kjvenus has done this before. I left a note asking the Kjvenus to cut that out. THB put it back and attempted to answer it. Do people think my assumption that this was repeated trolling was incorrect? Which is better for the project, ignoring trolls or playing along? Friday (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF trumps WP:DFTT if there is any doubt. -THB 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is always doubt, is there not? I'd go with "reasonable doubt" here. You disagree this is someone playing games, then? Friday (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there is a lack of knowledge on the part of the person who posted the question and that he might learn something by reading the articles I linked to which addressed at least some of his questions. There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Certainly he gets less encouragement to be a troll from a straightforward answer than from deleting his question and leaving notes on his talk page, thereby confirming that you're aggravated by his actions. Answering his question is no different from answering any other. -THB 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:DFTT:

When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humor a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided user. Remember and apply the principles laid out at Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers.

-THB 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure we all understand all that. This is a little bit like finding a newly created article that gets speedied- we look at the author's other contributions to decide what kind of message, if any, to leave them. If you did not look at his talk page and contributions before deciding how to proceed here, I recommend making this a habit in the future. Friday (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

have you clicked the link in my topic? assume good faith. that razor thing-"assume stupidity over malice" Xiade n 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Well, talk page warnings are for the chance that they're not trolling and just need to be informed that their behavior isn't appropriate. They're also so others can see that there's been questionable behavior there before. In cases like this, I think it's useful to look at the other contributions from the editor who posts a questionable question. Whether it's trolling or cluelessness, IMO it's better to not answer the question if we're also warning the user not to post that kind of question. What impression does it give if one editor asks them to cut it out and another plays along? Friday (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I don't consider myself "playing along". You have an adolescent male posting a question about playmates. He's not blanking out pages or writing "so & so's a fag" or "nigger nigger nigger" all over the place. He posted a question. An adolescent, misinformed, silly question, but a question. One that can at least be partially answered, and even by referring to Wikipedia articles. -THB 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to follow up with this editor then? Explain your revert, add his page to your watch list, etc? Friday (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, why would I want to, or think it necessary to, watch this particular editor? I would have just answered his question and moved on had it not been deleted while I was composing the answer. You should be the one wanting do that since you think he's a troll. He's already been warned several times, why don't you block him for a week? I do watch and warn and ask an administrator to intervene when someone is vandalizing or trying to disrupt, or is acting with bad intent, as in the example I gave below of something that should be deleted. -THB

If the questioner is of high school or older age and of normal intellectual capacity, then the question seems pretty clearly to be trolling. Just my impression. It would be instructive to see if the questioner's other questions are similarly "naive." Edison 23:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also fairly irresponsible to not take the other contribution into account. He had previous questions removed as racist trolling. This is why we check talk pages and contributions. Friday (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

3 posts to confirm a troll!--Light current 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

yes this seems like a troll to me. --⁪froth^{T C} 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah but have you had 3 posts yet?--Light current 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at all of the contributions from that user, you'll see he may be ignorant, and he may not be someone you want to be friends with, but he is sincere in his remarks. Everyone here knows a troll when they see one, this one's not a troll. This is the kind of stuff that should be deleted on sight. Mr. Playmate might actually click on the links and learn something. -THB 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It takes 3 posts to conform a troll 8-)--Light current 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Goals of WP

THe fundamental question we must ask ourselves is:

Can the goals of WP be achieved without reference desks?

If not, why not. The answer to the latter question will define their porpose!--Light current 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The real question, IMO, is "Should something that seeks to be formal entity (encyclopedia) have such an informal public side to it". That is the problem that people like SCZenz see, I think. It is a good question but as long as the RD in formatted as an open community rather than a fully moderated interface then I guess the answer is. "Sure why not, who say we have to be 'all formal, all the time'". --Justanother 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK now we have two questions-- I was hoping to avoid multiplication at this stage 8-)--Light current 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

May I just remind people of my suggestion for a formal interface with the public: A General desk that could lead to the more informal specialist desks.--Light current 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the RD does a great job of advancing the mission of WP, the answer is "Yes of course but not quite as well" --⁪froth^{T C} 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If the RD did not help with the goals of Wikipedia, it would already have been removed. Let's all do our parts to make it as helpful to the goals of Wikipedia as we can. (And just to be clear- the goal is to produce a high quality encyclopedia using information verifiable from reliable sources. ) Friday (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

RLRDL

Here is an informative summary of the duties and qualifications of a real life reference desk librarian: Library reference desk Edison 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the Wikipedia article. -THB 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And, egads! I just noticed they completely failed to mention making juvenile sex jokes as part of the duties. Bizarre. Friday (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Did it also fail to mention megomaniacal admins viciously censoring everything they say? See, I too can make inappropriate comments by blowing things out of proportion --⁪froth^{T C} 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Friday, we've already reached consensus that sex jokes are no longer allowed. StuRat 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No sorry we havent! What about other types of offensive (to some) jokes?--Light current 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can also blow things out of proportion -- but lets not get side tracked! 8-)--Light current 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's time to move forward. -THB 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

With a bow to Theavatar3

You have two cows: You leave them alone to go into the pasture chat room and argue incessently about the best way to care for cows, are cows harmful, whether you should even own a cow. You continue. The cows are left to manage for themselves. They do just fine. --Justanother 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What a load of bull! Why dont you just eat grass?--Light current 01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just chew on it. Stop trying to milk a joke out of every comment. --Justanother 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If I dont, udders may do so!--Light current 02:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we please mooooooove on ? :-) StuRat 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current's just trying to horn in on Justanother's story. -THB 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you'all a tip - this cheesy behavior has got to stop. --Justanother 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys are just a bunch of cud-ups. -THB 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, just an editor with a stake in this discussion. --Justanother 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I shall have to ruminate on the above comments. 8-)--Light current 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No whey, I can't stomach this discussion any further. :-) StuRat 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole section of the page is off-topic and should be deleted. -THB 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, have had enough of beefs. --Justanother 02:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that all of the above is an extremely low form of humor. It just shows what a load of cowboys you all are.--Light current 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I just hope no-one plans to put us out to pasture (Pasteur?). --Justanother 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They just may if this topic doesn't germinate into something useful --⁪froth^{T C} 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just what Kine of humor is this?Edison 06:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that would be off color humor. (weak I know, but how do you follow Kine?!) --⁪froth^{T C} 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Theavatar3 has been banned for sockpuppetry. Mathiemood 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I still thank him for the "You have two cows" idea that I developed into a means of making a point and having some fun at the same time. Though I do think that User:Cjwright79 (the sockmaster) has an odd idea of how to best contribute to this project (see Griefer). --Justanother 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do wonder why anyone would want to grief other people -- I mean it can only do harm, yeah? Seems like nothing more than a pointless, vindictive waste of time and energy... Mathiemood 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

IDK, maybe it is supposed to be some kind of "evolutionary pressure" thinking like "that which does not kill you only makes you stronger". I think we can do without "tooth and nail evolution" here. or at least I hope so. --Justanother 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the assertions in Hagakure (a samurai text) is that it will not do to discriminate. Vis a vis, let the 'tooth-and-nail' evolution occur outside Wikipedia, and let's all play nicely inside Wikipedia. It is reclusive, exclusionist, and no doubt part of the reason why people come here to troll and grief in the first place. Just my 2 cents. Mathiemood 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is plenty "tooth and nail" here without entering in a random element of a "griefer". If we want that we might also want some "natural disasters" programmed in to the wiki, like a flood that floods all the pixels off random pics or an earthquake that "shakes up" the text in random articles. That will keep us all on our toes! --Justanother 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a policy page !

I've copied the items which seem to have consensus so far into a policy page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/policy.

As we reach consensus on additional items, they can be added.

I put a clone of the policy template (Template:Policy) there, with one change, this is an "unofficial policy", not official. However, it's really ugly (just block text). Can someone please prettify it ?

StuRat 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job, StuRat. Your efforts are appreciated!!! --Justanother 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/policy so it's in the Wikipedia namespace rather than article space (and updated StuRat's link, above). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. StuRat 07:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The page was moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline (shouldn't that be plural ?), in an apparent Admin attempt to denigrate it's significance. However, I won't fight this issue, at this time. The page is looking pretty good now and I suggest it's ready to be linked to from the Ref Desk header template. Any comments ? StuRat 10:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at a similiar issue, discussed on another page

I think many of us agree that the RD has more in common with a talk page than with an article. I know I do. Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Content_that_is_Unacceptable where there's a discussion of dealing with off-topic material. Friday (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexual humor

I had thought there was a consensus to disallow all sexual humor at the Ref Desk, so including that in the new policy page. However, User:light current disagreed that there was a consensus, and removed that statement from the page. Therefore, we need to determine what the consensus is. StuRat 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we allow sexual humor ?

Support - I personally think it's OK, in certain cases. StuRat 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Know Although I actually supported it in mild forms at one point, as I noted above, we don't know where the joke is actually directed. The questioner could be eleven years old. Even if I'm answering a question from, say, Mr. Rat, who's an adult, eleven year olds will be reading it. We don't actually *know* for a fact what the case is.

It might even be seen to violate some basic policies. Certainly it bothers even some editors, as we've seen. I'm leaning toward opposing it but waiting for the burning bush to give me guidance. -THB 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I register the strongest possible objection to sexism in the false guise of humour. Clio the Muse 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What? Are you saying that sexism is a good thing? Or are you missing a negative in there somewhere? --⁪froth^{T C} 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Before attempting legislation against sexual humor, can one actually objectively define that? Because if one can't, this will likely lead to lots of debate whenever a borderline case pops up. For instance, would it be sexual humor to say that "women can't read maps, but men can't ask for directions" (which, incidentally, is the title of a book")? (Radiant) 09:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discouraging the insertion of these beans to nasal passage may seem like a good policy, but may lead to unintended consequences when told to a person with a naive and adventurous mind.

Still thinking that there are other forms of equally offensive humor and about WP:Beans. Not sure we should single it out in particular. There's more offensive stuff. And are we talking about sexist or sexual humor? There's some overlap, I know.... I'm thinking the RD is not the place for "offensive humor" and then leave it to "good" judgement. The community obviously has had no problem making it known what it considers offensive. Maybe it would be better to reach a consensus on what is substantially offensive. -THB 09:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly is in that picture? Baked beans on scrambled eggs on toast? It looks disgusting. -THB 10:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to make it clear to everybody that I appreciate humour and wit, even some forms of sexual humour, as much as anyone else. I am far from being a prig. But what I cannot abide is offensive and distasteful remarks that try to escape criticism by using 'it was only a joke' as a smokescreen or a rearguard response. There was an example of this not so long ago, of which, I feel sure, people will be mindful. Clio the Muse 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification - I was asking solely about sexual humor, meaning jokes about genitals and sexual acts. While sexist humor standards might also be worthy of discussion here, that was not my intent in this section. StuRat 11:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Rat, good morning. If the jokes were about vaginas would they be any more or less acceptable than jokes about penises? Serious question here. -THB 12:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They are both about genitals, so should either both be acceptable or unacceptable, depending on what we decide here. StuRat 12:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And assuming it is decided to be unacceptable, how would you propose to deal with people who post such jokes anyway? Warning? Removal? Block? (Radiant) 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. Likely if a consensus were reached about what's acceptable, it would be almost irrelevant. -THB 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we've already reached consensus for the guidelines for deletion, and those would apply here: [1]. The only exception to those guidelines would be for "disruption", and this certainly wouldn't qualify for that. StuRat 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that that proposal was written today, how do you mean it has "reached consensus"? (Radiant) 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed here: [2] and that is where the consensus was reached. I also proposed these rules some time ago (in the archives), but we did not get around to deciding on them until recently. StuRat 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The page on systemic bias points out that the majority of wikipedians are male, and thus would probably be more comforatable with comments about penises, or any sexual comment for that matter (at least, that's what I see in American university; not a very good perspective I know). Just a little off-topic there, we shouldn't treat it any differently of course --⁪froth^{T C} 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be an ongoing discussion with several dissenting opinions, e.g. Sczenz, Ten and Friday. (Radiant) 13:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I count 11 opinions that fully or conditionally support, and none that say "oppose". I suspect, by their comments, that the Admins disagree, but they aren't actually participating in the attempt to build consensus, and I'm not paying much attention to those who oppose consensus building. StuRat 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

- That's because you're doing a vote count, whereas I'm looking at what the discussion says (which includes the few sections below the vote). Consensus is not a vote, and guidelines are not enacted through majority vote. (Radiant) 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is applicable- a lot of the meaningful discussion is supportive, so it's the same thing right? It still doesn't make for consensus of course but it must be good for something --⁪froth^{T C} 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many times it's been pointed out that this isn't how we do things. However the culture of the reference desk has somehow drifted far out of synch with the rest of the project. Some of us, experienced with how Wikipedia does things, see no reason for this and want to bring it back. Friday (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus forming on this issue, so suggest we leave it open for now. I'd like to go on to building consensus on other issues. StuRat 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest "keep it in good taste," and just have a general rule. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

THB rants

Friday, it would be nice if you & SCZenz and StuRat & Lightcurrent could get together and decide how the latter two can contribute in a way that doesn't offend the former two so much that editors and their comments get "rubbed out". Frankly, you & SCZenz are a bit overzealous in deleting and blocking and StuRat & Light current (and some of the rest of us) kid around a bit much at times. Everybody wants the Reference Desk to work well. All of this has pretty much been established by all of the crap flyin' around and I think there would be true consensus on that if everybody could just shake hands. And you personally could try to be a little flexible on this stuff in the meantime, like not deleting things on sight unless they are truly *disruptive*. This whole hullaballoo is disruptive. Even Clio and Loomis are at each others' throats now. I'll just shut up and go away now, thanks. -THB 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And Friday, "some of us" blah blah blah is polarizing. Please stop polarizing. It's destructive. -THB 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm being flexible, believe it or not. There's all kinds of stuff that I think is just questioners playing games, but I let it slide. I'll make more of an effort to only remove obvious crap. Friday (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be divisive. Check the but about about "starting from scratch"- it's clear that many of the problems here are due to a culture clash between those who understand who we do things at Wikipedia and those who don't. I'm sorry if this statement is divisive, but it's true and I think realizing this is essential to understanding the situation here. Do you disagree? Friday (talk)

"That's not the way we do things here" definitely comes across as the worst type of bureaucratic nonsense. "We've always done it that way, so change is impossible", in other words. And, of course, the Ref Desk has always done things it's way, if you want to use the same illogical argument in reverse. StuRat 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat what I said to him applies to all of us. Let's stop trying to argue and be right and start getting along well enough to agree on somethings. -THB 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(Okay, so I didn't really go away.) **Forget the culture clash.*** Just forget about it. You and SCZenz *talk* to StuRat and Light current and work things out. Please. You don't even realize that you're coming across as condescending because everybody's backed into corners now. Get out of the corners. Stop being so tenacious. Talk. Find some things to agree about. Of course no one wants or intends this situation. So fix it. Say something nice to Light current, give him a compliment. Clear the air. Surely you've learned something from Light current that you can acknowledge, & vice versa. -THB 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen. THB just made the comment that I was about to make. In particular, I'm concerned about the way that StuRat and Friday have been at each other. Let the other guy have the last word now and then. Don't be concerned about scoring points. I'm finding that I don't want to agree with anyone on this page, just because so many people are being so darned disagreeable. (And yes, I realize that for that remark I should probably add myself to that 'disagreeable people' category.)

I think everyone participating here wants to improve Ref Desk and Wikipedia. I think it would help a lot if people stopped trying to shoehorn everyone else (in their minds, or on this page) into one of two camps. I think that it would be really nice if it were acknowledged that Friday and SCZenz really aren't jackbooted, fascist, black-marker-wielding censors bent on sucking all the fun out of Wikipedia; it would also be good if we could acknowledge that StuRat and Light current aren't hippie libertarians obsessed with their 'right' to make penis jokes.

Assume some good faith. Stop trying to score points. Quit being dicks. Take a breather. I'm sick of the debate and the endless bickering. My blood pressure doesn't need this. I'm going to try to help out at the Ref Desk, and I'm going to remove inappropriate remarks, and I'm going to ignore this really annoying fight from now on. Someone drop me a line if the pissing contest gets resolved; I've got an encyclopedia to build. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it might be better if deleting and joking and blocking and penises were all on hold until the blood coagulates. -THB 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought the plural was 'penes'. But I defer to your superior knowldege! 8-)--Light current 03:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Willingness to compromise

What I am willing to compromise on is basically anything where the consensus goes against what I would like to do. So far, that has been not adding links or doing spell fixes on other people's questions, and not adding jokes before there is at least one serious response. Things I'm not willing to compromise on are the total rejection of the process of consensus, with the assertion that anyone can unilaterally decide what the rules are for deletion, based on their own interpretations of general Wikipedia policy (which says pretty much whatever you want it to say). Now, let me ask User:Friday and User:SCZenz, what are you willing to compromise on ? StuRat 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I'm going to remove only blatantly inappropriate questions. See here where I did this. I assume that particular removal was uncontroversial, since it stuck. I'm also trying very hard to rant a hell of a lot less. :) Friday (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That was excellent judgement. Frogs don't have toenails, anyway. -THB 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like this whole epic campaign should stop after those two comments from stu and friday.. that's it after all, isn't it? --⁪froth^{T C} 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

homework

okay, so this is probably not the first time this has come up, but I'll give it a go. Is there any way we can stress that people should DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK? Also, what is the generally accepted policy on answering obvious homework questions? I usually give a general answer and then a link to a page where they should start to research. I think the problem might be that people are not sure exactly where to start. Any thoughts? -Laurə n^whisper 14:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

okay, i just did more research into the topic and I found the template {{dyoh}}. Still, what is the best way to answer these questions? Laurə n^whisper 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec)What you're doing seems to be the way most people are handling it lately. It's the safest way--I once told a 60+ year old woman to do her own homework--and it's nicer than using the template. Probably they wouldn't ask if they already knew what to do. It doesn't hurt to point them in the right direction. You can also tell them to come back when they have more specific questions arising from the research. -THB 14:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I tell them how to do their homework, but don't actually do it. Here's an example: [3]. StuRat 16:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly what I try to do --⁪froth^{T C} 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the ref desk any different than the help desk or village pump pages

A question I'd like some of the ref desk regulars to ponder - why is the observed behavior at the RD different than at the WP:HD or WP:VP pages?

Bonus question: how is it that the HD and VP pages function relatively more smoothly without a strict set of rules?

Count me as opposed to the RD needing its own "acceptable behavior" guidelines. If there are going to be guidelines, they should apply to all the similar sorts of pages which means the consensus has to be much broader. Wikipedia:Reference desk/policy is a fine start, but at this point it should be considered as a proposal (with the backing of some regular RD contributors). The RD does not exist in isolation from the rest of the project. I believe this is the underlying point several folks have been trying to make. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. (Radiant) 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually most of the problems seem to be on the Misc. Desk. I'm not hearing a lot of screaming about the Science, Math or Computing Desks.

Right now the policy thing is just being used to try to get people on the same wavelength. It probably won't ever be a policy, but you can't expect people to just know things unless you tell them or they can read it. The instructions at the top of the RD page aren't sufficient. It's a discussion with some agreed-upon conclusions. People are starting to get worked up over the format but some structure is needed here right now. Think of it as pegs to hang some ideas on. -THB 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

However, note that at least one user here claims it already is policy. Recently, this discussion page has relied far too much on voting on motions, and far too little on actual discussions. Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a legal system, and you cannot expect a "motion" to do something or to make something a rule to actually work. (Radiant) 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not enough discussion ? You've got to be kidding. We have pages and pages of discussions; here, in the archives, on various user's talk pages, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as well as some (improperly placed) discussions directly on the Ref Desk. We have talked this issue to death, it is now time to come up with a consensus and document that consensus. And, some of us find Admins' requests to talk indefinitely but never actually decide anything to be an insincere way to preserve the status quo, that being "only Admins know what's best, so they get to do as they please". StuRat 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, now you're polarizing and of course you're right there's been too much discussion going around in circles and it's time to move forward. Friday has taken off his Administrator Beanie for a bit and put on his Editor Beanie and apologized. Take off the boxing gloves please, so you can shake his hand. You offered some compromises but maybe Friday didn't see that section up there yet. Be patient. And maybe you didn't see the apology down there. -THB 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw his apology, but he does have a history of first apologizing, then doing something even more disruptive. His last apology (on my talk page), was followed by the sockpuppet incident. I will wait to see if his actions match his words. StuRat 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, I'll take your word for that. But he has offered an apology that rings sincere. If what you say happened in the past happens again it won't be any surprise to you. The least you can do is give it a chance and accept his apology. That has more to do with you than with him. And then you've already said that you've compromised and changed your behaviour, maybe you could offer to him that maybe something you've done needs apologizing for, I'm sure there's something you could think of. -THB 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, you're going to have to WP:AGF. That's one of the basics. -THB 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a coincidence, I was just thinking that myself, and I apologize for not always assuming good faith. I tend to do so when I first meet someone, but after seeing a certain amount of bad behavior on their part I lose that ability. I'll try to work on that, but it will be difficult for me. StuRat 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, StuRat, you've had plenty of time now. Don't think about it, just do it. Please. Surely you can't imagine it was easy for Friday? It's your turn. -THB 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, I just did apologize, right above your post. StuRat 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, Friday has apologized below and is standing there with his hand extended waiting for you to accept it. -THB 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize the location of the apology mattered. StuRat 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I think that might have been easier for Friday!-THB 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he apologizes quite frequently. StuRat 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm not one of those who wants to talk indefinitely. I'm not saying there was not enough discussion, I'm saying that a compromise would probably be better. The problem with your refdesk/policy page against comment removal is that it's pretty complex and you can't really enforce people doing it that way. (Radiant) 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, of course you're right about the complexity, but StuRat and Friday need to be on speaking terms before that can be discussed. Things have been made more complex, let's cool things down and things will simplify. That discussion can wait a little while. -THB 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start a conversation on this topic, but if I had almost been blocked for a week I would want some agreement on some rules so I would know how to avoid that. That may be the impetus. Try to look behind the actions. -THB 16:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blaming him, but such impetus tends to create overreactions. Complex rules don't really work on Wikipedia, because the fallacy of any rule is in the assumption that people will actually read it. (Radiant) 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And then there's the WP:Beans if you start forbidding things.-THB 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree w/ Rick Block that specific policy or guidelines for the desk are probably a bad idea, but did like the idea of Wikipedia:Reference desk/purpose. We could probably do w/ a bit more emphasis on how the desk can be used to improve the encyclopedia, a page that lists a few things for editors to keep in mind while answering might help out some.EricR 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in any organization a mission statement of purpose is important to keep things moving in the right direction. Maybe you could put some of your ideas on that talk page. Sometime this weekend, when everyone can discuss instead of argue, this conversation can move over there to firm up the statement of purpose. -THB 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Everyone, please accept my apologies for my excessively fervent ranting and whatnot. None of us should be here to fight, and I see that a lot of what I've done has fanned the flames rather than cooling things down. Friday (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I accept your apology and also apologize for my contributions to the confusion. -THB 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I accept your apology and also apologize for not always assuming good faith, where you, and some other Admins, are concerned. StuRat 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Flame fanning is your job, and you fuelled pages of discussion. But I'm glad you feel the way you do --⁪froth^{T C} 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a really big change from a few hours ago. -THB 19:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it was a change, temporarily. I just wish people had dropped the campaign of harasssment against me. Is this the normal way that newcomers to this page get treated? Assuming bad faith is a good way to drive off contributors. Friday (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA vios

On the Humanities desk in response to the question "History" regarding slavery, Loomis 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC) launched personal attacks on Clio the Muse 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC) who replied in kind. As an uninvolved party, I first posted there a request that each delete his/her own remarks which were personal attacks, then remembering the statement here that metacomments do not belong on Ref Desk, I posted the request in each user's discussion, rather than posting a formal warning. Each has made good contributions to the Ref Desk, and the personal attacks do great harm to the quality of the Ref Desk project. If they leave the comments up, then deletion by others and warnings may be called for. Plus I am pissed now because Wikipedia ate a long co mment I tried to post here, saying it "Could not find an internet cache" or some such gobbledegook. Edison 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I support your effort to remove the personal attacks and move them onto each other's user pages. Incidentally, I have a tip on how to avoid having your text eaten by Wikipedia. Before I hit the "Save page" button, I always highlight my text and do a cut (CONTROL-X) and paste (CONTROL-V), that way I know it's in the clipboard buffer. Then, if the Wiki Gods are angry and destroy my post, I can just paste it back in and try again. StuRat 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to do two steps, you can just 'CTRL+C', which copies. Anchoress 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm a skeptic, and I don't actually believe it's in the buffer until I see some proof. A cut and paste let's me "see it with my own eyes". StuRat 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also, usually the 'back' button will just take you back to your editing screen. Anchoress 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

True, often, but not always. StuRat 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Firefox's "fast history" cache makes it possible, but you may have exceeded your cache size, or you may have visited other pages before hitting back in your original tab --⁪froth^{T C} 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

- Realizing I have hit "save page" without saving first to the clipboard now causes the same visceral jolt as giving the cardoor a slam after hitting the lock button and realizing the keys MIGHT still be in the car, with me outside. Wikipedia seems to have gotten way worse in the last 2 weeks at eating posts for inexplicable reasons (i.e. not an edit conflict.) Edison's Rule #2 states "The likelihood of Wikipedia eating a post varies directly with the time it would take to repeat the research and the number of web pages which must be accessed to get names, dates, citations etc into the post.Edison 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean when I lock my room door and hear that slam without patting my pockets a few seconds before :) --⁪froth^{T C} 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My Recent Remarks: An Explanation and Apology

I've received two valid criticisms from both THB and Edison concerning my recent conduct on the RefDesk. I reproduce here my response to both of them, as I feel you all deserve to understand the motivation behind my admittedly inappropriate behaviour:

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I fully agree that the RefDesk was not the proper forum for the comments I directed towards Clio, and I apologize for that. I hope, though, that my enormous respect for Wikipedia generally comes through in my posts. I do my best to answer questions with as much accuracy and civility as I'm capable of. Yet, in my defense, it's not the obnoxious and condescending nature of Clio's posts that are my main concern. Yes, it can be incredibly irritating, but, and I hope you understand my sincerity in saying this, it's the quality and integrity of the RefDesk itself that is my greatest concern.

People come to the RefDesk with questions, and deserve accurate and valid responses. Unfortunately, Clio's responses, though very ably disguised as being authoritative, are far more often than not no more than utter fiction. Yes, we all, yours truly included, make our share of factual errors. But these errors are unintentional, and we all regret when we make them. Yet I've come to realize that for reasons I cannot comprehend, many of Clio's posts almost seem to display some sort of pathological intent to mislead. Worst of all, she happens to possess unusually impressive skills in writing and articulation. In my opinion, these two factors put together have the potential to do a great disservice to both the questioners, as well as the integrity of the RefDesk, and Wikipedia in general. This type of thing simply cannot be tolerated, if the RefDesk and Wikipedia are to maintain the reputation of having the highest of standards.

Once again, I apologize for my lapse in judgement and breach of RefDesk decorum. I only hope that you understand though, that in doing so, I was doing what I felt had to be done, though admittedly not in the proper forum.

Thanks for your comments, they were well received. Loomis 17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you had both read them, I took the liberty of hiding the comments (not deleting them) until the two of you can delete them yourselves. They were embarrassing for users of the RD to see. -THB 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, do you have any examples of responses that are inaccurate? I'm asking because Clio and I don't cross paths very often, and I'd like to gain an understanding of what you're talking about. Anchoress 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While Clio (a relative newbie) does seem to have a lot to contribute, I have to agree that she doesn't seem to know how to disagree with somebody and yet remain civil. At the first sign of a disagreement over some statement of fact, she attacks the competence of the other party, usually couched in vague language ("certain clueless individuals..."), rather than providing evidence for her side or just "agreeing to disagree". I hope that she can learn to treat people more respectfully and avoid the personal attacks. I was recently the victim of just such an attack, but managed to take my complaint to her talk page rather than put it directly on the Ref Desk: [4]. She refused to remove her comment, but I didn't think it was serious enough to bring up here, so I just let the issue drop. Perhaps if a few people she hasn't yet clashed with could suggest a change in her manner of discourse, that might help. Only do so if you have a thick skin, though, as anyone putting a hand on her shoulder to gently guide her in the right direction may pull back a bloody stub. StuRat 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Worse than the original Loomis. You should back up such accusations w/ diffs, or retract them.EricR 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate remarks, no matter how elegantly couched, remain inappropriate remarks. If that shoe fits anyone, they may feel free to slip it on. And that is all I have to say about that. --Justanother 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, perhaps you and Clio haven't gotten along but the disagreement between Clio and Loomis should probably be resolved between them. I'm sure no one would object if Loomis just removed this entire section. -THB 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do think some action should be taken to ask Clio to be more respectful of others. And that is related to Loomis's complaint about her, above. StuRat 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct and too many people have commented now to withdraw it anyway. -THB 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I can't really say that I am surprised that Sturat has weighed in on this in the fashion he has. In a previous discussion, when he made several ill-informed statements about the history and nature of Catholicism, I pointed these out in as objective and as detached a fashion as I could, at a time when I was still very new to Wikipedia. His response was, if I remember rightly, to dismiss 'such a person.' As for Loomis, I urge anyone puzzled by the above to read his gushing past comments on my talk page. Please also read the recent exchange on the Humanities RD concerning the Law of Tort and Queen Elizabeth II. I responded point by point to his intellectually ill-organised assault, some of the wording quite offensive in its general emphasis. I am now accused in the above of creating deliberate fictions, and all for pointing out that that it was important to understand aspects of the past in their own terms. I have to say that at first I took Loomis as an amusing eccentric. In reality he gives all of the appearance of being a bully, who descends into verbal tantrums if he does not get his own way. Now, I am the last person to give way to this. More than this, verbal bullying, which I have tackled all my life, only increases my determination. I thought Wikipedia had a policy of no personal attacks. If the above is not a personal attack I do not know what is. I have been involved on the RD for the last eight weeks or so, as long as I have been contributing to this project. My answers have always attempted to be empirically exact, and I do not, as a rule, participate in ding-dong debates, which defies the purpose of the whole thing. I would urge any admin. to read through my past contributions and reach an independent conclusion on the matter. But I now register the strongest possible complaint against Loomis for maligning me and deliberately misleading this whole community, by accusing me of a 'pathological intent to mislead', whatever that means. Such accusations could, I believe, justify action in the civil courts. But I have no wish to escalate this little storm, or to reveal my identity. I will, however, make a personal confession: I do indeed have a major failing, which I have struggled to control all my life: that is, I do not suffer fools gladly. To be more precise, I find it difficult to suffer fools at all. I also hunt like a panther, and go straight for the jugular when I detect an obvious weakness. For these faults I apologize, and will do my best to 'draw' my claws in future. But do not question my sincerity: this is the core of my intellectual life and my whole conduct as a woman, a writer, a historian, an academic and a contributor to several international forums. Clio the Muse 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I commend you for referring to us each by name, that is a sign of improvement. I could have done without being called a "fool", however. People who disagree with you, whether they are right or wrong, should still be treated with respect. StuRat 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your commendation, Sturat; and if the use of names is the biggest problem between us I will make sure that I use yours in future. My remarks about fools was a general observation, a confession of a personal failing. It was not directed at anyone in particular. I am not aware of ever treating you or any other with obvious disrespect, but your dismissal of me in our earler exchange has, rightly or wrongly, coloured my whole attitude towards you. However, the past is the past, and I urge you, in a spirit of objectivity, to see the obvious poision in Loomis' posting. Clio the Muse 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Without trying to wade deeply into this particular mess, I have a couple suggestions. 1) Complaints about a user's conduct are more appropriate for that user's talk page than here. Yes, complaints about how they're acting at the RD may be appropriate here, but make sure you're on topic. 2) If we answer questions by linking to Wikipedia articles, and perhaps other reliable sources, this will seriously reduce our need to argue over factual accuracy. Friday (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Clio, I find it helpful, when "staying my blade" and taking the high road to imagine that other editors notice that. And maybe they do. I am getting better at the staying part, really I am. --Justanother 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it seems possible for someone to cause significant damage to wikipedia by hiding behind NPA. And although I don't know much about clio as an editor I've seen a few eloquently misleading responses of hers.. but this isn't an appropriate forum for a trial so this discussion is inappropriate --⁪froth^{T C} 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do have a judge, jury, and executioner...too bad they are all the same person. :-) StuRat 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I cant think who you mean 8-?--Light current 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about you Anchoress, as your post was probably the most important of all. You requested evidence. Where to begin!

I suppose I'll use the most recent discussion concerning slavery as one example of so many. I made the point that studies have shown that, rather counterintuitivly, slave labour was actually less economically efficient than paid labour. Yes, I fully admit, I "personally attacked" slaveowners as being both "stupid" and "racist". A thousand apologies! Yet at no point did I refer to Clio, not even indirectly. Rmhermen then politely made a good point, and I politely acknowledged it.

That's when things started to get weird. Clio responded with the rather odd assertion: "Oh, there was profit in slavery alright, and not just in the sale of surplus people. It was a northener, Eli Whitney, who breathed fresh life into the general economics of the south." Eli Whitney, was of course hyperlinked, as if to suggest that by merely clicking on Eli Whitney, you'd immediately discover that he was the most vile of anti-abolitionists. Which of course is nonsense. The reference to Eli Whitney was obviously nothing more than yet another hyperlinked red herring.

Again I responded, politely, that I didn't understand what "Eli Whitney" had anything to do with the diseconomics of slavery. The curious person I am, I actually clicked on the link to see if Eli Whitney possibly had some dark side to him that I was not previously aware of. But all I saw was what I pretty much already knew. Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin. Yes he was a "northerner" (why that deserved mention I don't know), but more importantly, to the casual observer who doesn't bother to click on each and every hyperlink, the inevitable, distorted inference would be that Eli Whitney was in some way a central figure in championing the cause of slavery. Of all people, why choose to so maliciously libel poor Eli Whitney as being a supporter of one of the most vile of evils, that being the treatment of human beings as property?

Once again I proceeded gently. Yes, the Cotton Gin helped slave-owners by increasing their wealth and thereby allowing them to maintain the institution of slavery. But still, I politely reasserted the fact that I have no idea what that had to do with the diseconomics of slavery.

Now she was obviously frustrated. I simply refused to buy into her senseless and undeserved indictment of Eli Whitney. And THAT'S where the personal attacks began. That's when she got nasty, yet no more sensible: "You might begin, then, by recognizing the contradictions in your own statement, and then proceed to a little more in-depth reading on the Cotton gin, to take one obvious example, and other aspects of the southern economy. It will help to give you at least some idea. It's best not to use meaningless terms like 'stupid' in describing motives and attitudes from the past".

Really? Slavery was not ultimately based on ignorance and inhumanity? Is it so wrong to refer to slave-owners as being, well, stupid?

First off, why the anger? Unfortunately, unlike myself, Clio doesn't take well at all to being outsmarted. If it was me, I would have conceded defeat and congratulated my counterpart for having proven me wrong.

In any case, though I've tried, I still can't find any contradictions in my statement. Logically speaking, it seems pretty air-tight. Further, must I first write a Phd thesis on Eli Whitney to be able to finally understand how an admittedly ingenious contraption used by slave-owners in any way has anything to do with the established diseconomy of slavery vis-a-vis paid wage labour?

To top it all off, rather than admit her error, she makes the final, pathetic attempt to backtrack, hoping no one will notice. I'll reproduce my final post on the matter:

On the one hand: "Oh, there was profit in slavery alright, and not just in the sale of surplus people" (03:08, 8 December 2006).

Yet on the other: "I am not trying to claim that slave labour was more productive than free labour, because it was not by any reasonable economic criterion" (08:55, 8 December 2006).

The bottom line is that, as is so often the case, Clio didn't know what the hell she was talking about. But that's not really the bad part. There are some occasions where, though I think I do, I myself don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Yet once I sense the earliest indication that I may have been wrong, I admit it as soon and as quickly as possible. Yet Clio takes the opposite approach. When successfully chalenged, she responds with a flood of hyperlinks, that most of which lead to articles that do not in any way support her argument, and in some cases, actually negate her argument, (but who cares, hardly anyone clicks on them, and even if they do, few if have the patience to read them thoroughly enough to recognize them for the red herrings that they are). And who cares if in doing so, it's necessary to make a purely fictitious unfair, libelous implication about some 19th century American inventor. Who cares if the result of the implication is to misinform and deceive many RefDesk readers? So long as you maintain your own appearance as an intellectual who knows all, what harm can a little misinformation do?

As I've said, this sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

Therefore, if anyone of you are so simple-minded that you still can't understand my point, I strongly suggest you do some in-depth analysis of the following articles: Red Herring, Sardine, Sardinia, Italy, Italian dressing, Salad, and, most importantly, Crouton. Once you've studied all those articles to the best of your limited abilities, perhaps you'll be able to have an at least elemental grasp of my point. I will conclude with an obscure non-sequitur of a quote, just because to many it makes me sound a lot smarter than I am. In the immortal words of Syd Barrett: "Lime and Limpid Green, the Second Scene, the Flight Between the Blue you once Knew". I couldn't have said it better myself. Now we will have silence. :--) Loomis 04:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the thorough reply, Loomis. Anchoress 04:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I've seen a similar tactic from many Admins. They say such and such is a violation of policy, then refer you to a half dozen policy pages, none of which seem to particularly support their position, and often counter it, rather than saying which point of which policy statements they are actually talking about. I think the strategy might just be to shut you up by making you spend hours sifting through those pages to try to figure out what on earth they were talking about. I can provide examples of this, if needed. I wonder if there is a term for this technique ? "Defense by distraction and vague references to voluminous works" ? I suppose this is a variation on an argument from authority, as one must first convince their opponent they are an authority, in order for the opponent to assume that the references must actually support the authority's claims. I've posted a question about this type of deceptive argument here: Talk:Appeal_to_authority#Variation_on_appeal_to_authority_.3F. StuRat 11:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is exactly why Wikipedia is not a debate forum. We have enough disagreements about how to improve articles- let's not borrow trouble by having disagreements on issues not relevant to improving the encyclopedia. If you guys are disagreeing on how to improve a particular article, the right place to talk about it is on the talk page of that article. If you're disagreeing about something else, ask yourself how this improves the project. Friday (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh but it's all about improving Wikipedia. We can't allow people to just make things up. Wikipedia's credibility as a source for accurate information would only suffer if we did. Loomis 20:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading above, Loomis, I think the two of you had a bit of a misunderstanding. Clio didn't say, as far as I can tell, that Eli Whitney intended to change the economics of slavery, but rather that his invention of the Cotton gin did change the economics of slavery. I think Loomis's criticism has been unnecessarily harsh for the circumstances; in particular, I see now evidence that Clio is making things up or trying to mislead anyone. At the same time I think Clio could to a better job identifying points of disagreement/misunderstanding and explaining her positions. Using directly-applicable sources (and identifying specifically the location of the info if it's not clear) rather than debating would also help. -- SCZenz 17:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, intended or not, Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin had no effect on the economics of slavery. Slavery was equally less economically efficient vis-a-vis paid labour both before and after the introduction of the Cotton Gin. The Cotton Gin just basically allowed them to continue the uneconomical practice of slavery that much longer. The two are simply unrelated. True, the Cotton Gin improved efficiency, but efficiency would have improved all the moreso if in addition to using the Cotton Gin, plantation owners used paid labour rather than slave labour. Cotton Gin or no Cotton Gin, slave labour is less economically efficient than paid labour. Eli Whitney simply fits nowhere into the equation.

Second, you're right in the sense that Clio never explicitly stated that Eli Whitney intended to change the economics of slavery, yet the implication was clear. Imagine if I were to make the statements: "I find it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Bush, and Pol-pot were all known to be avid dog-lovers" or "The combined population of rapists, child-molesters and homosexuals is estimated to be X". Is it ok to make statements like that? After all, on the surface, these statements are entirely neutral. I never explicitly said anything bad or good about any of these people. Nontheless, the implication is glaringly obvious that I consider Bush to be a genocidal madman, and I consider homosexuals to be sick bastards. Voila! I've just made two rather powerful and rather disgusting points, and in an entirely neutral manner! Clever, eh? Loomis 20:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of misunderstandings, SCZenz, did you really mean to say "I see now evidence that Clio is making things up" ? I suspect you meant to say "no". StuRat 18:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, perhaps you do not realize that sometimes your choice of words causes anger in the reader. Could you have made the same points in your post above without using the following phrases, which are "fighting words" and incivil per se: "..so simple-minded that you still can't understand my point," "..to the best of your limited abilities," "..you'll be able to have an at least elemental grasp of my point," Regards.Edison 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis is parodying Clio's use of such, Edison - and quite well, IMHO. Natgoo 19:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nat. I thought a bit of levity was in order, and I'm glad you seem to have appreciated it.

In any case, the subject seems to be closed. I should quit now, as it appears that the vast majority of you guys, though you may not entirely agree with me, especially when it comes to my admitted mistake of voicing my grievances on the RefDesk rather than in a more appropriate forum, the general consensus seems to be clear, and I thank you all for that.

I know I shouldn't, but I just can't resist making one last remark. I rarely make direct reference to it, but I'm sure that many, if not most of you know that I'm a lawyer by training, though I don't practice. I still try to avoid making reference to any of my academic credentials, as to do so feels rather immodest, and I loathe that sort of immodesty.

While I'm constantly stating that I'm no expert on this, or no expert on that, and that I'm only human, and as such prone to making mistakes, etc., I feel that having earned two law degrees, I've earned the right, awkward as it may actually feel for me to say, that when it comes to the law, I can rightfully claim to be an "expert" (at least in the sense that it falls within my academic field of expertise).

I just find it both funny on the one hand, as well as such a perfect, befitting end to this whole matter on the other, to make just one reference to Clio's above statement: "Such accusations could, I believe, justify action in the civil courts". It's so befitting because it so perfectly exemplifies the fact that Clio doesn't, EVER, know what the hell she's talking about. But this time, rather than argue over subjects such as the diseconomics of slavery, or Eli Whitney, or his invention of the Cotton Gin, subjects that definitely do not lie within my field of expertise, the statement that: "Such accusations could, I believe, justify action in the civil courts" in fact does lie within my field of expertise. If the statement weren't so sad, it would be funny. On THIS ONE, I can tell you plainly, without having to resort to any research at all, that it's utter, absolute and complete nonsense. There exists no such cause of action. Yes, both English and Canadian law recognize such concepts as "slander" and "libel", but neither apply in even the remotest sense to what's going on here. This much I KNOW. Nonetheless, even within my field of expertise I suppose I could be wrong, so I guess that each morning I'll nervously await the postman, hoping with all hopes, that I won't be delivered a "summons" compelling me to appear the next day in some court in England. Yikes! :--) Loomis 10:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that the lava has ceased to flow I will risk one final statement, in full knowledge that it is likely to incite yet a further eruption. I have been subject here, and on the Humanities page, to a vicious personal attack. Amongst other things it has been suggested that I have 'a pathological intent to mislead', that I represent a threat to the quality and integrity of the reference desk, that what I do, and what I am, cannot be tolerated, and other more petty insults. And for what? Because I dared to suggest that there was an alternative way of looking at a historical question, and that some attempt should always be made to understand the past in its own terms. Some other users have weighed in on the side of my accuser, some of whom I am not even conscious of ever having come across. Others have ventured a word or two in my defence, for which I am really grateful. But everyone seems to have missed the bigger point at issue. I have read on this talk page seemingly endless discussions concerning the freedom to express a view over what I would consider quite trivial matters. Yet nobody, nobody, has seen the real dangers in this assault on my integrity, and the simple right to make a reasonable argument at all hazards. The unrestrained forms of prose used against me, spluttering on the verge of almost complete incoherence, reminds me of work I carried out not so long ago on propaganda in Stalin's Russia. I never thought to find myself in the position of people like Anna Akhmatova, my favourite Russian poet. Yet, here I am, in the midst of of a Wikipedia Yezhovschina. I suppose if this really were the Time of Terror I would now be on my way to the mines and camps of Kolyma. But I am not. I thought for a moment or two, just a moment, of giving this up, that I had no wish to be involved in a project that embraced such people as Loomis, who express loathsome forms of verbal intolerance. I am now told that I never know what I am talking about, and this from the same person who not so long ago wrote' I've never been so blown away by another's intellect. A Lot of people here are really bright, but...Wow!. People will find this along with other equally gushing and devotional remarks on my talk page.

So, how will I respond? I will stay, that's how. I will continue to answer such questions as I am able. I will continue to be as I am. I will not retreat, and I will not give way to venom, innuendo and vicious attempts at character assassination. I will survive. You need not fear, Loomis; you will never receive a message from me, either through the post or by any other means. My presence alone should be sufficient to unsettle petty-minded bullies like you, a person who is quite capable of shifting from one extreme to another, without being aware of the insight that gives to his character and personality. And this is the final direct response you will ever receive from me on any matter.

Clio the Muse 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Loomis said quite clearly that he initially was fooled into thinking you were brilliant, based on your ability to cite such a slew of sources which he assumed supported your POV. But then, once he took the time to check out those sources, he found out they didn't actually support your position at all, and that you just try to trick people into thinking that they do. In particular, not clearly stating the point your source is supposed to make for you and being vague about where in a huge source that point is supported, makes it virtually impossible for anyone to actually check it out. I consider this type of deception to be a variation on an argument from authority. StuRat 10:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

apparently neither of us are anywhere near as brilliant as His Excellency, His Ultimate Royal Wikipedia RefDesk Highness, the Venerable StuRat. To be honest, though, I don't think he holds a candle to you in terms of intellect, but shhhhh, His Highness may be listening. Loomis, Porn Insane!, Clio the Muse's talk page, 23 November, 2006. Clio the Muse 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A few comments, perhaps too late. I can see no evidence whatever that Clio has any intention to mislead. Loomis's assertion of that is plainly a personal attack, and as far as I can see false, and he should withdraw it and apologise. I also see no evidence for StuRat's 'variation on an argument from authority' (actually it would be ignoratio elenchi, but never mind). I read Clio's links as 'see also', not as demonstrative proof of the point under discussion. If there's something wrong with that, we're all guilty. On the particular dispute under discussion: there is a large, complex literature on the economics of slavery, about which I know only a very little. I do know enough, however, to know that there is perfectly legitimate debate over the question of the profitability of the Atlantic trade and the plantation system. Clio was doing something I do here too: she was pointing out that things aren't as simple or cut and dried as they might appear to an enthusiastic amateur. StuRat and I, for instance, have had clashes when I've responded to claims he's made in my field of expertise. Finally: I don't see anything wrong with debate, even strongly-worded debate, on the humanities reference desk - debate is a large part of the humanities. I do see something quite seriously wrong with Loomis's attack on Clio, and with the support he's received in this thread. Yours, Sam Clark 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cam, Я дymaю что ты не пoнимаеш. Loomis 03:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. Are you intending to respond to my comments above? Sam Clark 08:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Next item for consensus discussion: Opinion

Let's discuss "Questions which contain an opinion" first:

I support allowing this type of question, so long as there is an actual question in there somewhere. For example: "When was Bill Clinton, the worst President the US ever had, inaugurated ?". While it would have been better without the opinion, I'd still answer the factual portion. StuRat 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support The reply can note the unwarranted opionion included in the question while answering the factual part. Edison 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Suport DirkvdM 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Unsure Since I'm new here, I'm not sure what the ramifications are of "disallowing" the question. Does that mean it would be immediately removed before anyone responds? In general though, I'd definitely say support. Better expose a fool than censor him. Loomis 07:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss "Questions which solicit an opinion" next:

I support allowing this type of question. In certain areas, like the Language Ref Desk, pretty much all questions are opinions, like "which of these versions of the sentence is the clearest ?".
Support --Light current 00:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Edison 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Suport DirkvdM 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Loomis 07:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss "Opinions in answers to a factual question" last:

I support allowing this type of answer. For example, a question on how to reprogram a cellular phone would cause me to give my opinion of the morality of using a stolen phone and list the possible penalties, if caught. StuRat 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, although an attempt should be made to giove a factual answer first. But what ever is done, I don't support any deletions of any violations of any rules unless there are rules on that and ways to enforce them first. (If that is still an isue here, but then I'm not here anymore :) ). DirkvdM 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
SUPPORT. I feel particularly strongly about this one as at least on a couple of occasions the questioners were clearly sick individuals asking questions like: "What's it like to have sex with an 7 year old girl? I'm only asking because my daughter has been acting rather flirtatious with me lately". Not only should one be allowed to offer the opinion that the questioner is a sick individual in need of serious psychiatric help, I'd say one is morally bound to do so. Tragically, though, due to the necessary anonymity of wiki, nothing more can be done. Loomis 07:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support allowing opinions - was going to be neutral on this one, but StuRat and Loomis have given good examples above showing that sometimes an opinion is an appropriate response. But I would be happy with a guideline that said opinions in answers should be identified as such, and factual answers are preferable in most situations. Gandalf61 11:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, Gandalf, and I don't think anyone would disagree with you, so I've added that to the guidelines: Yes, but opinions should be identified as such, i.e., with "I think..." or "I believe...". StuRat 12:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than break it down, I will say for now that there are times when it is appropriate to give opinion, especially when it's specifically asked for by the questioner. -THB 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, guys? We don't vote on stuff. See the discussion below- there is existing consensus on these issues. Friday (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We vote if we want to! 8-)--Light current 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can, sure. I hope whoever wishes to "vote" or comment takes a look at the discussion below, and reflects on these questions in the context of existing practice and consensus. I believe I've made a strong case for the notion that we already have established answers to these questions. Friday (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Support but all answers should be on topic. If the question is about which SUV is the safest in rollover prone maneuvers, the answer probably should not say "People who drive SUVs are ruining our earth." I see somne editors getting up on the soapbox for lengthy rants which do not respond to the question and which are opinion rather than sourced to reliable sources. Edison 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a rather clear consensus to allow all three forms of opinion, to me, so I will update the guidelines accordingly. StuRat 10:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

According to the talk page guidelines, there's already a general consensus between Wikipedians on the place of opinion on talk pages. The guideline says in part, "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." Similiar standards seem pretty reasonable here. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy. Some opinion isn't noticable harmful, but it should be discouraged. Friday (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note the existing consensus that Wikipedia is not a message board. When we get too much into opinion, this is what the RD turns into. So, we need to use judgment, and try to keep off-topic chatter to a minimum. Friday (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also existing consensus that we should "Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated." This is from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask_and_answer which is transcluded at the top of the individial RD pages. Friday (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can point to the discussion and consensus that led to the creation of that item, we don't really know if that was just what one person wrote or what the circumstances were. StuRat 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you that I'm personally very confident that the points I made above reflect general consensus, but I'll understand if you don't just take my word for it. If you don't buy it, go ahead and look- any of what you seek is there to see, in the relevant talk pages and histories. At any rate, it's what we have, and if anyone disagrees and wishes to change it, go to the relevant talk pages and make your point. Until then, existing consensus should be the basis for whatever we're deciding about the reference desk, right? Friday (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If you claim there is an existing consensus, the burden of proof is on you. StuRat 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See above- I pointed to several other agreed-upon pages that make my point. If you disagree with those pages, that's your choice, but please don't just assert that existing guideline and policy pages don't reflect existing consensus. I'm afraid I cannot say much more about this without pointlessly repeating past arguments, so I'll leave it at that. Friday (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not, I am merely asserting, particularly for the last page, that you have not shown them to be formed based on consensus, so should not claim them to be. StuRat 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they were created by the wiki process, which relies on consensus. If you want more "proof", I'm really not sure what to tell you. If you want more information, the histories are available to anyone who cares to look. Friday (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had decided not to place restrictions on questions- anything they want to ask, no matter how steeped in opinion, they're welcome to ask. --⁪froth^{T C} 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not reasonable for us to assume that the folks asking questions will be familiar with (or have any desire to follow) some set of rules we make. Heck, it seems clear that many askers and answerers haven't even read Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask_and_answer. People ask whatever they ask. If a question cannot be answered in any reasonably encyclopedic way, my plan is to tell the questioner this and ask if they care to ask a different question. Friday (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, so the first two are moot. As for the third, I wouldn't go as far as to say that "a little opinion isn't too harmful"- IMO opinion is often very useful to building a good answer. Now if there's just a response that's all an opinion or off-topic (like for example saying "why don't you stop making your peanuts so darned delicious! =)" in response to the guy asking about workers stealing his peanut harvest), of that I would say "it's not too harmful" but like I said of course in less extreme cases opinion can be very helpful to an OP, and give them a perspective they wouldn't have if answers were entirely encyclopedic --⁪froth^{T C} 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this a good use of Wikipedia?

A question I'd removed which was heavily objected to and put back has turned into this: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Sex_.26_Playmate. I ask for opinions on whether or not this is a good use of Wikipedia. The questioner has already been informed that Wikipedia is not about our personal opinions, and he comes back with "How good is the girls next door TV Series?" Friday (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with the original question (although I think the poster is pretty much a troll; he's the one responsible for the question about coerced anal sex and a bunch of other drivel), as long as it is answered factually, and respondents hold ourselves to a higher standard than the OP and not use the topic as an invitation to goof off. See, this is one of my main complaints (THB, take note of this guy cuz he's an example of a non-good faith poster who degenerates): it's not the original question, it's that the original question is just the starting point of a downward spiral. Which I don't personally think got too bad with this particular thread, but in the past I've seen things like this turn really ugly (gross ugly, not nasty ugly, although I've seen that too). Rather than deleting the thread, I think you should see about getting this editor banned for trolling, cuz I think that's basically what he's doing. I think he's amusing himself by posting hot button questions on the RDs. Anchoress 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree- this thread is nowhere near an example of the worst we get here. I think I was mainly extremely curious whether anyone can assert with a straight face that it's a good use of Wikipedia. Things that are irrelevant to the project should be able to go away without much argument or fanfare. Friday (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, does anyone object to my gentle reminder? I sincerely hope this is way less controversial than outright removal. Friday (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The reminder was perfect. And timed/placed perfectly too. Good job! --Justanother 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone could possibly object to your reminder. However I think it's one of those "overt trolls" that should just be deleted.. NOT that I would delete it because I wouldn't dare to without significant consensus. But come on, constant sex? --⁪froth^{T C} 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree- that's why I removed it. I was reverted, perhaps as more of a disapproval of me personally than as an indication that the thread was beneficial. Again, good reason to remind everyone: our biggest concern must always be the good of the project, not our desire for "rule of law", or our personal feelings about other editors. Friday (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the above is a good example of how we reach consensus- by doing. We could have abstract arguments all day long about "when is telling people to stay on topic allowed?" but that's no substitute for someone doing it and seeing if there's objection. Not that we should be reckless, of course. To me, the above also suggests that putting this thread back didn't help Wikipedia, but I realize this may be arguable. The central question all editors should ask themselves with every edit they make is not "is there some rule that tells me this is OK?", but rather "does this edit improve Wikipedia?". Friday (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Where it doesn't interfere with WP:POINT of course --⁪froth^{T C} 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An action that improves Wikipedia is not disruption, by definition. I suppose doing the right thing in a needlessly dramatic way might be a middle ground, tho. (I would assert in such a case that when the trouble it causes outweighs the good, it's no longer a net improvement for the project.) Friday (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could refer questioneers seeking advice about sex techniques or medical advice to the Columbia University Go Ask Alice site at [5]. They seem to be happy to take on any such question and refer it to medical personnel if appropriate. Edison 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, the problem with removing something and assuming that, if nobody puts it back, that means you had consensus, is that there are so many edits on these pages that likely nobody will ever notice the deletion. So, people can just delete anything they don't like, and it will likely stay deleted. That's not what we want to happen here. If you insist on deleting things which are not disruptive, without consensus, would you at least be willing to keep a "deletion log" so we have some way to verify that those things should have been deleted ? We could create a deletion log page and you could add a link to any edits which are deletions. StuRat 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Any removal of an editor's comments from the Ref Desk smust be accompanied by a posting on the edirot's talk page. Otherwise it looks like edit warring or vandalism on the part of the editor removing it. Edison 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But that editor might not care, or might not know to contest a bad removal. --⁪froth^{T C} 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is possible but a little bit more work, to label a post that has been removed. It won't stop people reading the stuff, but in most cases it stops people replying to the comment. I'll give an example below. Carcharoth 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Post archived to page history Carcharoth 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Science Desk "Odd Nausea" meta comments

I removed the following metacomments today from the aforementioned ref desk page because they are talking about a responder rather than answering the original question:Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC) "::Hey Ten - If you don't have anything concrete to add, why write anything at all? ike9898 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Ten. Just say 'Go to a Doctor, it sounds serious'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.10.127.58 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that was a little bit unnecessary yourself ike. His reply was fine. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)" I did this per the rule someone stated that comments about comments should be on this page or on the editor's talk page, not on the public side of the reference desk. If Ike, Hagermanbot and Mac Davis feel strongly that they are an answer to the original question, and if the consensus on this page agrees, then I apologize and they can certainly be moved back. Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Edison, this was the right thing to do. Hopefully over time we'll all come to understand the difference between a page and its talk page, but until that day, whoever does understand should help out by moving things as appropriate. Friday (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, if I were a high schooler using the library, it would be kind of funny to see two real reference desk librarians getting into a yelling, screaming, face slappin', hair pullin', book throwin' fight over some question of metaphysics or 19th century political economy. But as another library volunteer, I would try to at least move the fight out of the public's view. In an extreme case here, disruptive editing could well go to Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and ultimate banning from Wikipedia or from RD if civility cannot be achieved through Talk page discussion and informal mediation. Edison 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Imagine some innocent teen being told by a reference librarian: "No you stupid child, I'm a grownup and I know better than you. You're wrong. The earth is not round, it's flat! Here's a copy of James Joyce's Ulysses. If you read it only three times you'll realize how ridiculous and naive you are in being so blindly brainwashed by "the establishment" into believing the Earth is round. In the words of the immortal Greek philosopher Gumdises: Audi alterum partem, ipso facto mens rea contra proferentum, e pluribus unum!. I couldn't have said it better myself." If that were the case, I'd say that a bit of "yelling, screaming, face slappin', hair pullin' and book throwin'" would actually greatly benefit the teen insofar as teaching him the value of skepticism, that just because an apparent authority figure says something, it ain't necessarily true. Loomis 08:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, when I was seven years old I saw two librarians (not Ref Desk librarians because there was not actually a Ref Desk) get into a fight like that. One of them pushed the other down a half-flight of stairs and the one that was pushed took that machine that stamps the card with the date and eats a chip off the side and smashed the other one's skull in, over and over again. They had to close the library for almost a week to replace the carpet because they couldn't get the blood out. And do you know, even after all of that, they still didn't agree with each other. Ever since then, I 've been a little afraid of libraries. -THB 10:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Conan the Librarian ? StuRat 10:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove "How to ask for a more serious answer"?

I think "How to ask for a more serious answer" should be removed from Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer. This was discussion but there's been so much stuff on this page that it's now archived. I see this as unnecessarily complex and adding little or no value. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It's only been tried for a short time, but I've seen it used a few times already. There's nothing complex about it, either. StuRat 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although where I've seen it used the responders have done a very good job of staying {{strict}}, there doesn't seem to be much demand for it. Which was the original purpose- to decide whether OPs actually wanted the RD to be more encyclopedic. Oh well, it saved us all of the trouble of a new desk, and the embarrasment of only a few questions ever posted there. So yes I support its removal but what should replace it? I'm hesitant to remove it until there's something lined up for its replacement- I suspect following the reasoning of leaving the "annotated responses" thing on every desk for months. No doubt something from that /policy page could be deemed important enough to be put in the header. Remember that I implemented logic in the header that allows different desks to have different content in that bottom-right corner, so if anyone has anything in mind for special guidelines that only apply to a certain desk, please do share --⁪froth^{T C} 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sturat might have a point though about not even giving it a chance. Maybe we should wait a little longer, unless the people who originally wanted the "encyclopedic" desk have changed their views --⁪froth^{T C} 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we simply assume that people asking questions would like them answered? With such an assumption, the need for this goes away, doesn't it? What we've got right now makes it sound like "If you want a silly answer, just ask a question. If you want a useful answer, here's the extra work you should do." Again, we need to assume that the askers won't be familiar with our stated procedures, and will do as little work as possible. Friday (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter how many times you repeat that, most of us still won't agree with your intentional misinterpretation of what it says. StuRat 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So you find that people are generally asking and answering according to the guidelines in Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer right now today? I don't see that. Friday (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem there is that our rules aren't concise. I wouldn't want to read through a couple pages of fine print before posting a question, either. Perhaps, after we finish with the policy consensus, we can look into cleaning those up a bit. One suggestion, just list the title of each item, as a link which elaborates on the point, if they need more info. StuRat 19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that more people might use it if it was listed at the top of the rules instead of the bottom, especially if a sample was shown. StuRat 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

While it's not 'complex' to us, I'm afraid it's not suitable for the bulk of our users.

The people most likely to be confused, put off, or hurt by 'playful' answers (ranging from cheery and playful banter, through tangentially related jokes, through crude sexual innuendo, all the way down to thinly-veiled – or unveiled – mockery) are also the ones least likely to fully read the long page header, or completely understand the instructions. There are moderately-experienced regular editors who may still not be familiar or comfortable with transcluding templates; I don't think it's fair to require children, people with English as a second or third language, and people unfamiliar with Wikipedia and wikicode to transclude a template just to guarantee that their question will be treated seriously.

We shouldn't put the onus on the questioners to ask us to treat them (and their questions) politely and respectfully. Please try to remember that what is obvious, simple, and straightforward to us – the people who edit Wikipedia every day, with thousands of edits, in some cases with admin privileges, who are comfortable with templates and transclusions and all the frippery of wikisyntax – is not simple and straightforward to everyone.

How many times per day do we have to remove a leading space because a questioner didn't know that would put his whole paragraph in monospaced type wihtout line breaks? (Obviously they didn't 'Preview', or they did and couldn't figure out a fix.) We regularly redact email addresses and phone numbers, despite bolded instructions to questioners not to do so. Most questions contain no wikilinks and often no signature. Many are from people who haven't managed to locate the 'Search' box on the left side of the screen. A few are just a short phrase, as if they thought this page was some sort of automated search engine. These are the people who use the Ref Desk. While some are comfortable with technology, the Internet, Wikipedia (syntax, style, and practice), and the English language, many of them are not.

It was a nice idea, but it's a solution that will only work for experienced Wikipedians. We need something more inclusive and accessible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We can always add it for them, if they don't seem to appreciate an off-topic remark. StuRat 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that our first assumption should be that they want a useful answer. Again, making them do extra stuff to get one does not serve the interests of the questioners. Friday (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There you go intentionally misinterpreting what it says again, this is getting old. Nobody EVER said that not having that template means we won't give them a useful answer. StuRat 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) StuRat 19:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, there's no need for mentioning the template in that case. Friday (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to expect unseasoned individuals (particularly the young, the elderly, and those unfamiliar with English or Wikipedia) to look at an answer that seems flippant, off-topic, or borderline insulting, and then

go searching for a way to ask for a straight answer;
understand how to edit their question (many people don't seem to get this on their first visit to the Ref Desk, notice that followup questions often appear in a new section at the bottom of the page, rather than in the orignal section); and
correctly insert a template reference (my grandparents probably wouldn't know how to type a curly brace, and I'm sure they wouldn't think of copy-pasting the template code)?

If we bite a newbie – particularly here – they're more likely to leave and never return, and we'll never know that they left with a bad taste in their mouth. Even if a serious answer comes later, the damage may be done. Expecting an editor to come back and tell us that they're hurt or confused by our first response is unreasonable. Pride, shyness, or flat confusion is going to bar them from telling us that they don't appreciate someone's 'clever' reply. In a cruel twist of fate, a lot of those people are probably too polite to complain about being ill-treated here, since they're still hoping that we will help them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there's no apparent consensus for this change, how about we remove the newly-added language recommending the "strict" template until such consensus emerges? Friday (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No ! We've already discussed this and agreed to add the template as an alternative to the Strict Ref Desk. Stop trying to go against the consensus. StuRat 20:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There are unanswered objections to this- see the clear explanation by TenOfAllTrades above. I don't see that there's consensus for it. Friday (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_15#Reference_Desk_header_change. StuRat 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There was also a rough consensus on the Strict Ref Desk: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_15#POLL_-_start_a_new_.27strict.27_ref_desk_.28as_a_test.29_.3F., so I can go ahead and add that, if you prefer. StuRat 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The second one is full of good stuff. It explains the difference between consensus and voting. Friday (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on template removal

This user has indicated that they would prefer serious answers and may require references. Please refrain from adding jokes and opinions.

The above template has been available for a short time. The proposal is to remove it:

Retain the template. The test period should be several months, not a few days. A few users have already found it and used, and I expect more will do so in the future. StuRat 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Deja vu. See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_15#POLL_-_start_a_new_.27strict.27_ref_desk_.28as_a_test.29_.3F. Friday (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Answer the question instead of complaining. Go to talk page of users that are frivolous. Carcharoth 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
sorta-support for entirely different reasons. For my reason, see my post at the very top of this section. For why I think some others' reasons may be incorrect, see my post under Froth's perspective. --⁪froth^{T C} 23:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retain. It's obvious that StuRat and Friday are in complete disagreement on this and voting is not going to accomplish anything but line people up on one side or the other of a minor issue. Since it was already implemented, it should be left a while to see if anyone other than Edison wants to use it. I fail to see any harm in it existing. -THB 00:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retain I like that template and don't like the little disagreements btwn fri and stu... it's sad... fri blocked light, and light was just trying to be funny, but fri doesn't think that wp is for funny... stu likes funny, stu likes adult diapers and making ppl peee themselves; and no, i am not drunk right now, i'm just re-iterating the facts in a mindless drown in the middle of the night. Cbrown1023 05:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retain. It's a potential solution to the deletionism. It's very new and being used already. Give it a try first. DirkvdM 08:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retain as per Dirk above. Gandalf61 11:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retain Sometimes one want INFORMED opinion and sourced answers rather than a free ranging bull session and off-the-cuff hunches of the uninformed who know less about the topic than the questioner. Edison 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove The template is unsightly (and hogs screen space), impolite, and probably useless. It is interfering with my enjoyment of serving at the reference desk. I take some comfort in the fact that this is a trial, and I hope it will be abandoned if there have not been manifest benefits. If we have to offer the template, could it add a sentence in parentheses at the end of the question, in normal typeface? That would go some way to making it seem less rude. Wareh 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retain Offers a possible solution to those that get upset about irrelevant answers. --Username132 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A stab at identifying the core issue

We're talking about stopping recommending the use of {{strict}}, right? That template is an experiment- so we should look at how it's working. Take a look at what's using it. I see only a small number of questions so far using this, one of them asked by Edison (who's clearly an experienced RD editor, not a newbie.) So, it's not being commonly used yet. I'm not saying this is automatically a reason to stop with the experiment, but I am suggesting that the experiment hasn't had much impact on how people are using the reference desks. Friday (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also Category:Serious reference desk questions --⁪froth^{T C} 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Give it some time. It's only a few days old. DirkvdM 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Froth's perspective

This template was suggested here by dirk on 12/3 and implemented the same night by me. It was in response to a lot of discussion about a new reference desk. This new reference desk would be highly formal and answers would be written in the tone of the mainspace and carefully referenced. The issue was divided; about half liked the idea and wanted it implemented, and the other half liked the idea but didn't like the idea of another desk fork (maybe bad feelings left over from fresh's fork proposal a couple of months ago). The point of the desk was to get front-page new users' input on whether they don't like the light tone that the RD was developing. If the desk was used extensively then obviously there's demand for more formal answers and we'd be forced into heavy reform. You'll like this one friday: I didn't think numbers alone would be enough so I proposed a discussion page (now here) that would allow users to give us input.. dirk took it one step further and sugested that we also implement a {{strict}} template to guage numbers of people less inclined to type out comments. So that was it, it was implemented.

Friday- to answer your comment about defaulting to pure jokery, I specifically crafted the language to avoid confusion- this concern had already been anticipated by me; see the bottom of this section. If you want more clarification, feel free to add something to the RD header about it; and I'd encourage you to do that because I think the last time it was used an OP seemed to be confused into thinking they'd recieve a joke if they didn't use the template. But the point is to give users an option to make it clear to responders that they want links and lots of em, and no tom-foolery about their question, so we can guage how many OPs think this is a better policy than the light-toned RD, and together with feedback gathered at the related talk page we can shape our policy to best suit our OPs needs. This is an experiment, and this is not anything permanent, it's a kind of creative poll to get OPs indirectly involved in our policy-making, and to encourage discussion. I think a lot of you guys either never knew this, or have lost sight of the original intent. But I think that the original intent may have been fulfilled, since users don't seem too interested in a formal ref desk option, that's why I "sorta supported" above. StuRat may be correct in saying that it just hasn't been out long enough to make any report on its popularity, and I'm inclined to agree with him until it becomes painfully obvious that nobody is really interested (which I think will become apparent in a few more weeks). Also some might not be satisfied with the experiment's validity (it hasn't run for long enough, ironic since the same people seem to want to shut it down; the people possibly most likely offended by a joke probably won't know how to transclude, something I think I make pretty clear but anyone's welcome to offer other suggestions on how to handle this) but whatever inaccuracies are involved I think the experiment has so far demonstated a significant lack of interest in a more formal reference desk. Now that might not be what the discussion is focusing around today but awhile ago that was the hot-button issue and we shouldn't just ignore those unanswered questions behind us. --⁪froth^{T C} 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. One problem is: the default behavior is the simplest- whoever doesn't notice the instructions won't include a template. So this will skew results in favor of people not using it. What if we also let people use a {{silly}} template for those who don't want a serious answer? This might make both camps happy - questioners get the choice. The objection remains that several editors have said that the default choice should be based on the assumption that people asked the question primarily to get an answer, not primarily for entertainment. Friday (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The assumption is that people want a good answer (and the RD is very good at getting OPs good answers) but don't mind if humor or somewhat roundabout discussion takes place under their header. I think this is a fair assumption, for two reasons 1) because personally that's what I want under my questions and 2) because for example if I want help with a tricky piece of code and I go to a programming forum and I ask my question and then demand that the answerers use no humor in their responses, I can be sure that nobody will help me (read this timeless document). I wouldn't dare impose on the people that are volunteering their time to answer my question. Whether or not we at wikipedia consider it imposing is irrelevant, since most incoming OPs will feel that they can reasonably expect humor or whatever in the responses because after all, these people are helping me out, they can do whatever they want as long as I get my answer. So it's not at all unreasonable for the default to be what everyone would naturally assume (light, undisruptive humor and informality is allowed) and the strict tag to be extra --⁪froth^{T C} 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Alright, I'll buy that. If I'm understanding you, you're suggesting that the default is to just be normal and assume that normal standards of social interaction apply. I agree with this entirely. That's why I was suggesting we drop mention of the new "strict" tag, but if people want to let the experiment run, I don't object much. I'm just saying we should all remember to not read much into people not using it, for the reasons well explained above by TenOfAllTrades. Friday (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nobody seems too interested in the encyclopedic-content debate anymore anyway --⁪froth^{T C} 23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an experiment without a proper control can't really prove anything. Had there been an option to add a template "Please answer my quetion with lots of crude comments and inappropriate jokes" it would probably have been equally unused. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The default is what I described above, and it's how the internet works socially: "say whatever the heck you want since I'm not paying for your answer, but I sure hope that someone answers accurately." That's the control. The experiment is giving people the option of politely asking editors to only give useful answers, without feeling rude and without worrying about not getting an answer. --⁪froth^{T C} 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"How the Internet works socially" is not a control, let alone a proper control. As an experiment, comparing the number of people who add a tag to the number of people who do nothing is pretty much a non-experiment. It certainly doesn't tell us anything useful. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an experiment to me. --⁪froth^{T C} 04:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good thing you don't do experiments for a living, then. - Nunh-huh 04:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. I wasn't the one who suggested this template. I suggested a gender-neutral one with a less conspicuous appearance. I got my way in the second sense, though. DirkvdM 08:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the following to the two questions I have on the Ref Desk right now (a Computer Desk question on moving off-screen windows [6] and a Humanities Desk question on the name of the movie North by Northwest [7]), you guys might want to do the same to "publicize" the new template:

This user has indicated that they would prefer serious answers and may require references. Please refrain from adding jokes and opinions.

I've added the above template primarily to show it to users, who are then free to add it themselves, if they wish, as:

StuRat 09:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Feedback on a removal

I just removed this edit and warned the user for vandalism, but I may have been too hasty. I welcome input, and if anyone thinks the edit should be restored may do so. My rationale is that the only contact information the editor included was the URL, which has nothing to do with the topic posted. The content of the post, while deeply serious and personal, also seems questionable. Anchoress 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Advertisements are removable on sight. Adverts accompanied by a bizarre trolling story are no exception. Good removal. Friday (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not even clear that the website is selling anything, so maybe "spam" is a better word than advertising. Still removable on sight. Friday (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well they are actually, remarkably, selling timeshares in their extra-terrestrial condo complex. Overpriced, IMO. But you gotta love the soft sales techniques. Anchoress 20:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I know where I'm going on vacation now. In this case- I personally think your edit summary was perfectly adequate explanation. There's no harm in bringing it up on the talk page of course, but i don't consider it very neccessary in cases like this. Friday (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Great advertising. I fell for it also. Then again, Mr. Dressup was my all-time favourite show -- Samir धर्म 20:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that there is no truth whatsoever to the removed post, I hope I'm not being too callous when I suggest the editor in question should look up if he wants to find his family? Anchoress 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

~To Friday~ Yeah, thanks. It's cuz with the painfully personal (and just painful) narrative it could spin as kicking a new editor when s/he's down. Anchoress 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There's that fine line between WP:BITE and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Friday (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Overpriced?! Heck, if I had the money I wouldn't hesitate to buy a space condo for only 3 billion dollars. It would cost far more than that to build, especially considering the countless billions poured into the development of the ISS --⁪froth^{T C} 23:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is an intentional spam attempt. One possibility is that the web address was a typo, another is that it really is his business site, and he wants us to respond with an e-mail link there. That long story seems entirely unnecessary, he could have just asked a short question, instead, if his only goal was to get us to that web site. I answered the question on his talk page and explained why his comment was removed from the Ref Desk. StuRat 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He's been around. --hydnjo talk 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Google doesn't return anything when you search for the actual content of the story. Not a very good advertising scheme when you type for an hour straight to come up with a uniquely horrifying story for each ad. By the way I hear about these type stories all of the time.. what's the psychology behind women just suddenly hating their husbands and wanting to take the kids? I can understand men leaving their families, but women taking their families? --⁪froth^{T C} 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't at all believe he wrote that whole story to spam a website. I think, at the least, that he believes it is true. While he did not actually ask a question, the post itself implies some answers are needed and might have been provided. The website address was his signature. I might have answered more as StuRat did on the man's talk page.

Anchoress, I know you meant well, but actual tag you used, labelling the post "nonsense", was maybe not the kindest nor most accurate phrase that could have been used. His post was not "nonsense". Just pointing out that it was not appropriate for the RD would have been sufficient. -THB 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's why I posted here hours ago asking for feedback. As I stated, anyone is welcome to undo what I did. I believe it was trolling and posted the 'test2' vandalism template, but anyone is welcome to remove it if they disagree, or restore the question to the desk. Anchoress 01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and you should state what about the post made it inappropriate for the Ref Desk, in this case, the fact that it contained a spam web address. StuRat 01:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly why I removed it; I removed it because I thought it was trolling that amounted to vandalism, and I used a vandalism template, which is what I use all the time for that type of stuff elsewhere on WP. I might have gone back and added something based on discussion here, but you already did. Anchoress 01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's textbook spam. No need to spend more time on it than it takes to remove it. Friday (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly textbook o_o. But yeah probably spam --⁪froth^{T C} 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not *textbook* spam, if spam at all. That's a kneejerk reaction. If it had been textbook, Anchoress wouldn't have expressed a concern about possibly acting hastily. Since this was the user's first post, and he registered an account, and the only thing spammy about his post is the .com on the end of his signature, and, as Anchoress put it, the whole post is "deeply serious and personal", and ends with an actual question, I really think it was never intended by the author to be spam. Even the name of his website used as his signature is spaced out w w w blahblah. c o m so you can't even *click* on it. Inappropriate for the RD, yes; textbook spam, no; spam of any sort, I don't think so, though obviously most disagree. The RD is many users' first encounter with Wikipedia so we must be extra careful about how we treat them, Friday. -THB 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said. StuRat 10:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with Friday's "delete it and forget it" approach. Anchoress was right to put a note on the questioner's talk page - all editors are people and deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect, even if we think they are spammers. StuRat's more explanatory note is even better, becasue it tells the questioner exactly why their question was removed. Anchoress - thank you for asking for feedback .Gandalf61 11:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think all we can conclude is that different editors have different opinions. So, each of us will remove or not, according to our own judgment. I'm still scratching my head over how someone looks at this example and doesn't see obvious spam, but maybe this is because I see a lot of spam and have gotten good at recognizing it. Friday (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, at this point I would be surprised if anyone expects you to loosen your opinions or change your behavior in any way. Your crusade is outlined on your user page. It is quite obvious that this whole discussion is going nowhere and is a waste of my time. -THB 19:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)