Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:10, 17 July 2012

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Joke policy

Do we need a joke policy? I've seen numerous threads over the past few months where the ratio of joke-to-content is unbalanced, where the jokes come well before the good answers to, and where OPs who complain about jokes getting in the way of their answers are told that they, not the jokester, have committed the faux pas, by complaining.

Hey, I'm not opposed to a little community. Joking does wonders and we're all volunteers. But I sort of thing some really basic courtesy is called for. Some thoughts:

1. Don't start with a joke. If the question hasn't gotten at least one or two serious answers to it, don't start off with the bad puns or small quips. (Possible exceptions are questions that have no possible serious answers, though even then, tread lightly, give it a few days. Just because you don't think a serious answer is possible doesn't mean it's impossible.)
2. Keep the jokes pretty inoffensive. The Ref Desk is used by people of all ages, genders, sexes, classes, races, nations, languages, religions, and what have you. Don't post something that you wouldn't say in a room full of diverse strangers. Don't let the relative anonymity of the Internet turn you into a jerk, inadvertently or not. We're not censored, but we don't have to be pointlessly offensive. If it's considered racy in your culture, it's probably worth just keeping under your hat. (We're not asking you to try and guess what's offensive in all cultures, but it's a healthy assumption that if it's racy in yours, it may be truly offensive in another's. There's really no need for that either way.)
3. If the OP complains about the joking, just apologize and/or cease and desist. Engaging in a long, drawn-out conversation about whether your joke was appropriate or not is not productive for the Ref Desk's overall goal of answering questions. A simple, "OK, sorry about that" will do, and nobody will think less of you for being big about it. It really doesn't matter if your joke was or was not appropriate or not. Part of being civil is recognizing when you're irritating the very person you're supposed to be helping and just backing off.

I'm not a fan of bureaucratic bloat, so I'm not really proposing that this go through some sort of long, drawn-out process of agreement and hemming and hawing, but I will just put it forward as a suggestion for best practices. Again, I'm not opposed to a bit of joking and whatnot — I do it myself. But I do think we should not let the chatty, community aspects overshadow the ultimate justification for the Reference Desk — because Misplaced Pages is not a chatroom.

To use the physical metaphor, I'd be pretty irritated if I went to a real-world library reference desk with an earnest question, and all the people behind the desk did was make little puns, trying to one-up each other, without actually answering the question. Just my two cents; not trying to single any one user out in particular, this is something I've seen coming from a lot of people. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. 98's proposal in general. I think this is really just a special-case restatement of WP:TONE. If it doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, it probably does not belong on the reference desk. We might do well to more aggressively remove unencyclopedic contributions, whether by regular or non-regular contributors. Nimur (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing goes a bit far, and should only be used in extreme cases. Hatting is sufficient in most cases. Otherwise, you could end up with people deleting any contribution which they feel doesn't have adequate sources, as "nonencyclopedic", leading to edit wars.

I also disagree with "If it doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, it probably does not belong on the reference desk". For example, if a user posts a homework problem he did and got marked wrong, and wants us to help find the error, that's not the type of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia, but it does belong here. There are many other examples. StuRat (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Helping with the homework question in the tone of an encyclopedia is fine; only the content need be different. Matt Deres (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The tone needs to be different, too. For example, you wouldn't use the first person when writing an article, but it's fine when answering a Ref Desk Q: "When doing such a problem, I first...". StuRat (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Content_and_tone. It doesn't cover Mr. 98's third point though. I agree with that one too, and it could be added to the guidelines. No need to lecture an OP for complaining about the jokes. Obviously, in these cases, the joke wasn't appreciated. Swallow it and move on. Don't berate the OP for not sharing your sense of humor or for having the cheek to insist on an answer rather than a joking post which doesn't include an answer). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/cx2) I agree with Mr.98. Matt Deres (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to 98's physical example, I'd be amused if a ref desk at a library was as lively and responsive as you describe, as long as my question did get answered. The Ref Desk is "staffed" by volunteers, so, Nimur, talk of "aggressive" action, however well intentioned, is completely inappropriate absent an "aggressive" cause. All that said, most of what is proposed is fine. You might consider putting it up for reference in the same way the we sometimes use Kainaw's parameters for "Is this medical advice?". I doubt you will get agreement for anything stronger than that. Bielle (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I Also agree, jokes should not interfere with answering the questions. A possible exception could be if a joke is actually to the point and would contribute to addressing the posted problem. Count Iblis (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the 3 points raised, but as noted, more appropriate as an essay. On #1, if all you are going to post is a joke as the first response, don't bother - though a combined joke and refutation ("this can't be answered as science does not address this question, but I would use a pink flying unicorn") is OK. The humour:content ratio ebbs and flows over time, it shouldn't be overwhelming in any thread or from any one user, and beyond just hatting bits of a thread, approaching individual editors on their own talk pages to calmly and politely discuss the level and appropriateness of their RefDesk humour quotient is always the best way to go. Even if they tell you to screw off, you can just say your piece and give them time to think about it. If there was going to be a "policy", that is what I would write up: the 3 principles above, discuss on user talk first. And my own thing too - use -small- notation and indent an extra level so that it's very very clear you are stepping out from the actual purpose of the desks and not taking yourself seriously when you make a joke. Franamax (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think worrying about jokes when we don't worry about editors wanting to poison themselves or others is itself a joke. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think bringing up one's own pet peeve in a completely unrelated thread is disruptive and narcissistic, but you don't see me banging on about it here there and everywhere. Franamax (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? My merely expressing the fact that your (pl) concern with jokes--but not the irresponsible giving of advice on deadly matters--is a huge inversion of priorities is hardly "disruptive". As for jokes as such, humor is often the only appropriate response to some of the absurd questions posted here, the outright trolling, and especially self-important moralizing. Something about the mote in your own eye, pal. μηδείς (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're referring to, sorry. Please feel free to start your own thread if you have a separate point to make. Please don't try and hijack this one, though, just because you think it is less important than other issues. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. There are many places on the internet for posting jokes, but the Reference Desk is not one of them. If someone absolutely must post a joke it should be after the OP of a question has gotten a good answer, and should not detract from the question or lower the tone of the thread AvrillirvA (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And if there is no "good answer"? Or if it's a really dumb question? Or trolling? Or completely unclear? The other day we had a post that said "uv". Nothing more. Please suggest a "good answer". HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I assumed they wanted to know about ultraviolet light, and gave them the link to our article. I could be wrong, but it's a reasonable guess. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! If the question has no good answer, the answer is "There is no good answer because _____." If the question is actually dumb, the answer should be easy. If it's trolling, ignore or hat etc. If it's completely unclear, say "This is not clear because _____." If it's funny, say, "This is funny because _____." or make a joke which explains the humor by being both another example of the same joke, and funny in a different way. If too many of the most recent questions are funny, treat them as trolling. If it's offensive, say, "This is offensive because _____." 75.166.192.187 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, if there is no reasonably good answer to give, it's pretty simple: don't answer at all. Leave it for someone else, or just let it lie fallow. Mingmingla (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mingmingla's response is generally mine on these sorts of things. If one absolutely does feel the need to engage the un-engaging, a simple, "What's your question?" might suffice. I still don't see humor (especially mocking humor) as the answer, here. I'm not sure who you imagine is on the other end, but it could easily be a child, a confused elderly person, someone with a disability, someone whose computer is acting up in strange ways, or whatever. There's no need to assume they're a troll or a jerk or an idiot. AGF. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mocking is not acceptable, whether done jokingly or in any other way. The whole thing whereby people decide, explain, pontificate or judge what is or is not funny, is completely beside the point of humour. When you hear something that makes you laugh or smile, your experience is joy, which you express by laughter or a smile. Transferring that onto the thing that caused it, and saying you "find" it funny, is just that, transference. But humour is far more complex and subtle and individual than that. One joke might make 10 people laugh, but cause distress to 10 others. The first lot would say it was funny, the second lot would disagree. And who would be right? Answer: None of them, because it's not about whether it is or is not funny. It's solely about whether a listener does or does not experience joy.

If someone makes a post here that was not intended as any sort of joke, but still had the effect of producing laughter in a number of editors, how would we deal with that? Would we say it was inappropriate because of the effect it had? The answer is obvious. So really, it comes down to the intent of a post. If the intent clearly is to make people laugh, that seems to be not-OK in the eyes of some people, but if there was no such intent (whether laughter was actually produced or not), that's perfectly all right (as long as it was appropriate in every other way). Is this a sane basis for assessing the appropriateness of posts? When did it become not-OK to actually want to spread joy?

Sure, sure, we have to remember the purpose of the ref desks, and keep them a welcoming place and not inadvertently drive people away, and keep things in perspective. But that can all be achieved in an atmosphere that is not as dry as dust and boring as batshit. Who would want to work in a workplace where no communications are ever permitted that are not strictly about the work, and nobody ever laughed? This isn't a Dickensian workhouse. I've never worked in a place where there was a formal policy about joke-telling, specifying what jokes are acceptable or not, and under what circumstances they may or may not be told, and I'd hate to see such a Stalinist policy instituted here. I have worked under policies that promote mutual respect and forbid racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise inappropriately discriminatory behaviour; and I've certainly worked in environments where the serious purpose of the team and the pressing nature of the work meant that people didn't have the time or inclination to be joking every 5 minutes - but there were still regular opportunities to have a break and let our hair down and let off a little steam and have a laugh.

Well, guess what, the Ref Desks are not even a workplace to begin with, and it's not like we're all working on some grand project that has a budget and a deadline and there are chains of command. People have their own reasons for being involved here, but in 100% of cases there is an absence of compulsion - other than their own inner drives. People often turn up at work every day because in a very real and practical sense they have to, and not necessarily because they particularly enjoy the work or the environment. These Ref Deks are the exact opposite of that. There is zero compulsion, and we keep on turning up only because we DO particularly enjoy the work and the environment. Having some rules is important, but it's so easy to overdo it. Zealots can do just as much harm in their way as vandals and trolls do in theirs. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What Jack said. Also, if this is to continue, shouldn't people be giving diffs? And funny '98 should mention computer acting up. If you see an edit summary by me that makes no sense it's because my computer decided to hit the RETURN key all by itself before I was finished typing. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We do need to be aware of medical implications. It's a well-documented fact that many people have died laughing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a few jokes and a bit of banter is OK once the thread has developed. What I find annoying, in my experience of using the ref. desk from time to time, is when the first person to answer does so with no real intention of being helpful but simply to show how witty or clever they are. That does occasionally happen. 86.160.221.207 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, Bugs did make me laugh. Most of us (myself certainly included) don't wish for a boring, dry workhouse. I don't think we need to dichotomize into "no joke is ever appropriate" vs "all jokes are always appropriate because no one gets to decide what's appropriate". I think the key reason these (and other) threads pop up occasionally has to do with how certain types of posts produce distraction. When a distraction from the question or topic is presented before a relevant reply has been posted, a number of askers may feel turned off and not taken seriously. We've received such feedback multiple times since the desks exist.

Of course I too keep turning up because I enjoy the work and the environment. Once again, I point to point three of "Steve Summit's take on the reference desk" :

"The purposes of the Reference Desks are To have fun showing off our knowledge, expertise, and erudition."

" I think it's just as important to acknowledge, because it explains why those of us who participate are actually here. It's all well and good to state highfalutin virtuous altruistic principles for these desks, but people aren't going to come here and volunteer their time and expertise to answer questions unless they enjoy doing it. So their enjoyment is important. In fact, to the extent that a certain amount of humor and friendly banter are enjoyable, those aspects are important, too. They certainly can't be denied and shouldn't be discouraged. But, again, they come at a lower priority: if (when) they come into conflict with the helping-the-project and helping-the-questioners goals, they've got to give way first."

I enjoy receiving a joking comment from the librarian most when it comes with the answer or service I'm looking for. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I go along with all that (while acknowledging that I do occasionally offend against the "answers first, jokes later" rule). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 00:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a need for any new/special policy here - it should be uncontroversial to say that the purpose of these pages is to answer questions, and humor is welcome as long as it helps rather than hinders this activity. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I find lengthy discussions conducted all in small font to be probably ultimately more annoying than jokes. The usefulness of small font tagging for even single asides or off-topic comments is dubious at best, and entire sub-threads in small font are ridiculous... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What if a template like this existed, and could be encouraged instead of small tags? Like a self-imposed collapse (but not in bold text on a green background). Subsequent jokes could go inside the same collapse, all tidy-like. Has the advantage of clearly labelling the content "joke" to reduce possible distress.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, offer editors the option of purchasing rose-tinted glasses which will make comments posted in joke-pink become invisible. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the small font convention is intended to make the off-topic joke less intrusive. The problem I have with this collapsing box convention is that it makes it more intrusive (when compared to small text). A collapsible box, even without bold text and bright background, draws attention to itself and cuts up the flow of thread. While such collapsible boxes do discourage contributing further to the off-topicness, I think it's outweighed by the disruptiveness of introducing such a box in the midst of a conversation. -- 71.35.99.136 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If the template was properly made, it could be only as high as a normal line of text (reduce the padding) and the box could be indented like any other text (not sure how to do this, but removing "indent|0px" seems like a good start). So it would fit into the flow. Could remove the border, too, and give it a fixed small width, so it just says "joke" in small text with a "show" link right beside it. (I guess all that would entail an inner div and ... but anyway.)  Card Zero  (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If this template existed it could be abused. It raises the reader's expectation of finding something funny. What they get in return for investing in an extra click on show may not fulfil expectation. There is also endless possibility for mischief in applying the template to posts by others. Some of the best humour is subtle humour that is not improved by painting a red nose on it. DriveByWire (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's already a rule against modifying other people's posts, e.g. by collapsing them with the ordinary collapse template. And we already make disappointingly lame jokes. You may be right that these are less disappointing when kept in plain view.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to any such uses of hidden text with a "show" button, for all the reasons mentioned. This device merely draws special attention to the content and tempts the reader with an almost irresistible "read me!". "show" is fine for factual content that you know you may or may not be interested in. 86.181.206.183 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to raise another point about jokes that I haven't seen expressed yet. I don't want to overstate it, but I'd like to point out that the use of friendly banter and in-jokes and hidden text wiki-links, etc. can serve to make newcomers feel nervous about participating. By creating a "culture" on the desks, we make it so that people must become part of - or at least deal with - that culture. This can be very off-putting, especially to people who aren't native speakers or who are unfamiliar with using technology at all, let alone the use of wiki-markup. Like I said, I don't want to imply that there's this horrible hegemony in place, where newbies have to run a gauntlet of social pressure to take part. But there is a barrier of sorts, and it probably becomes more noticeable when we get bogged down with engaging in snappy patter with each other (never mind cracking jokes about spelling or grammar mistakes, however good-naturedly). What we see as two regs engaging in some one-upsmanship punning, the newcomer may see as a kind of hazing that they fear to be subjected to.

To return to the physical model, when we go to a real-life library help desk, we know it's not a corporation, but we probably want to deal with someone who has some small sense of decorum and we'd probably hesitate before walking up to someone who appeared more interested in reciting his favourite Monty Python skit than manning the desk. In fact, we'd probably surmise that the guy wasn't actually there to help us. Which was the entire point of having the desk in the first place, right?

In RL, I chair a school council and a regional council in an area with a very diverse group of parents. It's truly been an education to me to see how easily people can be turned off by the subtlest hints of non-inclusion. I've already written longer than I intended, so I'll forbear the tedious examples I've witnessed; suffice it to say that, unless you've had to try to engage a wide variety of ethnically and socially diverse people, you probably won't grasp how easy it is to make someone think that what's going on is "more trouble than it's worth".

This isn't an admonition on anyone in particular and I'll say for a third time that I don't think we've really gotten that bad at this, but it's something that I've learned (from personal experience) is good to bear in mind. Matt Deres (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed racist comment

I've removed this comment because it looks racist to me. Do people agree? If so, do people think we should take any further action? --Tango (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think any further action is needed, other than to keep an eye on the question, which seems to be drifting a little off-topic. The two comments previous to the one you removed (not StuRat's, the other two) make some rather sweeping generalisations about Muslim women and their ability to join in university life, but I think the posters were misinformed rather than mal-intentioned. The later comment didn't allow any doubt, so it's well removed. I don't think we should worry about further action though - now it's gone there's no lasting harm done. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not "racist". There's no such thing as a Muslim race. However, it's xenophobic and religionist and obscenely rude to the questioner. So it's fair to zap it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment was more about the countries the poster assumes a Muslim must be from rather than the religion itself, which is why I said "racist". It doesn't really matter, though, "xenophobic" will do. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. Terms like "vicious" and "hateful" come to mind also. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal. Other RD posts from Myles325a (talk · contribs) today include this (since removed) and this - some sort of user talk page warning about making more constructive contributions may be in order ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are more like crude jokes. I expected to hear a "rimshot" after each of them. The editor's been here 5 years, but I don't recall running across him before. Has he always been like this, or is this a recent change of behavior? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at the editors talk page reveals that it is far from the first notice about inappropriate behaviour at the ref desk that this editor has received. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This does seem to be the first that was so clearly unacceptable, though. There is a trend we need to keep a very close eye one, definitely. I asked about further action because I thought people might feel we should take a zero-tolerance approach to this kind of thing. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no question it was correct to remove it, and also the user should be cautioned if that has not already been done. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted to the user's talk page to inform them of this discussion. If they read this thread, they'll know we consider their actions unacceptable. Is that sufficient? --Tango (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If he's been warned, then that should be good enough for now. If he does it again, take him to a neutral corner and sic an admin on him. He's been here 5 years. He should know better than to say what he said. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Myles325a's history, I can see 3 distinct issues.

One is they seem to like to try and use the RD to get feedback on whatever random theory they came up with. Some of these like Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 October 28#My theory on why we often can’t run in dreams – is it valid? and Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 January 10#Krakatoa explosion – must it happen again? we can perhaps provide some meaningful feedback via references but in other cases like Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 August 19#Is my brainwave re: Joining Interplanetary Federation genius or loony? and especially Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 April 21#What would Earth be like if it was 82% more wonderful? the theories are just so bizzare that it doesn't seem to me to be the sort of thing suitable for the RD.

A second issue is historically at least, they seem to have posted followups that may be annoying or even offensive as they appear to berate respondents sometimes because of the Myles325a's own misunderstandings or inability to understand the responses. (There's of course nothing wrong with saying you don't understand a response or saying it's wrong or confusing but many of the OPs replies come across as unnecessarily incivil or attacking of the respondents particularly given they are the one asking for help.) Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 February 15#What exactly is a magnetic field? is a clear example but Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 May 10#Conditioning Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 August 7#Possibility of landing on a neutron star (also see the 'Joining Interplanetary Federation' question). While these aren't the sort of thing likely to lead to blocks in themselves (rather just people declining to help Myles325a in the future), given the other civility problems and behaviour on the RD they don't helpo.

The third issue appears to be offensive remarks directed at countries or people based on their places of origin or other things like religion or English ability, e.g. this response seems unnecessary inflammatory even given the apparent soapboxing of the OP (even if the followup made things worse). (While joking about another country does happen, it's the sort of thing which can cause offense and problematic followups particular if the wording is poor. In a real discussion on the advances of India, it would generally be fine to point out ongoing problems but as said earlier, the post seems unnecessarily inflammatory.) Another more extreme example of course is what started off this thread (even if considering the nature of the question, I'm guessing there's a fair chance the OP will never be back). A third arguably even worse example is where they attacked someone on their talk page (from something that arose from the RD) which reached ANI Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive671#Can someone take a look please?. While in all 3 cases the OP who was attacked misunderstood the purpose of the RD (although in the case that started this it was a harmless issue) but I don't think that excuses anything, particularly since IMO anyway Myles325a doesn't seem to always use the RD in the fashion intended.

BTW, while the name sounded familiar, I myself didn't particularly remember the responded but now I do remember their characteristic manner of posting follows in the form of OP Myles325a back live (or similar). (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, simply it's distinctive enough that I remember it so perhaps others will too.)

P.S. I removed as a BLP violation. If people want to joke about themselves, that's up to them but I think we should be wary of jokes about potentially identifiable living people even if they're people the person joking knows closely.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a particularly difficult question, but my first impulse is it implies that Wikiversity should include PeerWise (the question-and-answer database, not the routing optimization protocol.) Characterization of the unfamiliar should not include phrases such as "toilet (sorry, nation)" so I tentatively agree with the removal, but suggest a wider issue concerning international relations, diplomacy, education, and income equality. 75.166.192.187 (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand most of the words I just read, but not what they are supposed to mean in sequence. "But suggest a wider issue concerning...income equality"? μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

We just had an exchange student basically looking for advice, and someone suggested Wikiversity. That would be great advice if it had PeerWise or better (i.e. open source.) But Wikiversity doesn't even have Moodle, which is what I suppose the open source better version of PeerWise would be based on. Anyway, so someone suggested study in Australia, and someone apparently took offense on the mistaken assumption that exchange students are bad, or unfair to natives, or whatever, and responded in what they thought was in kind. But the intention to offend was present so the removal was proper. The wider issue of income equality involves the reason that the Australian took offense to an exchange student. Normally I wouldn't be inclined to care, but in this case it does suggest to me that Wikiversity should be upgraded. 75.166.192.187 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to call an editor "you cretin"  ?

Cretinism is a condition of severely stunted physical and mental growth. The term cretin describes a person so affected, but, as with words such as spastic, idiot and lunatic, also is a derogatory word of abuse. DriveByWire (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate. I called the editor on it, but there's been no response. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 13:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack do you mean this post from you? It ignored the grammatical point just made and instead you reacted provocatively to the perceived insult "you cretin". I think you muddied the water further by introducing a Biblical exhortation, apparently using the words of Jesus reported in Mat. 7:3-5. DriveByWire (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus called someone a cretin? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't bringing this up several days later without any kind of notification to the editor in question stirring a bit? It was clearly a joke, perhaps not a very funny or tasteful one but there are more important things to be worrying about--Jac16888 18:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

::::I do believe, given Medeis's proven fluency in linguistics and a number of languages, one of which is French, that he/she would not make that mistake, especially given that she/he was apparently correcting the so-called "cretin". I believe it was a joke. It should have been in small letters so that everyone would understand, no doubt, and the joke would only be funny to those who had some experience with French, but it is just too blatant to be anything else. That's how I read it, in any case.Bielle (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC) So much for assume good faith. Bielle (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(The secret truth is I was mocking his Christianity, not his thyroid condition... μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC))(This is a joke, Bielle. I assumed you knew the etymology of the word.)

Slow news day, Driveby? For what it's worth I had no problem with Jack's comment, and he was correct with the demand for an accent aigu if I was going to kid the guy about his barbarism. (An insult, presumably, to Barbaras.) I am waiting for driveby's apology to myself, Jack, and this board for trying to pick a fight. But I won't be back here to look for it. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully not. Adhering to common civility will probably prevent further need for you to "pick any fights" with this board or anyone else. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

barbarian, barbarism mid-14c. (adj.), from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE root *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Greek barbaroi (n.) meant "all that are not Greek," but especially the Medes and Persians. Originally not entirely pejorative, its sense darkened after the Persian wars. The Romans (technically themselves barbaroi) took up the word and applied it to tribes or nations which had no Greek or Roman accomplishments. The noun is from late 14c., "person speaking a language different from one's own," also (c.1400) "native of the Barbary coast;" meaning "rude, wild person" is from 1610s. -- online etymology dictionary. The word has nothing to do with the Biblical reprieved prisoner Barabas "son of the father, master or teacher" Matt. 27:15-26. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@ DriveByWire: No, I didn't "ignore" the grammatical point Medeis made. Medeis was perfectly correct to bring to attention that coup d'état is pluralised by adding an -s to the first word and not the second. That correction per se needed no further comment from me or anyone. "React provocatively" is not an expression I'd accept here, but I did take issue with "you cretin". I didn't see anything joke-like about it, and I still don't. I don't even get the joke that everyone else seems to be in on, so can someone please come to my aid here?

Up above at "Joke policy", Medeis had used the "mote in your own eye" analogy on 2 July in a reply to Franamax. So, when I saw the lack of capital letter on the opening word of Medeis's post, and the lack of an acute accent on état, in a post that was correcting another editor's orthography and spelling - and apparently calling them a cretin to boot - I figured it was more than fair enough to reflect the mote/eye thing back at Medeis. So, no muddying of waters from this quarter.

You are the one who opened this thread by asking whether it's appropriate to call people cretins. Now, you're taking issue with me, the only editor who seems to have had a strong objection to the use of such language. What is your agenda here? Entrapment? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 03:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In respect of Medeis's joke: Medeis first denied that what I saw as a joke was a joke, and accepted Jack's correction. Then she/he did make a joke, addressed to me, on the word "cretin". It shares a Latinate origin with the word "Christian", which in French (which was a part of the whole shtick) is pronounced in a similar way to "cretin", having no "s" (chrétien). It is always a bad idea to try and explain a joke. And I didn't get it right away, either. Bielle (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

From the beginning, I believe Medeis's remark to have been hyperbole for effect. Bielle (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If this be so, then Medeis must win the "extremely obscure joke of the month" award. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now too. Dangerous stuff, this humour thing. Please handle with extreme care. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 06:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A good example why joking must be limited on the boards, I think. Mingmingla (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A half a box of bad eggs is still a box of bad eggs. I think it's a much better argument for an editor, before they post their joke, considering whether it could possibly be misinterpreted. This means putting oneself in the shoes of others and hearing with their eyes. :) This case shows that the reasoning "It's so over the top, there's no way anyone could think I was serious, so there's no need for me to make any overt sign that I'm joking" does not work. And WP:AGF doesn't assist here either. AGF does not require readers to assume that a post that looks for all the world like a direct insult or a direct personal attack is actually the editor's idea of humour, and to let it through. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 19:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@JackofOz: I said that you "ignored" the grammatical point made by Medeis because although you indented your response directly under Medeis' post you neither confirmed nor denied her point, and instead merely characterized her negatively as being in a nit-picking mood. Now, days later, you say you accept her point about "coups" not "coup". That's nice to know but I have no opinion here about that. I say that listing faults in someone's action may be ok but ascribing them to that person's mental state or "mood" is a provocative reaction (especially when addressing a lady, but you didn't hear that from me). I don't get the cretin=chrétien joke either. I think it is an afterthought that only serves to convert the abuse "you cretin" into an admitted mockery of a person's religion, and neither action is civil. When you indent your post in a particular thread under a particular question, it has to be judged in that context and no reader should be expected to check what Medeis said to someone else somewhere else....you don't give many diffs, do you? Therefore your "mote in the eye" expression comes across as a vague incivility towards Medeis. Now you have explained where it came from, it seems your formulation owes its long-term sourcing to Jesus via St. Mathew and its short-term motivation is your wish to snap back at Medeis by reflecting her words. That looks muddy to me. It is clear that you are not the only editor who finds Medeis' post objectionable but you need not have inflamed the issue as you did with your mixed message, and you could instead have been the first to raise it in a calm way on this page.

We should spare a thought for the editor whom Medeis called a cretin. Rmhermen is informed of this discussion and I surely speak on behalf of the desk editors in expressing our apology to Rmhermen. DriveByWire (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's diffs you're after, particularly in relation to others' mental states or moods, try this for size.

I must rush now. I have to dash off a quick thank you note to the Cornish Ogre, and the mails won't wait. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are best used like footnotes to substantiate or exemplify something stated in one's post. When you have a moment, please explain how it is helpful here to "reflect" a post of mine that was given in a different context on a different page (your own). I remember that you reacted strangely at that time, hence my bewilderment at that diff appearing now. DriveByWire (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The rules of indentation have recently been the subject of talk on the ref desk itself, but it is very clear that many, many, many people are not aware of them (they were characterised by one editor as "unwritten rules", which is certainly not the case), or are aware but choose to ignore them. I myself sometimes prefer to act in flagrant violation of the indentation rules, when it suits the occasion to do so. Like language, we might think we prefer everyone to always and in all circumstances talk and write the way the prescriptivists prescribe, but we have to actually work with the stuff the descriptivists describe, because people have a funny knack of working out for themselves what works best. Besides, if everyone always talked and wrote only the way the prescriptivists prescribe, the human race would have died out millennia ago as a result of mass suicide occasioned by excruciating boredom.

You came to my talk page and posted "These questions will serve you as a reality check". You did not address that remark to anyone. You did indent it under StuRat's previous post, which might mean you were talking to StuRat, or, given the above, it might not. Regardless, anyone (C) with any sense of courtesy would not just inject themselves into a conversation between A and B, on either of their talk pages, without at least making it unambiguous to whom they are addressing their remarks. Opening with the name of the editor they are addressing is normally considered de rigeur in these situations. Otherwise, it can be reasonably inferred their remarks are addressed generally to all the participants in that conversation to which they were not previously a party. Or, it can be reasonably inferred they're addressed specifically to the owner of the talk page. I chose the latter of those 2 reasonable assumptions. It's not my job to check all the previous posts of interlopers (you) to see what if any history they may have had with my interlocutor (StuRat), and if I may quote your own words here: "... and no reader should be expected to check what said to someone else somewhere else". Further, you are not the incarnation of an earlier editor with a cuddly name or any other name - are you; so that wasn't a factor I could have taken into account in assessing to whom you were talking. Given all that, my assumption that you were talking to me was a perfectly valid one.

Your link was to a page headed Bipolar Mania Test. I did not read it, as I assumed the tacky and childish point you were making was encapsulated in the title alone. My response to that was, under those circumstances, remarkably measured and controlled, if not without a soupçon of irony. It was not a "reaction" at all, and it wasn't "strange". But it was conditioned by the earlier goings on in this Ref Desk talk page thread. You've gone on and on about my supposed ignoring of Medeis's grammatical point. I explained why I fully accepted that point when it was made and saw no need to make any comment on it, then or since. But now you say "that's nice to know but I have no opinion here about that". If you have no opinion of it, why did you make a point of making a point of it after I answered your opening question? This thread was supposed to be about the inappropriateness of Medeis's use of "you cretin". (That issue has been resolved here and elsewhere, so that's history now.) Yet you, the questioner, (a) have engaged in equally inappropriate behaviour with your bipolar link, and (b) have massively hijacked your own thread, to make it not about what Medeis wrote, but about me and my initial response to what Medeis wrote, at the time he wrote it. It's hard to believe it was ever about Medeis at all.

Do you begin to get why I have suspected your motives ever since post no. 3 of this thread, and why I am not disposed to show you any of the bountiful generosity for which I am world-famous, but have extended only the obligatory courtesies to you?

We are all responsible for the words we actually utter and the effects they produce, particularly here where the words are all we have. Our intention is not even a close second. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Verbal diarrhea. Read it all. Doubt if anyone else bothered. The mania test is also linked by Misplaced Pages article editors who find it within WP:RS. I suggest you read what is offered there. (It's nothing to be afraid of, just 5 self-rating questions with an automated response so no one will ever know the result.) It could actually be useful to someone whose grasp on reality includes having unstoppable evil minions and gloating over an imagined power to cause Aspro to stumble. I think you are safe but you can reassure everyone by more posting about how everything is about you, vulnerable as you are to those with an agenda to entrap you, and an even longer essay on the indignities that a saint suffers. Such as being told that you are NOT world famous and that making other people wrong (or disparaging their editorial effort as "nit picking") doesn't make anyone right. DriveByWire (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I will allow the "quality" of the above to speak for itself. Me, I'm off for second and third helpings of Baked Troll à la nouvelle-hollandaise. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 10:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, DriveByWire is now indef'd, and both he and his shadow Bred Ivy are being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Light current. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should make a comment. I certainly wasn't offended, seeing it as an attempt at a joke - especially after I looked up the correct plural, per the American Heritage Dictionary: . Rmhermen (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Any ref deskers currently in DC or coming to DC soon that would like to meet up? --Tango (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you be issuing Nerf bats, or should we bring our own? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DC = Drag Costume ? It takes 2 2 tan go. DriveByWire (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Warshington", DC, most likely. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, Warshington Drag Costume. Sounds fun. DriveByWire (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the powdered wig. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikimania 2012 in Washington, D.C. (July 12–15).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories"

This line, on the main reference desk page, looks a little out of place, no? It's not a sentence, doesn't even have an end mark, and appears to begin on a new line for no reason, placing the word "here" (from "Ask here!") on a line by itself. Do we even need that line, and even if we do, couldn't it be formatted in a more visually-pleasing manner?  dalahäst 03:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a qualifier for the Miscellaneous Desk, formatted in a similar fashion to the qualifiers for the other desks, except that, instead of single words, it is a phrase. What would you suggest would work better? Bielle (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest doing away with either the qualifier itself or "Not sure where your question belongs? Ask here!", so that the link to the desk only has one block of text beneath it. An alternative would be to place the "Not sure where your question belongs? Ask here!" beneath the qualifier, in smaller text, and wrap it in parentheses, so that it doesn't look like it's part of the qualifier, does not occupy the space occupied by the qualifier for all the other desks, and doesn't stand out so much. But hey, I get a little (okay, very) obsessive about design and layout, haha  dalahäst 04:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could always try it out, assuming you can do so without breaking the page. The worst that will happen is that you are reverted, and then we all come back here to talk. Personally, I prefer your second suggestion, but am not troubled either way. You've been around long enough not to be run off in a huff (horse drawn) or a snit (motorized) if someone objects. Bielle (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've put the second alternative in. And hey, running off in any way, be it motorized or horse drawn, is better than exploding in everyone's face, then playing victim and accusing the reverter of "harassment" because I don't like what they did.  dalahäst 05:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but I don't get the feeling you would do that either. My design sense says that the "Ask here" should be slightly closer to the preceding line of type. The small type in the standard spacing looks a bit lost. Just an idea! Bielle (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried eliminating the line break between the qualifier and the "ask here" line, but it ended up looking more awkward, because the text flows onto a fourth line again, as it did before I changed anything. If someone objects to the current version, we'll see about messing with it some more, but I think it works for now.  dalahäst 07:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It currently reads: "Questions that don't fit in any of the other categories (Not sure where your question belongs? Ask here!)" This seems a little redundant to me. I'm also not a big fan of the exclamation mark here — it seems a little too imperative. Personally I think the first sentence ("Questions...") is probably enough, and an improvement over "Subjects." --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree! That exclamation mark is quite out of place! Reminds me of Disney cartoons, where every utterance ended with an exclamation mark unless it was a question!

Also, what if a question had relevance to both Computers/IT and Science, but not to any of the other desks. Are we asking them to ask it on Miscellaneous just because they couldn't quite decide between Computers and Science? Or should they come to Misc to explain their question and ask for advice about which other desk would be more appropriate, wait for an answer, and only then go and ask it on either Computers or Science? Either of those scenarios seems sub-optimal. Isn't it best to leave it up to individuals' good sense to make a reasonable stab at the best desk, without being routed through a desk that is clearly irrelevant? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 19:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I would remove the "Ask here" and all that, and trust the user to muddle something out. If something is on the wrong desk, we will move it. It's not that hard. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I considered going ahead and removing the "ask here" anyway, though the little discussion above led me to think that perhaps it was best leaving it in for now. I figured since I hadn't even discussed changing "subjects" to "questions", I'd just change that first and see what people thought. I've gone ahead and removed the small line of text entirely now, as well as added the word "for" in front ("for questions…"). Feel free to remove "for", of course, if you don't like it.  dalahäst 08:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed comment

I've just removed a comment from WP:RD/M#got a SERIOUS problem. I'm sorry if it seems I'm being overly sensitive, but I had a refresher course in Child Protection Awareness training as part of my job last night, and I can tell you that there is no such thing as too sensitive in matters like this. I'll head over to the page of the user who left the comment to apologise in person, but just wanted to leave this note here in explanation. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And yeah, hatting that is a good idea. Ta. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing it altogether would be an even better idea. My comment was really an effort to promote that. I am not offended that you felt a need to remove it. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the answers are good enough so far that hatting edges out removal. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Community discussion about Reference Desk procedure

The ref desks are different. They are popular. They are fun. They are also, IMO, a little out of control sometimes. Trolls and jokesters abound. So, I wonder if anyone would like to discuss some possible reforms to the ref desk process. I’ve tried to narrow down some talking points to kick-start discussion:

1. Are the ref desks necessary and in the scope of Misplaced Pages’s goals?
2. If so, is there room for improvement, or is it working fine “as is”?
3. Should we create more specific and precise rules regarding responses to questions answered on the desks? For instance, is answering “from personal experience” okay ? Or should all answers include a verifiable source? Or something in-between?
4. Would the desks benefit from some trusted users being appointed as clerks to keep threads on track and in scope? If so, how would they be selected; what “powers” would they have; and how would a clerk system be enforced?

I’m sure the above is lacking to some degree, and likely biased based on my own perceptions/opinions. If any of the above questions are loaded questions, I apologize...it was unintentional. I am just hoping to start a community discussion in a central location about improving the desks. I hope others will join in with their own ideas. Ditch ∝ 01:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Responding to the last point first, creating a clerk system isn't the solution. Far better would to be establish clear guidelines for the community to enforce. Moving to point 3, generally mandatory reliable source rules are going to interfere with providing answers, if you know the right answer, but can't find a good source, is leaving a question unanswered really best? The bigger question is what role does the refdesk system fill? Is it to direct readers to some place they might find an answer to their question? Or is it to anwser the question/offer advice? Monty₈₄₅ 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Settled long ago. Do I need to list the conclusion?

2-3) Always room for improvement, but more rules isn't necessarily an improvement. We have too many to read already.

4) I can't imagine how we would chose such users, considering how we all seem to disagree so much. Also, this would take away from the idea of everyone having an equal say, and might also limit the ability of anyone to fix certain problems, like a poorly formatted question lacking a title. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

StuRat, could you link to where there was a discussion of whether or not the RD is within the scope of wikipedia? It's not that I doubt you, I'd just really like to read the arguments. Even though I find the RD to be a lot of fun, I've often wondered how it can be justified as part of wikipedia. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's just one discussion, but there are many more in the archives: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_20#Why_have_Reference_Desks.3F. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks StuRat. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, please, please, no more rules, guidelines, policies, mantras, etc. We don't need more leaders, admins, managers, or clerks. And I don't see why everything here on the desks needs a reliable source. If someone asks about a math problem on the math desk, do we really need to supply a source to remind them of the order of operations? Why not just say "Hey, you forgot your order of operations. Parenthesis comes before exponents." This is of course a rudimentary example but I hope you see my point. Dismas| 01:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And if you take the hours required to read through each of the many so-called sources, you'll find that many don't actually say what the person who posted the link claims they say. Such sources are worse than useless, they are a massive waste of time. If we don't have a good source which actually supports a claim, we shouldn't include any sources. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So we should just take your word for it that you know what you're talking about. Excuse me, but that's done elsewhere, namely on Yahoo answers. I guess we can start "voting" on the best answer. What's wrong with responding: "Hey, you forgot your order of operations. Parenthesis come before exponents." Is the linked article too convoluted for the OP to comprehend. Maybe that's a problem with the article, not the answer. Should verifiability completely ignored. Ditch ∝ 02:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have good reason to think that somebody is wrong, or lying, then yes, you should assume good faith. And many of our math and science articles are utterly incomprehensible, due to being written by, and for, mathematicians and scientists. Order of operations might actually be simple enough to read, though. What I'm saying is that the claim that "parenthesis come before exponents" should be believed, unless you have actual proof to the contrary, and posting a link to a book, say, proposing various alternate orders of operations, would just be wasting everyone's time. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Many questions basically require the answerer to engage in synthesis. Simply directing the OP to a source is very unhelpful a lot of the time. If you can answer the question off-the-cuff and follow up with sources latter, then that's better than mucking around looking for sources and then coming back to find someone else has already answered the question. And if the OP has tried to answer the question themselves, chances are the answer won't be found on the most obvious[REDACTED] entry or at the top of the list on google. If the RD should exist at all, then it can't be held to the same standards as articles in terms of citing sources. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then you and I will have to disagree that answering solely "off the cuff" is the correct way to operate a respectable reference desk. You can answer the question anyway you want, just back it up with a source, or at least a way to verify what you are saying is correct. Ditch ∝ 02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this all a little backwards? If there a demonstrated reason to make a new rule/guideline/whatever then it makes sense to start a discussion on doing that. In this case it seems more like "hey, can anyone think of reason to make a new rule?". Trolls and jokesters are only an issue if they impede the functioning of the project. When that happends, it gets dealt with. More rules and regs will just drive people away. As it is there's so much for a first time asker to read before they post their question that they will either give up or just post anyway without reading the guidelines. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines would be for the responder not the OP. What's backward is the idea that anonymous people on the Internet can respond to questions, willy-nilly, yet with inherited authority from Misplaced Pages, which hangs its hat on verifiable information. Ditch ∝ 02:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The basic concept of Misplaced Pages is that, while there are individual vandals and idiots, the majority of editors will work to provide correct information. This is true both in articles and the Ref Desk. If a responder makes a mistake, it will soon be corrected. References are nice, when necessary, and available, but an answer can still be provided without them, in many cases. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a demonstratable problem with that? Have we received legal advise that Misplaced Pages is open to lawsuits because of unsourced answers on the reference desk? Is there even any evidence that answers on the reference desk inherit authority from the project itself? Or are these just imagined issues? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is a small problem with that, see second pillar, specifically the part that says avoid stating opinion as fact. Ditch ∝ 02:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a dead link, but I think you mean WP:NEUTRAL. It applies to articles anyway, and as I said, the reference desk shouldn't be held to the same standards. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's the link, thanks. And to what standards should it be held to? Ditch ∝ 03:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Per Bielle below; factually correct and ideally (but not necessarily) with citations. But what exactly are you suggesting? The current format is like a talk page. If you want sources for every answer then we should do what? Delete unsourced answers? Should the answerers collaborate on a subpage to form a consensus on what constitutes a factual response to the question, formulate it joinly with a consensus as to wording, and then submit it to the OP? Currently, the editors provide answers as best they can with a mixture of sourced and unsourced answers. Answerers will notify one another of mistakes in their logic or understanding of the subject matter. The OP is privy to the whole lot and obtains the answer by reading everything written and making the call for themselves as to who was providing factual information, what sources are trustworthy and who was just talking nonsense. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I also just don't see a problem here. Yes, there has been more joking around than usual, but only enough to bring up specific instances for chastisement, not a whole new set of rules. Regarding why this page is here, the questions answered on the reference desk often encourage editors to add that information to relevant articles. And if we got rid of the reference desk, I can assure you that all potential OPs will just go and ask their questions all over various Misplaced Pages pages. Regarding the reliability of our answers and whether being Misplaced Pages means we should hold ourselves to a higher standard: no. If someone is talking out of their ask, we can show them the door. But in the end, there's nothing we can do to help people who believe whatever they're told by a random person on the internet. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Um yes there is, we can provide a source that they can read backing up our claims to a response. Our articles are created by random people on the Internet. Ditch ∝ 02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've often thought we should have a parallel "strict rules" Ref Desk, where no response is allowed except for answers with references. I suspect that most questions would go unanswered, but this would be good to show the value of the way it's done now. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Exalctly. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

See This AN/I discussion for the impetus for this discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 02:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(afer ec x 4) This relates very much to a concern that's been on my mind lately. A sizeable chunk of the questions we get are not able to be answered with a reference of any kind. Another chunk are questions for which references do exist, but we don't bother citing them. Instead, we just provide the answer, or give hints if we think it's homework. Many questions on Science and Mathematics are like this, but certainly not only them. We are really a place where any questions at all can be asked. Granted, we do have some specific exclusions as to what answers we will provide, but we still operate at a much broader level than something analogous to a library reference desk, as we so often pretend. Library ref desks do not even give hints about how to tackle a mathematical problem, for example, let alone telling you what steps to undertake, let alone actually giving you the answer and all the working out; they might, on the other hand, direct you to a suitable text book. Given this mismatch between what a library ref desk does and what we do, maybe we should give consideration to a rename. I'm not suggesting that references should cease to be our stock in trade. There must always be a clear set of rules about how we operate. I'm suggesting that, since there is and always has been a looser dependence on references than our name might suggest, we change our name to reflect the reality of how we've always operated. The Misplaced Pages Brains Trust, for example. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 02:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The real parallel to a reference desk at[REDACTED] is the search function. What the WP:RD does is more like a brains trust as you said. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but having 'leaders' will not absolve readers from the responsibility to think for themselves. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, those who claim we ought to have a rule are really saying they ought to be the ruler. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We have rules already, except that, being WP, we call them guidelines. Perhaps we need reminding of them, but we don't need more:

We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork. Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Misplaced Pages articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources. As always, any responses should be civil and avoid anything that could even remotely be considered a personal attack or ad hominem. Many questioners will be newcomers, and the reference desk should be a friendly and welcoming place.

Bielle (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Since my point (order of operations example) seems to have been missed by some, I'll try to restate it to be more clear. Answers on the Math, Computer, and to some extent, Science desks are often very matter of fact. Either the answer is correct or it is not. They aren't like Humanities in that way. If someone were to ask on the Computer desk if they can use the Acme C Compiler to compile Java, then I would expect a response such as "No. They are separate languages and can't be compiled by the same compiler." It's a fact that can't be disputed because it either is or isn't. And you're likely not going to be able to point to a product description from the Acme company which says "Our C compiler can't compile the following languages..." They'd have a list a mile long. In fact, they likely wouldn't even discuss other languages. Dismas| 03:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. And that's why the current guidelines say you should use a source, but their not required. It's just common sense. Even articles don't require sources for uncontoversial statements of fact. In your example above, you're answering from experience and you're drawing an obvious conclusion that may not actually be noted anywhere else. Obviously, there no need to include that sort of information in the actual article, but since that sort of thing is required in order to answer people's questions, there needs to be a little bit more room afforded to the RD. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Community discussion about Reference Desk procedure (arbitrary break #1)

If someone has observed a problem, then I would be happy to discuss possible solutions to it. As far as I am aware, however, the reference desks are working very well. --Tango (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem, is this. Monty linked to it above, but it should be in the original post that started this thread, so that people who contribute to the discussion on this page know what problems are being addressed. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The RefDesk usually works OK. It assists with research, and corrals random questions in one place. It zaps obvious trolling questions, and responds to borderline cases with a minimal good-faith answer directing them elsewhere. It's fun, for those of us who enjoy researching and like (trying) to be useful. Occasionally it gets a bit out of hand. This is usually picked up and policy reminders/discussion/hatting/redaction ensues. The incident under discussion is one of those rare ones where it got extremely out of hand, IMO. Actually, the OP did get something close to an appropriate answer, which would have been something like: "We can't help practically or give you any legal advice, but you are not the first person to be embarrassed by a cruel practical joke. Talk to someone who can help you sort it out. If you're a minor you can be protected from this kind of thing, so tell someone in authority that you trust, and they should be able to help you. Goodbye and good luck." Unfortunately there were also some inappropriate responses which appeared for approximately 90 minutes before the community dealt with the problem. There is a negative-ish reference on the ANI thread to the clique of regulars who edit here, but the flip side is that many RefDesk regulars know the policy well, and inappropriate postings do get dealt with, as this eventually was. And among our regulars are some admins with tools if needed. The banter and grandstanding can be irritating, but it rarely prevents the provision of an answer if one is possible. When we regularly fail to spot and deal with inappropriate questions and responses within a reasonable length of time, that's when I'd agree we have a problem. The question for me is whether 90 minutes is reasonable. (I like Jack's name change suggestion, btw). - Karenjc 10:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditch - you are absolutely right that the RefDesks have run entirely out of control. They have fallen under local consensus, which believes it is appropriate to substitute original research for the role of a reference desk, which is to provide references. Beyond that, they have appropriated this space to create an internal chatboard, in violation of WP:MYSPACE. You will not, however, get agreement on this talk page, because it is flooded by refdesk partisans. Allowing the discussion about the problems of this little walled garden to take place on it's home turf was an error in tactic. The solution is to continue the ANI thread, until such time as the larger community agrees that answers that fail basic tenants, such as neutrality, verifiability, and seriousness should be removed by any editor. Hipocrite (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC) @Hipocrite, that makes sense. Is the Village Pump also an option? What about Jimbo Wales' talk page? This seems like a problem that can be solved. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooh yes, a dramafest at ANI/VP/Jimbo's talk page - just what we need to improve Wikpedia ! Actually, I completely agree with Karenjc (talk · contribs). As Bielle (talk · contribs) points out above, we have RD guidelines and most RD contributors follow most of them most of the time. We are pretty good at dealing with trolls and inappropriate questions/responses, and for the occassions when self-policing isn't sufficient, then there are the usual escalation channels and community sanctions. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy. As for alignment with Misplaced Pages's goals, the RDs are a key channel for attracting new readers and potential contributors to Misplaced Pages. In my book, the RDs do more to support the Holy Grail of editor engagement and promote a positive image of the encylopedia than any other non-article feature of Misplaced Pages. I am proud to be an RD regular. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

While it seems tempting to have more rules and then to enforce these rules using experienced editors here, I think that this will lead to big disputes. It is inevitable that you get double standards with enforcement, which then leads to bad blood between editors. I've seen this happen at PhysicsForums, where they use such a model with strictly enforcing rules to prevent kooks from hijacking the forum. But that has led to the Moderators there behaving as the forum dictators.

The rules in practice do not apply to themselves, and popular posters don't get infractions for behaving badly. I, on the other hand, was kicked out for, believe it or not, staying too much on topic. The Mods are supposed to be always correct, if you politely disagree with someone about some math or physics issue, they tend to become angry. Over time that leads to a poisoned atmosphere and the rules are then applied in such a way that you always lose and they always win.

I strongly believe that what I experienced at PhysicsForums is a universal problem not specific to any shortcomings of the people there. THe same issue would manfest itself if the justice system were abolished and we would simply have have trusted members of the community as police officers, jury, judge, prosecutor and appeals judges at the same time. Count Iblis (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Q: What would Socrates do?

A: We can't ask him; a self-appointed group of "concerned citizens" didn't like the free advice he was giving so they appointed themselves his inquisitor and voted to force him to commit suicide.

μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The above talking points appear to be finding solutions before the exact nature of the problems are agreed upon. The debate for the existence of the desk itself is likely not something withing the scope of the desk itself to answer unbiasedly. By the existence of this thread, the answer to the second point is already room for improvement. The specific issue seems to be that a possibly trolling or inappropriate question was answered with an obviously trolling or inappropriate answer.

The reference desk already does a good job of correctly responding to questions for medical and legal advice, erring far on the side of caution. One possible response to the above problem would be to have this attitude “officially” applied to inappropriate or trolling questions and answers similarly to the medical and legal questions. This would probably be best accomplished by increasing the breadth of similarly unanswerable question topics at the top of the page. Sazea (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)‌

I strongly disagree with Hipocrite's take on things here at the reference desk. The claim that this space is used as a chatboard is demonstratably false. Forum style non-question posts designed to bring about general discussions are routinely deleted (such as here).

Perhaps the problem isn't so much with the reference desk as a whole, but more specific to the Miscellaneous desk. Questions that are outside the scope of the reference desks are generally removed quite quickly and with little debate when it's clear cut. If the question that resulted in the AN/I thread had been posted on the science desk, it wouldn't have lasted as long, and I doubt anyone would have attempted to answer it. But on the miscellaneous deak, it's a bit more ambiguous since the scope of that desk is just a catch all for anything that can't go on the other desks. I agree that we shouldn't just be answering any question anyone ever thinks up, or solving all of their personal issues, but rather keeping within the scope of the desk's subject area, and all desks' subject areas should be encyclopaedic. Looking at the Miscellanous desk right now, I can see a few questions that should have been on the other desks (like this one), a few that should have been refered else where on[REDACTED] (like this one), and a few that to my mind should have been deleted/hatted/not answered (like this one), and a few that were deleted/hatted/not answered (like this one). That doesn't leave much left over that is actally appropriate to answer and within the scope of that desk.

To that end, I think a better proposal would involve changing the way the scope of the miscellanous desk is defined, or removing it and possibly adding one or more desks with clearly defined scopes.203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting option. I just browsed through the Misc desk and I think you're largely correct that most of the questions would fit fairly well into Science or Computing (or nowhere at all). One grey area would be where Humanities ends and Misc begins; I've long thought that The Entertainment desk should be abolished in favour of those questions getting rolled into a new-ish "Arts and Humanities Desk"; perhaps expanding it further, into something like "Arts and Social Sciences" or some such would be the way to go. It sounds more official and less accepting of, well, chaff. For good or ill, though, I think removing our refuge for inappropriate questions would just force them back onto the Help Desk. Matt Deres (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the proposal you linked to above Matt, and I think it's a great idea. Rolling those questions onto one board, and reducing the number of boards by getting rid of the misc. desk would make the system a bit more usable. It would displace all of those questions on the misc desk; but hopefully they'd end up on the most applicable ref desk where they'll be either answered or deleted if they're outside the scope of that desk. No matter what, crazy questions that it's not appropriate to answer will be asked on wikipedia, it's just the nature of the beast. The RD shouldn't really be blamed when a lot of them happen to land here. Handschuh- 03:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of blame. The Main Page lets people know we exist, and invites them to come visit. Given that high profile endorsement, we owe it to our users to make it work as well as we can. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 04:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion to get rid of the Misc. Desk. Not only is it an easy option for things that just don't seem to fit anywhere else, but it is a useful lightning rod for bizarre questions. (Some we can answer; some we can't; and some we choose not to.) Bielle (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So we've got two questions on the misc board right now that have been hatted (and should have been deleted as obvious trolling when they were posted) and twenty that ask legitimate questions and don't obviously belong elsewhere. As well as a troll and sock-puppet blocked. That sounds like the system is working to me. How does doing away with the misc board solve anything except a problem that doesn't exist? Until we have some question posers who come here saying that have legitimate questions that no one will answer, or answer givers who provide diffs of actual problems that make it impossible for them to work, rather than just saying they have issues, we are just engaged in looking for trouble. How exactly would doing away with the misc thread stop some future troll from pretending on another board that he had some issue with be portrayed as a homosexual, or asking why, if I remember correctly, the Italians are the Chinamen of Europe? Maybe we could address something actually serious, like requests for advice on poison, before we worry about...whatever the aitch this thread is about? μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting rid of the miscellaneous desk won't stop trolls. I'm just suggesting that the undefined scope of the miscellaneous desk makes the editors who answer there a bit unsure when it comes to removing things that are inappropriate. Since that desk is there as a "catch all", it's hard for editors to point to how something is outside the scope and something else is not. I'm not dead keen on deleting that desk. Giving it a better defined scope would be a good first step though. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would think questions about titties, wienies, n*ggers and why X is so racist, American, gay, etc., would be obvious trolling or inappropriateness, to be removed wherever. I am not sure how one better defines miscellaneous, though. In any case, answer givers are not forced to respond to questions they find merely ridiculous. It is actual legal and ethical liability we should worry about--the latter involving questions of harm. The problem there lies mainly with questioners, but also partially with editors, some of whom will insist on the right to answer any question because it's fun. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The non-question that I mentioned above, "Debate", looks to me like it's just asking to be deleted. People answered anyway, and I guess I don't really care enough to get involved trying to delete a question on people when there's obviously an ongoing back and forth there. And that debate going on there doesn't really hurt the project at all. But my point is that I doubt it would have lasted on the science desk, simply because on the science desk, the first thing you ask yourself as an answerer when you see a new question is "is this science?". On the miscellaneous desk asking yourself if the question is in fact miscellaneous is a bit pointless. And sometimes, like in the case from AN/I, the question is potentially harmful, so I don't think it would hurt to just consider how we might narrow the scope a bit to encourage editors to take down things of that nature. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It was accurately labeled, asked a coherent question, and stimulated at least one good response with links, if not more. To compare that question to one on what sort of poison to leave lying around outside your house, or to risk drinking after you've already burnt your throat, seems a huge inversion of priorities. I can't see deleting the former and letting the latter stand. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem isn't the questions but how we choose to answer them. Don't like them, or think they are based on false assumptions? Don't answer them, or give factual, non-judgemental answers that clarify the misconceptions. Think they are trolls? Bring it here for discussion and deletion. If they don't violate medical or legal advice restrictions, and aren't banned users, we must assume good faith. Not everyone knows that something will be offensive, even if you think they should.

I was crusing the archives, and for years, nothing has changed. Some editors get their knickers in a knot about little nothings (punctuation got one user a permanent ban), but if everyone just answers the questions and leaves the drama at the door, the problems generally go away.

This isn't a discussion forum, and we have people of many political stripes and cultural origins. We can't satisfy everyone. So don't bring it up, unless it's the answer to a question. Don't like rat poison or taxes or hippies? We aren't the place to debate that. We're just here to answer the damn question. Mingmingla (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Community discussion about Reference Desk procedure (arbitrary break #2)

For (some) people (sometimes), (some) things—inappropriate questions, inappropriate answers, a bag of chips—can be irresistible. (http://www.fantasticdelites.com.au/)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a diff of a post I just made to the Misc desk at "What does he mean?". It gives my views on answering questions about relationship/romantic/emotional issues. Namely, we should NOT answer them. Our rules should explicitly exclude them, imo, as they do with legal and medical questions. In those cases, it's mainly a question of potential legal liability. But relationship/emotional questions need someone to sit down with the person, establish rapport, and gather FAR more information about the situation than we're typically provided with, before venturing any kind of suggestions. It's understandable that some people would come here for help with these sorts of issues, but we should not give in to the "They asked, and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't answer" thing. We're likely to do them more harm than good by providing glib answers to glib questions. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 03:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd almost agree with you, but the consensus above seems to be that not wishing to answer questions about poison has nothing to do with liability and is just a matter of likes and dislikes. That being the case, answering relationship questions can hardly be outlawed so long as people "like" doing it. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was getting at above. On any other desk, we would have said "this isn't about science/maths/entertainment" and just hatted it or whatever, but since it's miscellaneous, and that question is definitely miscellaneous, people feel fine to give an answer. We could narrow the scope of that desk by doing exactly what you suggested and adding a single line at the top of the page that says those types of questions are not to be asked or answered. I'm not sure myself, but would it better to specifically say that the questions cannot be relationship advice, or simply that they must be of an encyclopaedic nature? Or that it must be possible to give the answer i.e. not an opinion or advice or whatever but the exact one and only answer? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone hatted it. This is not a confused poster in good faith. It's a troll troll troll, plain and simple. I'd like to see the results of a sockpuppet investigation. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Two editors answered. One knew it was a troll, the other knew the question was not in an appropriate forum. Clearly editors aren't grasping that this stuff needs to just get removed. That's the consensus. Can't we just put up a note as per above that reflects the consensus? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @ Medeis: I'd rather we kept the issues separate. Just imagine if you were walking along some footpath and some stranger came up to you said "You don't know me but I slept with this guy last week and now I think I might be pregnant but he won't answer my calls. What should I do?". Most people would say "Don't ask me, honey. Best of luck", and keep walking. Some might suggest they talk to a family member, friend, counsellor, doctor. No sane person would go any further than that, based on such little information. Yet that is exactly the sort of question we sometimes get. Our response ought to be to delete the text of the question (exactly as we say we "usually" do with medical/legal questions but hardly ever carry out our threat), replacing it with a standard template along the lines of "We are not able to answer these types of questions. Please consult an appropriate professional or talk with a trusted friend or family member".

I think it's time we were MUCH clearer about what we will and will not answer. If a question clearly falls outside our bailiwick, immediate deletion and templating is the kindest thing we can do. It's only where it's not so clear-cut that we might entertain it for some time. Let us direct our primary energies towards those questions that are appropriate to be asked here, and can be answered. The rest, as they say, are not our problem, and the best approach to dealing with issues that don't concern us is to rid ourselves of them as quickly and decisively as possible. I don't put it like that to be unkind or dismissive or disrespectful to genuine questioners, but it's best that people in genuine need know where they stand in relation to us so that they might look in more appropriate places earlier rather than later. And, if they're trolls, so much the better that they're gone quickly. Also, it sends out a very clear message that other ref desk users will read and take notice of - as long as they know we're going to be consistent in our application and will not be engaging in more empty threats like the "medical/legal Qs will usually be removed" we have at the top. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 04:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we change the header templates for all reference desks for asking questions and for answering questions as per those links to my userspace. I think it clarifies what constitutes an answerable question, where the scope of the reference desk ends and empowers editors to remove both questions and answers that fall outside of it. I make this proposal without prejudice as to the adoption of a new name for the reference desk, as per JackofOz's suggestion, to clarify its actual function. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

IHaving supplied the short answer mentioned above, I see now it would have been better to remove the q completely or supply a standard answer. I would welcome a clarification of the guidelines for volunteers. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we are a reference desk, so if you can't supply a reference... Think of it this way: would you expect the question to be answered or answerable at a brick and mortar library info desk (and yes, we do get some really weird ones in real life)? If not, then the question is not likely to be appropriate. Opinions need not apply, but any factual answers would work. Since relationship questions generally have no factual answer, they aren't appropriate. Legal and medical advice carry their own restrictions, so they aren't either. Controversial (but not illegal) topics are acceptable, but do carry some risk of people getting bothered by them, so answer at your own risk. Esoteric questions, ones that seem completely random or pointless, and other chaff might be trolling, but unless you know for sure, go ahead and AGF and answer them. If you don't know, bring it here for discussion. I might be missing something else, but I think that's generally the idea. If you aren't sure about what to do, then the best thing is probably just to ignore it and let someone else deal with it. You are under no obligation to answer every question, so it's okay to let one go now and again. Mingmingla (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As for changing the name to "WP: Brains' Trust", could we be more arrogant? No, please, just no, not even with the apostrophe that my ENGVAR requires. Bielle (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bielle. I was actually hoping for a strong reaction, either way. It was meant only quarter-seriously, but I said it in order to focus on the clear mismatch between what we say we are and do, and what we actually are and do. One way of resolving that would be to "come out", as it were, and acknowledge in our very name that we have often operated as more than just a reference desk. Another way would be to bring us back to our core purpose, and the foregoing discussion has been mostly about that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What about just "Q&A desk"? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Mingmingla's summary is excellent, largely because it reflects the way things are supposed to work around here. If we're going to tighten the RefDesk focus, I'm all for explicitly excluding relationship questions so decisive removal/hatting/templating can take place without too much outcry from disgruntled editors whose answers got squished along with the question. But in real life the drama will still happen. People will still disagree about what constitutes a request for relationship advice as opposed to some information about relationships. Inappropriate questions and answers will still appear for a time until someone deals with them. And, because of this in particular and other things in general, there will still be a school of thought that continues to regard the RefDesk as incompatible with the purpose and goals of Misplaced Pages. I strongly disagree, but I doubt we'll ever reach consensus on that one. - Karenjc 16:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Cannabis question

This editor asks whether the plants he saw high in the mountains were planted there as jokes upon him. One wonders whether the question he has planted here is a joke on us. In any case, we cannot help him, although someone has seen fit to respond to him nonetheless. I have hatted the question. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I can imagine that this question was a joke, but I don't think that removing it before the asker had a chance to respond to StuRat it is really in line with assuming good faith. There are a few questions in the post that are of a clear scientific nature that we certainly could answer i.e. "Can Cannabis grow in the Colorado high country?", "What "unrelated species" are there that I may be confusing this with?", "what illustration?!". I agree that we can't answer whether or not it is a joke, but it's easy enough to just point that out to him and answer his other questions. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Shenanigans. The illustration is directly to the right of the word illustration in the text and mentions the diagnostic venation. Do you propose to tell him to look right? How,exactly, are we to know what species might confuse him, since he can't identify a picture in the same paragraph? How, exactly, are we to tell whether some unidentified being might have planted some unrepresented plants in a mountain vally to play a joe on the OP? That's paranoid thinking, and the OP needs legal advice if he wants to fool around with an illegal substance and he needs medical advice to deal with his solipsistic though processes. Is this what the ref desk is for? This entire thread is for naught if the first thing we do when someone leaves a flaming bag of dogshit on our stoop is to question whether it might really be a sign from the gods. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

More premature hatting on your part. I un-hatted it. He may not be able to see the picture for some technical reason, like if he's trying to read the article on a mobile device which can't display it properly. I assumed good faith and answered the Q. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

StuRat, I have yet to see a bit of trolling to which you won't provide a reference and link free response. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Then you haven't looked very hard. I often skip Q's that have no answer I can provide. Just count the portion of the Q's out there to which I do not reply. StuRat (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I also fixed the heading level for this section, which, for some reason, was a 5th level heading. StuRat (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lay of the formatting, my response was meant to follow under the one above it, someone refactored it as a new section, I object to that so I left it a separate subsection. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense, discussion of a removal or hatting of a Ref Desk Q always gets a new section here. Would you like to make it purple and flashing too, for some strange reason ? StuRat (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved it into its own section because it has nothing to do with an ongoing community discussion about possible changes to the reference desk. If it really can't be moved into it's own section then I suggest it just be hatted since it's totally off-topic to where it's posted now. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I made it it's own section again. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear now, based on his follow up that User:Reflectionsinglass was not trolling when he asked that question. Oh well, hindsight is 20:20 I guess. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Original research and conspiracy theory

To what extent is original research and a hint of conspiracy theory acceptable as an answer to a question on the Reference desks? Or am I being unrealistic? (I have no objection to people holding strong views and showing a healthy distrust of others, but I don’t believe Misplaced Pages in general, or the Reference Desks in particular, is the place to air those views.)

On 11 July an IP asked the following question: “Does the air in an airliner cabin recirculate, or is there some mechanism to exchange it with outside air without losing the cabin pressure?” See the diff.

The first reply included the following statements:

"The banning of smoking also meant that the amount new air added to the cabin could be reduced - thus saving the costs of pressurizing greater amounts of air to keep the interior atmosphere agreeable. To save more costs, they also reduced (in the last decade), the cabin pressure – but to the detriment of passengers suffering from emphysema and other medical conditions that low air pressure can aggravate. To counter the possible resulting in-flight emergencies from this new practice, some air-lines are now carrying portable automatic heart defibrillators on board -as if to say – we endeavour to take great care of our customers as always. I don't know what is better – a twenty cents cheaper ticket or free electric shocks." See the diff.

I was surprised that an answer on the Science Reference Desk would include the implication that airlines were deliberately exposing passengers to health risks in order to “save costs” so I checked the information provided at Cabin pressurization. This article contains no information about passengers being deliberately exposed to health risks in order to “save costs”. That aspect of Misplaced Pages’s answer looks like someone’s POV.

I left a message on the Talk page of the User who supplied this answer, and raised the matter of original research and conspiracy theories. See my diff. This User moved my message to the Science Reference Desk (nothing wrong with that) and appended his response which included:

"However, when fuel costs shot up, many airline sort to save costs by manually reducing the cabin pressures and volume exchange."

"The figure of 8,000 feet is the acceptable maximum and OK for a fit person – some airlines however have been suspected of maintaining lesser cabin pressures."

"This is not OR on my part but recounting worries that have been brought to my attention by friends who have had reason to to battle with their management in the air transport industry. With more people flying more frequently, these problems are increasing. Added to that, is the inconvenient times when one's plane gets diverted, due to a medical emergency suffered by another passenger."

"Air travel is now incredibly safe due to the development of regulations encouraging good practice but blind trust in believing that accountants can run the airlines alone and go along with believing every reassurance the PR department coughs up , is not something your air aircrew on your next flight maybe happy to go along with – after all, they often have to deal with life and death decisions and in the worst cast scenario -more likely hit the ground before you do."

Read the complete response by viewing this diff. I have found none of this material on Misplaced Pages. The User has supplied links to some sources but none of them support the strong views or conspiracy theory that I am objecting to.

Is this information acceptable as an answer on the Reference desks, or does it cross the line into unacceptable pushing of a POV? Dolphin (t) 06:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted the original question and as for all of the above; I have no opinion as I didn't ask anything about the levels of pressure in airline cabins of if they've changed over the years. I got my answer from other editors who actually addressed the things I did ask. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Years ago, I heard the story that the reason your ears get so painful on descent is because the airlines don't bother fine-tuning the pressure enough. And I recall from the days that smoking was allowed in one portion of the plane, that the scent of smoke would soon pervade the air. Allegedly, the real reason smoking was banned was so they could recirculate the air more economically. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you noted that smoking is prohibited almost everywhere - airplane or not? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking 20 years ago. And, yes, there has been great progress since then in restricting public smoking. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no issue with those responses. Airlines definitely have sometimes risked customer safety by cutting costs, as several airlines have been fined and warned by the FAA for not doing required maintenance, especially budget carriers. See this story from just yesterday: . StuRat (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

StuRat appears to be saying airlines have been fined by the FAA for not doing required maintenance so Misplaced Pages can legitimately accuse airlines of doing just about anything, regardless of whether it is maintenance or not. No evidence necessary.

Where is the objective evidence to support the statement given on Misplaced Pages's Science Reference desk that "they (airlines?) reduced cabin pressurization in order to save costs"? That some airlines have begun carrying portable automatic heart defibrillators in order to "counter in-flight emergencies resulting from their decision to reduce cabin pressurization"? I suspect such objective evidence cannot be produced because it doesn't exist. How far can the Reference Desks go before they violate Misplaced Pages's stated objective that anything likely to be challenged will be verifiable? Dolphin (t) 08:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Things work differently on a talk page, like the Ref Desk, than they do in an article. In an article, such statements should be removed if unsupported by refs, as they are what "Misplaced Pages says is true". But here it's obvious it's just one poster's opinion, so, if you disagree, simply add a comment after the post (and indented from it) stating that you disagree and would like to see sources. There's no need to complain about such posts here. StuRat (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

From a technical perspective, the RD is not a talk page, though whether or not it is one for the purposes of policy is another matter. The guidelines do say not to edit anyone else's comments with a few small exceptions, and being unsourced and OR aren't on the list. As for what was actually written, as the asker I didn't take it seriously because it lacked extraordinary evidence to back up its extraordinary claims, and as I said, it wasn't what I asked anyway so I was tempted to just hat it. I especially liked the part where Aspro claimed it wasn't OR because he heard it from his friend. Classic. And Baseball bugs must have misread your complaint as an invitiation to post his own OR/conspiracy theories about airlines. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This answer was unacceptable, in that it was pure OR. Sources must be providable for answers. This should have been removed, and should not be repeated. Hipocrite (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The standard of requiring sources for every post only applies to articles, and, even then, it's not always strictly enforced. It certainly doesn't apply to the Ref Desk. On the Ref Desk, sources are preferred, not required: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Reference_requests_and_factual_disputes. StuRat (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Stu, I had a look at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines and found nothing to support your claims. On the contrary, I found many statements that are incompatible with your claims. Here is a selection:

• We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork.

• Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Misplaced Pages articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources.

• Our standards on verifiability, neutral point of view, or no original research should be kept in mind on the Reference Desk, ...

• Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers.

• For some types of questions, answers that contain references are more useful than those which don't. For those questions, make a serious effort to locate a Misplaced Pages article or an outside reliable source that supports your assertions, and include a link to it in your answer. You may know that your answer is correct, but a reader has no way to judge how reliable your information is unless you specify your sources.

• While we should keep the Misplaced Pages verifiability policy in mind while answering, and referenced answers are strongly preferred, ...

If you can find a word or two at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines that you believe are compatible with your claims, please let us know. Dolphin (t) 10:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hypocrite didn't say that sources are required. He said they must be "providable". I don't think it says that anywhere in the guidelines though. The guidelines do, however say not to edit other people's answers unless it's for; formatting purposes; to remove medical advice, legal advice, professional advice or any request to provide such advice. It explicitly says not to remove answers just because they are wrong. It also defers to the talk page guidelines in matters relating to editing other peoples comments, which strictly limits the cases where other people's comments can be edited. There's nothing that says you should remove other people's OR or personal opinions, regardless of what Hypocrite says editors should have done. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Dolphin, you seem to intentionally ignore everything that supports what I said. For example, I said "if you disagree, simply add a comment after the post (and indented from it) stating that you disagree and would like to see sources". The link I provided took you right to "Do not delete an incorrect answer, solely because it is wrong, even if you can prove that it is. Instead provide the evidence and let the readers decide." This directly supports what I said. Am I to believe you just missed that bit ? StuRat (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I confess I didn't follow your link with any diligence. I have now done so. I hasten to point out that I didn't delete anybody's answer - I left a message on the User's Talk page. I'm not asking that any answers be deleted. What would be really, really good would be if the User in question made a response something like "You're right, original research isn't valued on Misplaced Pages and I will try to supply better answers in future." That way all this drama could come to a sudden end. Dolphin (t) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. But if it's any consolation, you now know that the person that cared enough to ask the question in the first place was not mislead by that red herring, and that your answer was very helpful. Thanks for that, by the way. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Long-standing consensus among regular RD contributors is that best way of handling an answer that is merely wrong or speculative (and not blatantly offsensive, personal attack, or medical/legal advice) is to post a correct answer with sources. In most cases the questioner appreciates the sourced answers and can filter out the noise, which is exactly what happened in this case. Removing answers simply because other editots think they are wrong leads to bad feeling, arguments and edit wars. Although some editors are attracted to such Wikidrama, we like to minimise it on the RDs. For editors who crave a Wikdrama fix, there is a endless supply at ANI, RFAs, RFCs etc. so no need to look for it here. Gandalf61 (talk)

Not sure what this is about. No answer has been removed. Dolphin (t) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hypocrite said "This answer was unacceptable...(and)...should have been removed...". StuRat said he was wrong and you cited a bunch of stuff from the guidelines and said that StuRat was wrong. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry if my response was not clear enough. You started this thread with the rhetorical question "Is this information acceptable as an answer on the Reference desks, or does it cross the line into unacceptable pushing of a POV?". By "unacceptable" I took this to mean that you thought the post should not have been allowed to remain on the RD (this is usually the case when an editor complains here about an RD post). Hipocrite was more explicit, saying "This answer was unacceptable ... This should have been removed". I am pointing out that we do not handle speculative, POV or OR answers on the RDs by removal, but by responding with correct, sourced answers. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is about some bad answer that Aspro gave that you didn't like, and I didn't listen to. You made your opinion known to him, and you gave me the answer that I wanted. Now you come here to point out that his answer was unacceptable. I already know (StuRat disagrees, but as you pointed out, airlines doing one bad thing doesn't mean they're guilty of everything else people say on the internet). And Baseball bugs gave some neither-here-nor-there response about stories he has heard regarding airlines. But what it all comes down to is this: What do you want? He gave a bad answer. Shall we spank him? He refuses to admit it was bad. So what? What are you trying to achieve? You asked if it was acceptable. No it wasn't. Yours was. Case closed. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It was acceptable, if you define "unacceptable" as meaning "requires removal". "Incorrect" is not the same as "unacceptable". ("Since "acceptable" and "unacceptable" seem to be vague terms, I suggest we not use them here.) And airlines cutting safety to save money in one area certainly does imply that that might do that in other areas, too (although it's not clear if they lowered cabin air pressure, but that certainly isn't an outrageous claim, given their history). USA Today says: "One study performed by doctors in the 1980s found pressurization differences across the fleet. Each plane must meet the same strict standard to go into service. But once it is in use, everyday wear and tear can change the way the air flows in the cabin. Even small dents in the floor by the door, where heavy carts are dragged aboard, can make it more difficult to maintain cabin pressure." . So then, an older fleet, especially one with minimal maintenance performed on it, may well have lower air pressures than in previous years. Also, the fact that they had to go back to the 1980's to find a study implies that nobody is paying much attention, and "when the cat's (FAA's) away, the mice (airlines) will play". StuRat (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That being said, the word unacceptable should not be confused with inacceptable, which refers to something so acceptable its acceptability cannot be measured. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That comment is invalid -- meaning, well, guess. Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As disconsequential as this discussion. See gossip μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer wasn't acceptable because I, as the asker didn't accept it. I rejected it, based on its merits, and accepted a different answer. There's no need to read anymore into the term than that. Medeis, the wikitionary article disagrees with you. If you have a source, perhaps you would like to fix it? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I have been misunderestimating Australians. I though they got irony. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In raising this matter here I had no intention that the User in question should be disciplined, or that his answer should be removed. I haven't even mentioned that User's name on this thread because it is unimportant. The important issue is what do the regulars on this Talk page think of original research and conspiracy theories being presented as answers to good-faith questions. We have some guidance published at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines which is unambiguous about the sort of answers that should be supplied. It says things like:

Our standards on verifiability, neutral point of view, or no original research should be kept in mind on the Reference Desk

While we should keep the Misplaced Pages verifiability policy in mind while answering, and referenced answers are strongly preferred, ....

I was interested to see the extent to which respondents were willing to uphold these Guidelines when presented with a clear case of original research and conspiracy theory. User:Hipocrite's response showed that he could see the answer in question could never be considered compatible with Misplaced Pages's principles and guidelines, so he immediately said so. Well done.

Other respondents showed they were uncertain about the guidance at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines and whether it was actually applicable or relevant to Users answering questions on the Reference desks. Those Guidelines say things that are incompatible with some of the views expressed on this thread. Those who disagree with some of the things said in the Guidelines should go to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Guidelines and argue the case for some changes to be made. If Users don't believe the guidance material is pertinent or relevant they shouldn't simply work against it - they should work to change it. Dolphin (t) 05:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following you at all. You are congratulating Hypocrite, who said the response should be removed, even though I've shown you repeatedly that the guidelines say explicitly that such a removal is inappropriate. You seem to be bending the guidelines to mean what you think they should mean, and ignoring the parts you don't like (they usually end up as the "..." that you leave out when repeating them here). StuRat (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I congratulated Hipocrite because he went straight to the core of the matter when he wrote This answer was unacceptable, in that it was pure OR. (He also said "it should have been removed" but it wasn't clear to me whether he meant the OR should have been removed, or the whole answer. Either way, it was of no interest to me. It is well-established that on the Reference desks we don't remove answers, or even parts of answers.) At no stage have I suggested any part of any answer should be removed. There has been no need to inform me that we don't remove answers because I have never suggested such a thing. I have been trying to foster a discussion about what Users think of original research and conspiracy theories being presented as answers on the Reference desks. It now seems that most of the Users who contributed to this thread don't see any particular problem with original research and conspiracy theories being presented as answers. Consequently I am suggesting that some of those Users might now do the honorable thing and turn their attention to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines and argue for some major changes to be made. Dolphin (t) 06:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin51 - I think you are creating a false dilemma. Hipocrite's views on the one hand and "don't see any particular problem with original research and conspiracy theories being presented as answers" on the other are at opposite poles, whereas you seem to be presenting them as the only possible alternatives. I stand at neither pole. We should allow OR answers to stand, but we should counter or validate them with responses that cite a Misplaced Pages article or an external source. This is entirely compatible with Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should discourage Users from giving answers based on original research. We should also discourage Users from giving answers involving conspiracy theories. That is why I wrote to the User in question, and left a polite, explanatory message on his Talk page. I have never advocated that answers should be removed from the Reference Desks. Dolphin (t) 11:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of HIV test question

This question was unhatted today due to an opinion that it's not a request for medical advice. Please see Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice#Distinguishing_between_what_is_and_what_is_not_acceptable. I think it's pretty clear that this question is analagous to the first example, "I have a persistent cough. Can that be caused by heartburn?" as the asker first refered to his own state and then asked a generic sounding question. I've rehatted it. Let's reach a consensus before we go changing it again. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's a request for medical advice. However, in general, if somebody unhats a Q, this means your opinion that it should be hatted is not universally shared, so I feel you should first develop the consensus before rehatting it, otherwise we may end up with edit wars. StuRat (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll take your advice and unhat it, but I thought that this situation would be a bit like the WP:BLP one, where it's better to have any potentially damaging stuff pulled down until there's a consensus to include it. You know, to err on the safe side. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You do have 2 against 1 now, so that's at least the start of a consensus to hat, so you could probably hat it now. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I rehatted it, so now you can't be accused of edit warring. StuRat (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the IP 71.212.249.178 also said that it wasn't medical advice. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but I just saw that AndyTheGrump also says that it is medical advice, so we're at 3:2. StuRat (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop the vote counting guys. You know that's inappropriate. The question that was asked and (at least partly) answered was about the time period for getting reliable results from an HIV blood test. It's exactly the sort of content I would expect to find in a Misplaced Pages article on that topic, and is, so on it's own it's not personal medical advice. Yes, the OP said he was seeking the information for personal reasons, but how can we have an article about something, but not be allowed to mention it when asked on a Ref Desk? Should we delete the article? HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To get a little bit away from the case at hand; pretty much all medical advice questions can be answered from what's written in articles. The guidelines actually give two examples of requests for exactly the same information, and says one should be removed whereas the other can be answered. Maybe the way these questions are worded has some legal significance to the project. I don't know. But my interpretation of the guidelines as written is that this is a request for medical advice and should be removed. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the guideline. Unfortunately, it's a pretty crappy one. I agree with the conclusion you draw from the examples, but the guideline also says, as its second sentence, "If a complete answer to the question may be given without interpretation of the condition of any actual person, it is acceptable to answer the question." The question in question in this case COULD be answered "without interpretation of the condition of any actual person". I'm not pushing hard for any position here, but that guideline just ain't helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't really disagree with that. Maybe we should just unhat the question as Medeis did before and just act to remove any attempts to interpret the OP's conditions should anyone make one. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, anything that is easily understood as asking for medical or personal advice should be removed or refactored aggressively. An alternative to hatting in this case would have been to redact the personal circumstances and to leave only the knowledge question ("how soon can HIV be detected by tests"?), then answer that. —Kusma (t·c) 08:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On several occasions I've responded to medical questions by simply saying that we cannot give medical advice and directed the questioner to an obviously relevant article. I've then felt a bit insulted when the whole thread has been removed. I'm sure others have had similar experiences. We can help people without giving advice. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that's not what happened to 71.212.249.178 when I first hatted this question. Only Andy had responded at that time. 71.212.249.178 added his response to the closed thread. I saw him do it in the diffs at the time, but I didn't bother following it up since he didn't give medical advice and it wasn't otherwise inappropriate. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are many valid reasons for replying to a closed thread, like explaining why it was closed, referring them to the discussion here, asking follow-up Q's to determine if the reason for closing it was valid, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible request for medical advice

There's another question that may be a request for medical advice. I don't think there's anything wrong with telling him to stick some hair in the freezer or whatever, and he didn't even say that he want his genes sequenced for medical purposes. But the word "body part" makes me think he wants us to tell him how to cryogenically freeze his severed arm or something. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't see any medical advice question there. The only reason to save a DNA sample for the future is to sequence it after you are dead, at which point our medical advice would have to be really good to bring him back. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more like if he wanted someone to tell him which body part he should remove and preserve, and then how to go about doing it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, DNA samples are a lot easier to obtain than that. StuRat (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:RD-best

{{RD-best}} (Reference Desk - best) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What is that even used for? W203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently if you want to put a star next to someone's post to mark int as "the best". μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yay! I love getting a golden star from the teacher! (note the italics to make it sound like Medeis's neice). W203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Strength training question - Medical advice?

The original question on the science desk was, "What are the advantages and disadvantages of classic weights/resistance training with cardio vs circuit training?" I said we couldn't answer it because doing so would be giving medical advice, which was questioned and my explanation was moved here. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The downside of trying to attempt a one-size-fits-all answer here could easily be fatal for more than a few percent of the population acting on it. The questioner said nothing about their body mass index, mobility, injuries, or cardiovascular history. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"The questioner said nothing about their body mass index, mobility, injuries, or cardiovascular history." Which is exactly why it's not a request for medical advice. Clearly they're asking about generalities and not a specific case. It's not appropriate to continue the discussion about whether or not this is a request for medical advice here. If you must debate the point further, open a thread on the talk page. W203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well how would you answer it? The correct answer depends on those parameters and varies widely with them. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Above conversation moved from Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Strength_training. W203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice#Distinguishing_between_what_is_and_what_is_not_acceptable. W203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I read it: "If a complete answer to the question may be given without interpretation of the condition of any actual person, it is acceptable to answer the question. If an interpretation of an actual person's condition is necessary for a complete answer, the question is asking for some form of diagnosis or treatment advice that is not allowed." (emphasis added) The examples shown don't cover that excerpt for this case. Again, how would you answer the question? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but if I did I would tell them what the advantages and disadvantages of classic weights/resistance training with cardio vs circuit training are, in a general way, without interpreting the condition of anyone (since they haven't even given a condition to interpret). 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The disadvantages include that either could be too strenuous to be safe for the increasingly large proportion of the population which might be interested in their advantages. I don't think there is any way to answer it without what I would personally consider an unacceptable risk of incorrectly interpreting the questioner's medical condition. If that makes me more conservative than the guideline, then so be it. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not a request for medical advice. StuRat (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Just because a question happens to be one that a medical practitioner might have a particular view about, does not make it a request for medical advice. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Standard advice on weight training is to consult a doctor first. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that's if they indicate that that is in fact their intention. There was no such indication in the question, which was: "What are the advantages and disadvantages of classic weights/resistance training with cardio vs circuit training?". That looks like a general, academic enquiry to me. Maybe they asked because they really are considering such training, but it's not our job to second guess every questioner who ever comes to the ref desk, just so that we can issue an appropriate warning. We are not some Consumer Advice Bureau, and we are not manufacturers or marketers of medicines or herbal supplements that require all the usual warnings and disclaimers. If someone asked this question at a RL ref desk, they would just answer the damn question, and would not be taking it upon themselves to make assumptions about what may lie behind it, and certainly would not be cautioning the questioner to check with their doctor if they were planning to start an exercise regime. Even if the questioner told them that that's what they're thinking of doing, it's still not the RL ref desk's job to assume the role of parent. It's not their job to do that, and it's not ours. We are not the "nannies" to whom you often refer in less than glowing terms. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 12:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize the question as a request for medical advice. But ethics would suggest that we inform the OP. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of five foot ceilings and narrow airline seats? If you're short and thin, they save building space and allow more seats per plane, right? But if you're not, then you get your head bumped and are extremely uncomfortable. The answer to the question asking to compare similar exercise alternatives varies too widely with body type, and messing it up seems more likely to cause problems than blindly recommending low ceilings and narrow chairs. I don't want to be a nanny, I just want to avoid having the Foundation forward me a subpoena from the attorney of an aggrieved widow. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a perfectly simple request for information. A good answer will direct the OP to a publication by X in which the comparative advantages of both types of exercise are discussed. Or, even better, to an article by Y which synthesises the findings of X and others. We may even have an article they can read. A lousy answer will give the OP the writer's own, unsupported opinion without any caveat that it is unauthoritative. In the case above, recommending low ceilings and narrow chairs would be a lousy answer per se, not because of the infinitessimal possibility of harm and a lawsuit, but because the question does not ask for a recommendation or an opinion, and our guidelines tell us not to give them. Unfortunately, the OP will probably get both kinds of answer. There is nothing wrong with the question - the potential problem lies with the potential answers. - Karenjc 20:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "perfectly simple" but most of the rest of your answer with which I agree is why I linked to Exercise and did not prematurely archive or remove the question. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Friend 71.212.249.178, you cannot possibly be serious. You've (a) assumed that the OP is actually intending to use this information to decide on their own personal exercise regime - but we have no reason to make such an assumption; (b) assumed we would answer the question as if they'd asked about their own personal exercise regime - but they did not put the question in such a context, and it would be impertinent and contrary to our guidelines for us to answer it in that way. That's at all, before we even get to the issue of what if any warnings should be included in such an answer.

But let's hypothesise here for a moment or two. Let's assume someone answers it in that way, and it lasts long enough for the OP to read it, and it didn't include any sort of warning about checking with their doctor first. And the OP then goes off and starts a program, and has a heart attack and dies in the gym. I can certainly understand there'd be a grieving widow, who might be angry enough to want to sue anybody and everybody who could possible bear any responsibility for this unfortunate outcome. So who would she and her lawyers target? The gym, perhaps? Did they question the OP before accepting their money? Did they caution the OP to have a medical check up? Did they do their own check of the OP's physical condition and ask whether he has any existing medical conditions, and make their own assessment of the best regime for them, or did they just say "No questions asked. Your wish is our command, sir"? Did the OP actually have a medical check up, whether anyone suggested it or because they, as a responsible adult of marriageable age, would have known to do anyway? What did their doctor tell them?

All manner of things could have led up to the OP deciding to start that particular program at that particular time at that particular gym - from specific promotional material from the gym, to conversations he had at work or in the pub or on the phone or on skype or on facebook - many of which would have been with anonymous people - to general health advice we get in zillions of places. The chances of the widow's lawyers discovering he'd ever asked this question on the WP Ref Desk are close to zero. He could have asked it while at his local library or internet cafe, and there is no way his identity could ever be ascertained. Assuming they did discover it, the chances of the lawyers thinking they had even the ghost of chance in pursuing any sort of legal action against the foundation are even closer to zero. Assuming they initiated such action anyway, just on the wildest of off chances, or maybe because they're not very good lawyers, it would start with a letter to the foundation - most certainly not a subpoena. The foundation's lawyers would give such a letter a very quick rebuff with standard wording disclaiming responsibility in such cases, that they would have developed way back when Misplaced Pages first got off the ground and polished to perfection in the years since then, and that would be the end of that. There is actually no chance whatsoever that such correspondence would ever be forwarded to the editor who answered the question, who could well have been an anon IP themself.

We cannot frame our policies on the basis of fears that are the stuff of kafkaesque nightmares, which is what Friend 71 is asking us to do. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A kafkaesque nightmare is what happens when people wake up as a bug. That is much less likely than wrongful death lawsuits by accident victims acting on improper exercise advice, but they are not likely enough to warrant censoring the question or the answers. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that "censoring the question" is exactly what you've done above at "I don't think there is any way to answer it without what I would personally consider an unacceptable risk of incorrectly interpreting the questioner's medical condition." We have no reason to believe that the question has even the slightest connection to the questioner's medical condition, hence the question of the interpretation of that condition and all its attendant risks simply does not arise. Put it this way: If someone asked whether oranges or mandarines would be better for some dish they're planning to make, would we feel it necessary to point out, along with whatever culinary references we provide, that all foods are dangerous if eaten to excess, and they should therefore exercise caution when eating the orange/mandarine dish? Hardly; that would probably be seen as a gross impertinence. Well, the OP's medical condition and exercise program is as relevant to their question as that. Namely, not at all, as far as we know. OPs have responsibilities too. If they choose not to mention the particular reason for asking their question and how they might use the info we provide, that's their call. Their right to divulge only as much information as they choose is one side of the coin; the other side is a risk that the info they receive will not be particularly helpful, and may even be harmful in extreme cases if acted upon in isolation from any other information. That is a risk that they bear. It is not a risk that we bear, and not even living in the most litigious culture the world has ever known changes that. It's not a question of not caring for people or not being concerned whether or not people protect themselves from danger. But we cannot be all things to all men. Better to not even start down that impossibly long road. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)-- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to censor the question, I would have deleted, obscured, archived, removed, or otherwise made it more difficult to read. Instead I gave a proper warning to seek professional advice, and linked to an article which includes the necessary information to make a responsible informed decision. Please do not make assumptions about the extent of others' legal liabilities. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Black holes as dark matter

Is correct given that Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Black_Holes_and_Dark_Energy.2FMatter is not yet archived? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

recent trolling

It appears that since drivebywire has been blocked we are now getting trolling by recent accounts User:Ochson and perhaps OsmanRF34. I have hatted this conversation since it starts with a clear request for opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=502703308&oldid=502702483 μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not a troll. My questions are being answered with links. That's a proof that they are relevant to the RD. Anyone can review my contributions and decide for himself: OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW. Medeis removed a comment of mine from the RD recently (proof: ), which is against the rules (see WP:Talk) just because I re-factored a comment of him (which is acceptable, according to the same rules). OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Don't edit others' questions or answers"

I disagree that we should edit answers. Even when answers are given that are unverifiable, in that no source could be provided, and they are not simple calculations, those answers should not be removed. Hipocrite (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is generally contrary to longstanding consensus. There are some special cases where whole answers can be removed. Removing only a part of an answer is hardly ever done. But being inaccurate is no reason in itself for removing an answer or any part thereof. People write what they write, and it stands or falls on its merits. They do not write what someone else says they wrote. There are ample solutions to addressing inaccuracies in answers outside of directly changing them. Remember, this ref desk is not like an article, where the text is continuously worked on and developed and polished over a period of years. It's much more like a talk page conversation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 23:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Erasing somebody else's contribution because you disagree with it is like shouting down an opponent in a debate. If you have better sources, then show them, and win the argument that way. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The refdesk is also not a market of ideas, where good ideas and bad ideas compete to determine what is right - that's a debate forum. This is supposed to provide references on request. That longstanding local consensus of people who have not been driven away by the "refdesk regulars," who desire to have a chatroom is at odds with the general consensus that this is an encyclopedia is not relevant. Hipocrite (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If so many people were driven away, as you claim, then the Ref Desk would have fewer and fewer questions. There's no sign of that. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is the lump of labor fallacy. There might be more better questions if crappy answers were stopped. Hipocrite (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) Removing answers is not the same as editing them; the latter should almost never be done. (2) Experience has shown that removing answers is not a good idea unless they seriously violate policy, because the disputes that arise cause more trouble than it is worth. Looie496 (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)