Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC

Who did this?

For the record, I did. I don't hate the refdesk but I think it needs reforming, so here we are. You may direct your rotten tomatoes and cabbages in my direction. No molotovs please. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for caring, and thanks for obviously putting quite a bit of time and thought into this (and thanks for not hating us). How long will this RFC be open before any "official" conclusions are drawn? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs : "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." Apologies for asking a question I could have looked up myself from the get-go. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Tea House

I remember reading a suggestion somewhere that Ref desk should be merged with Tea House. I'm not formally suggesting this myself currently, for now let's just discuss the idea. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

ISTM the purposes are very different, Refdesk presumably being oriented to readers, and Teahouse to new editors. Those populations will certainly overlap, but their needs are distinct. I don’t see how either would be better met by such an arrangement.—Odysseus1479 00:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As a host I can honestly say that I feel that would be far too heavy of a load to dump on the Teahouse and it would struggle and create issues that do not need to be created. Technical 13 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Out of the blue, isn't this?

It strikes me as rather unusual that Beeblebrox would start this RfC out of the blue; I'm not sure what prompted him to jump straight into an RfC without attempting to engage with other editors who use and contribute to the Reference Desk. As near as I can tell, Beeblebrox last made an edit to an Ref Desk page more than a year ago, in March 2012[1]. Aside from announcing that he had created this RfC, I can find no indication that he has ever edited Wikipedia talk:Reference desk.

Despite this lack of previous engagement, for some reason he's decided that he gets to frame the RfC, open it without any discussion, choose what the first six options will be (and decide how those options will be described, and in what order they will be presented), and invite applications for admins to close his RfC (presumably in order to make whatever tortured result comes out of this rush job stick). I can't imagine a way to more effectively alienate the volunteers and users of the Reference Desk—many of whom might well have been on board with (and vigorously supportive of) a less ambush-like process.

Leaving aside the questionable judgement involved in posting a 'surprise' RfC, it's also disappointing that Beeblebrox hasn't sought to present his research (if any) or make it easy or straightforward for readers of the RfC to find information. Instead of providing links to discussions about the Ref Desk's problems, readers are just advised to go start reading at Wikipedia:REFDESK. There are links to the Tea House, Help Desk, and WP:NOT, but not one wikilink to pages like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice, or any threads at WP:AN or Wikipedia talk:Reference desk dealing with Ref Desk conduct and governance (and how they were or were not resolved). There's just a lack of evidence that Beeblebrox did his homework putting together this RfC, and that's unfortunate. Editors are asked to reach conclusions based on some combination of Beeblebrox's opinion and their own preconceived notions.

This could have been an opportunity for the Ref Desk's regulars to engage with members of the community who might be less familiar with that corner of the project. There could have been constructive feedback. It's really too bad. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I still think it can be that opportunity, and outside views can be productive and beneficial (only considering our inside-perspective, as we are more or less forced to do at WT:RD, carries the risk of missing something essential). Aren't we (i.e. those who aren't Beeblebrox) allowed to add our own options and suggestions to the list, and have them discussed as well? Aren't we allowed to mention and document additional benefits or problems to Wikipedia the desks might pose, that haven't been addressed in the current structure? If we are not allowed to do this, and if it must remain framed this tightly, I'd tend to agree with you. I do wish to add some things, but it will take time to back it up with diffs, which is why I asked about the time-frame above. A month should be sufficient, provided the discussion can be expanded outside the framework presented here. If it can't, I'll just give a reasoned support for Option four, like most people have so far. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Beeblebrox is entitled to do what he thinks is best for the project. He doesn't need your approval. --Jayron32 03:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think I'm demanding that Beeblebrox seek my approval before making a proposal, you aren't reading my comment very closely.

I do know that I spent months working with other editors in 2006 and 2007 to develop and get buy-in for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice, trying to address user conduct issues that arose in that era, building consensus at the time for what the Reference Desk's guiding principles and policies ought to be, and trying to figure out how the Ref Desk ought to fit into Wikipedia. We successfully made lasting improvements. In contrast, Beeblebrox appearing out of nowhere and declaring that we're a hive of scum and villainy who must have a fix imposed from without is contrary to most every Wikipedia policy or governance tradition.

And of course, when the Ref Desk does ask for outside help, the assistance we get from the non-Ref Desk portions of the community is scant and unreliable. Look at the Wickwack situation. If someone had been socking like that to stack discussions, evade sanction, and abuse other editors in the article space, Wikipedia process pages, or their associated talk pages, WP:AN would have come down like a ton of bricks. Instead, we can't even get an outside admin to close the discussion. Troublemakers know that AN/I doesn't have our back. Taking a conduct problem to AN/I is just an invitation for someone like Beeblebrox to dust off the let's-shut-down-the-Ref-Desk-because-it's-nothing-but-trouble canard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, Beeblebrox has demonstrated no evidence that he's done anything wrong here. Your accusation that AN doesn't act to help out the ref desks when issues arise seems odd, there's currently an open discussion there which contradicts that concept directly. If Beeblebrox's opinion that something needs to be done at the ref desk doesn't hold widespread support, then the status quo will be upheld. Have some faith in the process, and don't try to demand that people who hold different opinions from you hold their tongue or accuse them of bad faith or anything. Beeblebrox, in their own mind, has genuine concerns, and is allowed to ask the community if they agree or disagree with them. If the community disagrees, that's fine too, but that the community disagrees doesn't make Beeblebrox's concerns invalid. --Jayron32 04:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? It seems clear that ToaT is at least partially referring to the same thread you are referring to. And I think they have a bit of a point. I haven't responded to that AN thread. Partially because it already looked a snowball topic ban once I saw it, something I didn't disagree with, partially because I was waiting to see what non RD regulars would say. But the later was not forthcoming, there are perhaps 2 which fit into this category before your request for closure. Although this may have been partially because of the snowball and there is no particular requirement that people not already active in the topic participate in the discussion, it was a bit disappointing to say the least, and as ToaT has said, it's not as if this is a minor thing, there are accusations of serious sockpuppetry here, in the form of inventing multiple identities to amongst other things, indicate fictitious support and attack other contributors. And the discussion still hasn't been closed.

As someone who has tracked several sockpuppets and other problematic editors of less concern, I have often been reluctant to report, whether at one of the AN desks or at SPI, partially because it seems a waste of my time even if the outcome is successful, but also partially because even with good evidence I'm not always sure I'd get a useful response, and if I'm slack with my evidence, I'm even less sure. While I acknowledge these are partially a result of our policies, particularly the strictness around the use of the CU tool, it also seems that there is frequently less concern when the behaviour is occurring at the RD. While I'm not saying this is wrong, it does discourage dealing with such behaviour. And ironically if I do gather the evidence, people may say we (the RD, may be not me in particular), have been too slack in letting these people continue to contribute.

I also agree with ToaT on the wider point. While I'm not suggest Beeblebrox was acting in bad faith, although I don't think ToaT was either, and I don't claim to have a lot of experience with RFCs, my experience is that these sort of wide ranging RFCs when coming out of the blue like this rarely achieve anything useful. For starters, as ToaT says, if there is no consultation, it tends to get the backs up of those already involved, leading to a more confrontational RFC than is necessary. And I don't think you can claim this is entirely on those already involved since ultimately there's rarely a good reason why you shouldn't try to discuss such matters with them first and it's understandable people are going to get annoyed if indicate problems with what's happening or at least want to propose serious changes to the way things happen with something they are already involved in, but haven't discussed it at all with them first.

Perhaps more importantly, with such RFCs, it generally becomes the case that a substantial amount of time is spent discussing the RFC wording and questions. While this always is going to happen, having it happen when the RFC has already started is problematic since it makes the RFC even more confusing and usually results in many of the contributors having already left comments before we've even come up with the better RFC (or a decent RFC if we don't have one, if we ever come up with one.) And seeing all that also discourages people from contributing.

In some cases, consultation with those already actively involved will result in decisions and improvements which negate the need for the RFC as the concerns are addresses. Or perhaps after discussion, the person will feel their concerns were somewhat misguided. But even if this doesn't happen, it's usually far better when some discussion is held beforehand, problems and issues to be discussed identified, questions and wording developed in a collaborative fashion etc. It results in the far better RFC. Furthermore, the consultation helps assure other people that perhaps there is something worth looking in to, (and of course taken with all the rest that the RFC may actually achieve something useful). On a personal level, I usually avoid such RFCs as a matter of course, particularly as a neutral party and even when I do participate, as much as I try to keep an open mind, it's difficult to ignore the poor way the RFC may have been developed, in fact even if I'm naturally sympathetic to the basis for the RFC, I'm still often reluctant to support.

Note that other then my earlier comments, I haven't mentioned Beeblebrox at all since that's beside the point. As I've said, I'm not suggesting any sort of bad faith, simply that the RFC appears to IMO have been poorly developed. Acting in good faith/for the genuine betterment of the project doesn't stop people making bad decisions which harm more than they help. Note also was with ToaT, if you think I'm suggesting permission is needed for an RFC, you're missing my point. This has nothing to do with permission, but all to do with consultation and the way to develop the best RFC. In fact, if people try to stop someone starting an RFC, but there are important issues identified, this gives strength to the RFC. (And in the same vein, in some rare instances consultation may be attempted but rebuffed or come to naught. In such cases it may even clearly become necessary to develop the RFC either independently or in consultation with others not actively involved. But this sort of thing is rare, particularly in RFC not primarily related to user conduct or POV issues. And the initial attempts still give good stead to the eventual RFC)

Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As a simple example of what I'm talking about, option 1 is 'Make the ref desk work like an actual reference desk'. The funny thing is that the 3 people I noticed so far who have said they do actually work at a library reference desk namely 'Mingmingla', '-TammyMoet' and 'some jerk on the Internet' have said that what we do at the moment isn't that far from how a real library reference desk works, in so much as the concept transfers over the internet and to wikipedia in particular; given the limited interaction, anonymity and associated problems like sockpuppetry, unpaid volunteers etc. In other words, it's entirely unclear what option 1 is actually proposing. This sort of thing could likely have been sorted out with some discussion beforehand, in fact a number of us regulars have probably heard related commented before this RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Trying to make this about me is a waste of time as far as I am concerned and I won't be taking the bait. This isn't my first rodeo, in fact I have written an essay on the subject of policy RFCs that predicts this sort of thread as the inevitable outcome of daring to open a discussion. Every time I do it someone rises up to attack me and my motivations. My motivations are no more complicated than an honest desire to have a broad discussion about what, if anything, should be changed at the refdesk. If the community's answer is that we shouldn't do anything at all that's fine with me, I just think the discussion needs to be had. This is the last you will be hearing from em on this subject, If you want to have a prolonged discussion about what a horrible person I am you can put together Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Beeblebrox. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs more focus.

My main problem with this RFC is that it seems to be a general "I don't like the ref desks" bitch session. It doesn't lay out a specific problem or set of problems that needs to be resolved. If the problem is "too many dumb questions" then the option to abolish the ref desk is ridiculous over-kill, ditto if the problem is "too many medical/legal questions are being answered". We need to debate this in bite-sized chunks. Either:

1. We should list the current set of problems - attempt to address them individually - and only if it seems that they are insolvable should we start to address "nuclear options" such as abolition....OR...
2. We should decide whether we want the ref desk to exist at all...and if we do, we should address any problems it has.

Attempting to do both at once is creating a messy RFC that's hard to resolve with a simple Support/Oppose response. In many cases, I can see people are trying to say "If we could resolve X and Y then we should keep the ref desks - but if we can't it should go"...and it's just not possible to express that position clearly with the catch-all structure of this RFC. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

More background

There doesn't seem to be enough general background. For example, note that there are lots of other sites out there doing this such as Quora. See list of question-and-answer websites for a long list. So why are we doing this too? And can we be told what happens in other language wikipedias such as the German one. Warden (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Quora is a great example. A site you can't even read without signing up to their Terms of Service and giving your real name so they can track every question you ever look up and sell that data to the highest bidder (even if, apparently, they no longer give it to your acquaintances). They are known as a question and answer site, they are supposedly valuated at a billion dollars by the bankers conniving to get in on this newest Facebookization of the Internet, and though I have not read even one of their answers, I would bet money they aren't any better at it than we are!

Tell me - when was the last time you had a chance to pile up a billion dollars, a billion fricking dollars, in a great big pile, roughly oh I dunno maybe a 45-foot-tall pile of greenbacks, and run around spraying hundreds of tins of lighter fluid until you're ready to strike the match? Because that's when you're doing when you say that we as free culture have no right to do this stuff, no business getting involved, that we should just accept that a bunch of crooked scheming capitalists should have the omnipotence of God to be able to see every merger coming from the minute the secretary looks up the legal jargon, to know who is diligently studying their SOPs and six-sigma and who is dabbling in communism, to smile on those who think the way they want them to and see the end of the others. Our Refdesk isn't the only fish in the sea, true - it's not worth the whole billion dollars - it's only worth its share of the free culture alternatives, maybe a tenth, maybe a hundredth, maybe no more than a few million if you're pessimistic. But if we don't stand up for our right to push ahead with the advancement of knowledge here, who is going to do it? Are we going to leave it to the people on 4chan to answer the medical questions (which I've seen them do...) and provide the counterbalance to Facebook's banker empire? Wnt (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you should switch to decaf. Warden just asked a question, I don't think he was looking to get into a sociopolitical debate about the morality of other websites, a debate which has no place in this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It was asked "why are we doing this too?". Wnt (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I looked into Quora when Jimmy Wales recommended it. It seemed too shallow so I didn't persist but recently I went back to check and participated in a medical Q&A which was, IMO, done quite well. The site gives good feedback, letting readers rate the answers and this seems more satisfying than Wikipedia. People should try a site like that to understand what's possible when it's designed for the job. Note that there are some questions about Wikipedia's reference desk such as Are the people who answer questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk paid employees of Wikipedia?. Warden (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not signing up to Quora just to read it, nor signing up to Facebook or Google+ so I can sign up to Quora, so it's hard to comment on how they answer medical questions. Heck, it's hard to comment on how we answer medical questions since we're not being allowed to. Which makes it hard to say what, if anything, we could learn from them. I know some of those kids on 4chan weren't doing that bad a job interpreting an X-ray the last I looked, for that matter, with others playing like WP ethicists and making fun of the guy for asking there. What I know for sure is that we should not need to have some banker come in and buy Wikipedia and make everybody register under their own name so he can track what they read and sell it, in order for us to make a decent try at answering medical questions, with honest recognition of our limitations. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• All you need to access Quora is an email address which isn't much. They ask that you provide your real name but that's not unreasonable. What I like is that their terms say, "You retain ownership of all Content you submit, post, display, or otherwise make available on the Service", which is unlike Wikipedia where you have to give everything away. The terms for medical stuff seem similar to Wikipedia, "The answers on this site are provided by Legal & Medical Contributors for informational purposes only. ... is not intended to be medical advice or instructions for medical diagnosis or treatment, and no physician-patient relationship is, or is intended to be, created by Content provided by Medical Contributors." So, from a user's point of view, it's much like Wikipedia. Warden (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, except we don't require you to give up 'ownership' by which I presume they mean 'copyright' to contribute to wikipedia. In fact, you retain the copyright for all you contribute to wikipedia, unless you choose to give it up in some way. You do have to agree to licence your content under a free licence, in the case of textual contributions that has to be both the GFDL and CC BY-SA however this is quite a different thing from assigning the copyright to someone else or giving it up.

Note that as with many websites of the type, if you contribute to Quora, you agree to give them an irrevocable worldwide royalty-free sub-licencable licence to all you contribute, including the right to make modifications (they mention modifications in two places, one implies they may only modify as necessary to distribute the content but the other is fairly open ended). In other words, they can most likely pretty much do whatever they want with your content making money from it however they want. On the other hand, unlike with a free licence, only Quora and anyone they choose to sub-licence gets to use your content in this way. Others can make use of it, but it's far more limited.

BTW, isn't it a little misleading to say 'All you need to access Quora is an email address which isn't much' only to later acknowledge you in fact need to give up your real name as well? Remember we aren't just talking about contributing but reading.

And I don't really understand how Quora is like wikipedia from a user's POV at all, when they can't even see the content unless they register with their real name and some sort of email, or violate the TOS, or look up ways get around the intentional limitations (which may or may not violate the TOS. When researching stuff whether for myself or for the RD I use a variety of sources whether for links or for general info or finding stuff to help further the research, including in some instances stuff like Yahoo Answers, Wikianswers or even ChaCha not to mention all manner of forums etc. Quora is a resource I rarely use because I have no desire to use a general purpose user generated website which forces me to register to read. (Their system maybe easy to get around but I find it too stupid to consider, even that stupid tech website which pretended you had to register but actually hid the answers at the bottom wasn't so stupid.)

And I'm far from a Wnt. I do have a Facebook account and I've registered for all sort of nonsense sites and I actually do often connect my Facebook account to stuff (partially because I got sick of having 50 million unique accounts) and as you may guess by this, I'm probably far too free with what I share either under my own name or easily linked pseudonyms. I simply refuse to use a site with the nonsense of Quora.

In other words, of all the examples of alternative websites out there, if Quora is your example of the site which can replace the RD, there's actually little discussion to be had about why we do need the RD.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Quora is not identical, of course. One way it seems superior is that you don't seem to get the sort of endless meta-discussion which this RfC exemplifies and which wastes so much time and energy here. See WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing

The last comment was four days ago. Should this be closed, or should we wait the full thirty days? Ypnypn (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I favor closing RfCs after 7 full days of inactivity in cases where someone is waiting for the result and cannot proceed until it closes, and otherwise letting the 30 days run out -- in other words, don't close just because of inactivity but be willing to close early if there is a reason to do so other than inactivity. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)