Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:05, 3 December 2019

• 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 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Video game publisher

• Transferred to Entertainment desk

Correct use of Computer section

Can I use the computing section to ask questions about a specific piece of code I am working on, similar to how Stack Overflow is used, or is it only for abstract questions on computing? --Puzzledvegetable 02:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say go for it. --Viennese Waltz 08:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts on an FAQ?? (moved from language desk)

I would like to know if anyone can put an FAQ that has some popular questions at all the reference desks. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and nothing came of it. I think it was discussed on the ref desk talk page rather than the ref desk itself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, one of our FAQs is whether we should list FAQs. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There are not enough FAQs to make an FAQ. In all my years on the ref desk I can only remember one question coming up several times, and that is why are analogue clocks and watches always set at 10:08 when displayed. (The answer used to be in a WP article, but it got deleted.) --Viennese Waltz 08:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There are a handful. What language is the hardest to learn? What if Hitler had...? None of which, IMO, would be helped by an FAQ. However... technically, the question we get the most often is "What animal/plant/car is this?" and that could potentially make for a handy resource for us to use when answering such questions. For example, we could keep a handy page with online resources for identifying firearms, cars, movies, bugs, etc. The expectation wouldn't be for questioners to consult them first, but rather to serve as a handy place for us to build up a repository of useful sites. So, not an FAQ, per se, but a resource list for people answering queries. Matt Deres (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It turns out FAQ lists don't work very well -- and I say this as the author of one.

People ask for help because they want: help. They don't just want answers. There are a million FAQ lists and other web pages with answers out there already. Virtually everyone by now knows how to use a search engine to find those answers. The search engines are very good -- you can just type in your question, the same question you'd ask on a refdesk or Q/A site.

But the questions keep coming, and it's natural to imagine: Why don't we collect the frequently-asked questions into a list, and then people can find the answers there, so they don't have to keep asking, and we don't have to keep answering? But there are two fallacies there:

• As I said, sometimes people want: help. They're stuck, they're at the end of their rope, they're frustrated. They're at the point that they want to ask, and get a specific answer from an intelligent person, to their question. If they were inclined to do their own research, they would have. (And in many cases, they are doing their own research, but the question they're asking now is one that came up when they were researching the question that came up when they were researching the question that came up when they were researching the original question they were really trying to answer, and that's why they're getting frustrated and looking for some personal help.)
• We've set up this reference desk, we've suggested people can come here and ask their questions, we've implied we're waiting here to answer, because we like to -- but then we turn around and say, oh no, you have to ask a new question, if the question you have is one that people have asked too many times before, you're supposed to realize it, you're not supposed to ask it, you're supposed to do your own work and find it on that list over there.

My current attitude is that when I see yet another occurrence of the same old question, I don't think, "If only there were a better FAQ list with the answer to this question on it, the asker could have found it there". What I tend to think is, "Wow. This is a really great question. Even though it's been asked and answered a million times, people are still asking it. Either none of the answers out there are good enough yet, or this is a question that everyone thinks is brand new, that they're the first to ask, so it doesn't even occur to them to try to look up an answer, they just automatically ask." It's a fascinating phenomenon.

So you can create a new FAQ list if you like, just don't imagine it's going to actually do much to cut down on the frequent questions that get asked. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of a question that "has been asked and answered a million times"? Because, as stated above, I don't actually think there are any. I don't frequent maths and computing. --Viennese Waltz 14:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No examples from the Language desk, nor indeed any of the WP RD's, no. (But I've been spending some time on Stack Overflow, and my favorite example of a question that's been asked a million times there, and answered at least 500,000 times, and is so bizarre that it never occurs to anyone to try to look up the answer first, comes from C programming: "Why did i++ + i++ not give me the result I expected?" But I mention this only by way of example, not to invite anyone here to speculate on the answer! We don't need 500,001.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than a FAQ with a list of topics people want to know about, we could organize the info into a separate page for each topic, something like an encyclopedia. Oh wait, we have that. No need to duplicate it. RD is for a different purpose and a FAQ would be both useless and a drama locus, so "-1" from me. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What we really need is a usable archive search method. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Boiling on the Science Desk

See this edit on the Science Desk. There was an earlier edit that was also inappropriate. Guy Macon, Andy Dingley, I don't think this should be on the RefDesks, please stop.—eric 13:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If you had deleted my comment while also deleting the snarky comment I was responding to I would have let the deletion stand. Your behavior (leaving an insult in while deleting the response) was disruptive, biased, and a clear violation of WP:TPOC. Nobody voted you in as Moderator Of The Reference Desks. Your revert had the effect of retaining false information posted to the reference desks and while deleting a correction of the false information. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you EricR for alerting us to the totally unacceptable situation that has developed on one of the Reference Desks. The combat between Guy Macon and Andy Dingley is disgraceful, and will be an embarrassment to many of the Users who regularly do good work here.

The tragedy is that the situation is described almost exactly in the Guidelines that are provided for use by everyone who contributes to the Reference Desks. If Guy Macon and Andy Dingley had shown appropriate respect for these Guidelines, there would never have been any combat between them.

The wise folks who compiled the Guidelines must have anticipated the temptation these two would feel to engage in combat with each other. In the lead (2nd paragraph) it says As always, any responses should be civil and avoid anything that could even remotely be considered a personal attack or ad hominem.

In Content and tone, the 3rd paragraph shows exactly how wise these folks were in anticipating the combat we have witnessed. The 3rd paragraph says:

Questions usually attract more than one answer and it is always possible to discern a variation in the quality of these answers. Some answers will show a high degree of expertise and professionalism, and others won’t. If you see an answer you think is amateurish or lacking in technical rigor, simply supply a better one. It isn’t necessary to draw readers’ attention to the fact that you disapprove of one or more of the earlier answers. If one of the earlier answers is inferior to yours, readers will be able to determine that themselves. The only acceptable grounds for making adverse comment about someone else’s answer is if that answer contains advice that is likely to be harmful to readers.

I would like to suggest Guy and Andy go away for an hour or two and read the Guidelines. Become as conversant with them as you obviously are about matters scientific. In particular, study the sentence that says “If you see an answer you think is … … simply supply a better one.” What brilliant advice – simply supply a better one!

Guy Macon has written about other Users posting “false information”, and he has displayed his penchant for angrily denouncing what he perceives to be false information. Clearly, he imagines that false information is unacceptable at the Reference Desks. The Guidelines show that he is incorrect. There is no expectation that answers given at the Reference Desks will be correct! See the 3rd paragraph (quoted above): "Some answers will show a high degree of expertise and professionalism, and others won't." Providing an answer is not giving medical or legal advice, that answer must be allowed to remain on the Reference Desk. If we disapprove of an answer, we simply supply a better one.

The only grounds for making adverse comment about someone else’s answer is if that answer contains advice that is likely to be harmful to readers. If a User is moved to make adverse comment about someone else’s answer he must simultaneously explain why he believes that answer is likely to be harmful to readers! Got it? Harmful to readers.

Before anyone jumps on the angry keyboard, reflect on the fact that I am advising of the existence of a perfectly reasonable set of Guidelines, and asking everyone who contributes to the Reference Desks to read those Guidelines and respect them. There can’t be any harm in that, can there? Dolphin (t) 12:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

+1

Plus, if everyone focused as much as possible on the OP question, instead of on other answers, it would be great. Nobody is perfect. Gem fr (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just a storm in a tea cup. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It is. One said the glass is half empty (microwave are not efficient at heating things except water), the other strongly disagree, call names and enter edit war path because he can prove the glass is half full (microwave does heat things that are not water, although not as efficiently). Makes the feud even worse, actually. Gem fr (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop saying things that you know are not true. Andy Dingley wrote "The microwave wavelength is chosen so that it's absorbed effectively by water. Dry food isn't heated by it, nor is ice." --posted by Andy Dingley on 21:30, 29 November 2019 , emphasis added. He didn't write that "microwave are not efficient at heating things except water" He wrote tthat microwaves don't heat ice. And when I corrected him, instead of acknowledging the error he he responded with "Go boil some water in an ice cup, then come back and say that".

Dolphin51's solution is a good one. I stopped commenting and let Andy Dingley have the last word. Gem fr's solution -- seeing a content dispute and edit warring to retain the bad information while hiding the correction (and hiding the only reference to a reliable source in the entire discussion) is not acceptable. Gem fr, please hat the entire thread or none of it. You are taking sides, which is OK, but you are also violating WP:TPOC and WP:EW in order to support your side and shut up the other side. That's wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Makes the food even worse too. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)