Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline page.

Just wanted to urgently request that everyone do their best to stay on topic here. This page is for talking about Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline and has no other purpose. Complaints about users can be directed to their talk pages. Discussion of the reference desks in general belongs on WT:RD. Thank you all for your consideration in this matter. Friday (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Similiar to talk page?

The point has been made repeatedly that the RD, while in project space, is similiar to a talk page in many ways. So, I wonder what we need here that's not already covered at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Or, at the very least, should the talk page guidelines form a basis for the reference desk guidelines? Friday (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, after reading it twice, that would be a good start. Good idea. -THB 05:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably. Looking over this proposal, my first thought is that it should be renamed to "guideline" instead, because it lacks the scope and magnitude used for official policy pages. Second, the main point of this page appears to be a lengthy procedure that needs to be invoked before other people's comments can be removed. While I don't support removing comments in general, I could imagine this being sometimes necessary on a reference desk to avoid nastiness (e.g. WP:RPA and such). At any rate, the lengthy procedure itself seems overly bureaucratic. (Radiant) 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
That's been the exact consensus of some experienced editors so far. However, this policy was created in a rather unique way by some well-meaning folks quite unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. Friday (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ummm .. without wanting to getting into a "I'm a more experienced editor than you" contest, it is clear that the balance of experience and familiarity with Wikipedia is not as one-sided as Friday presents it.Gandalf61 22:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Such a contest would produce no useful result. Remarks amended. Friday (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was clearly in favor of inclusion of the rules for deletion: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Rules_for_deletions. StuRat 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there wasn't clear consensus. There were 11 editors expressing support and 4 (maybe 5) bringing up significant objections on a proposal on which comments were not solicited from the broader community. It's fine to characterize this as "support from numerous RD regulars" or some such, but it's not consensus. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any actual oppose votes, just some Admins complaining that they don't like us voting at all. But, even if I accepted your 4 claimed oppose votes, that's still 11/15 in favor, or over 73%, which is well within the supermajority guidelines for determining that a consensus exists. StuRat 22:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Per the comment below, "consensus" for adopting guidelines requires more community exposure than these proposals have had. A small clique of editors can agree among themselves all they want, even unanimously, but this is not consensus. In particular, the editors you seem to be most interested in being bound by the deletion procedure are admins and as far as I can tell you have very little agreement from this set of editors (Durova is an admin). The chances that you'd get any admin to enforce guidelines established under this sort of consensus (which is I think what you're trying to achieve) are nearly non-existent. I'm all for making progress on this, but please don't delude yourself that what these votes are doing is establishing consensus. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
All due respect but I think that this is a valid first step. Who is going to develop a proposed policy or guideline for the RD if not the people that are interested in developing it? I thought I saw Durova support efforts here albeit with a heavy heart that it had come to this (or do I have him mixed up with another?) I say let StuRat alone, or better yet, assist him as you see fit, and when/if he/we come up with something then put in the pipeline for more general consensus. For my money, I think that the only new policy/guideline needed for the RD is clarifying the place of OR, and deciding if we are going to have a more formal deletion policy. I think general wikipedia "rules" and the existing RD header covers a lot of the rest. --Justanother 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It may not come across this way, but I am attempting to assist StuRat. The first step is for all concerned to understand what this page (Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline) is, which is that it's a proposal for a set of guidelines for the RD with general agreement from some of the regular RD responders. It is not a set of enforceable guidelines adopted through the Wikipedia consensus process. For a group of interested people to propose guidelines for the RD seems like a good thing. This group of editors cannot, by themselves, establish something that could be called a guideline. After these are fleshed out and fairly finalized by the working group, comments need to be solicited from the community at large. That's the way the process works. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. It is clear to me that no small insular group should set policy for the entire project. A year from now a whole new group of editors may be working the Desks and they need to know that the policy has been endorsed by the community not just the few of us. But for now I commend StuRat's effort. Once he has something roughed out he should put it to us for comments/revisions and then to the community through the proper channel. --Justanother 03:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, once completed, I'd like to get final consensus to add a link to these guidelines from the templates at the top of each page. I would bet there is far more consensus on the guidelines we've set up here than there was when the page top templates were originally set up, which is what we are currently using as guidelines. I would suggest we seek a broader consensus of Ref Desk users, as opposed to just Ref Desk volunteers, as the next step after that, although I'm not yet sure how we should solicit their input. StuRat 10:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as "supermajority guidelines for determining that a consensus exists". Consensus is not a vote, consensus is not a supermajority, and consensus is not 73% support. WP:CON should make this clear. (Radiant) 10:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is:

"However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus...the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds."

And, if it's your contention that a consensus only exists when there is a 100% agreement on something, then there would never be a consensus on anything in Wikipedia. StuRat 12:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not my contention. What I'm saying is that consensus is reached by debate and addressing objections, not by holding a vote and telling the minority to go away. Your quote lacks the context; the numbers you cite refer to RM/AFD/RFA, and the section includes such phrases as "simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate" and "there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines". 73% can be considered a supermajority, but it is not a consensus. (Radiant) 12:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
do you deny that there is significant discussion behind those votes, and that the very thing we're voting on is the fruit of that compromise and discussion? --frothT C 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There has been a lot of discussion, but that doesn't mean we should be voting on the results, and neither does it mean the discussion has been conclusive. (Radiant) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This means verifiability and NOR apply to the reference desk, right?

The proposed guideline says that in general, talk page rules apply at the reference desk. If we read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, the first sentences under "Central points" reads "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research." So, I assume this page as written means that these 3 core policies apply at the reference desk as well. Friday (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between an article talk page and a Ref Desk answer is made clear by trying to say "A Ref Desk answer is research for the ?????" The analogy fails. Edison 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly hope not! Sound like we have made a bit of a bad analogy. The discussion on talk pages has as its end product material worthy of inclusion in the main article. We are trying to answer a question as best we can, OR and non-verifiability may play some part. --Justanother 23:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That particular talk page guideline only applies to article talk pages ("A talk page is research for the article..."), not all talk pages, so clearly isn't applicable here. StuRat 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say that WP:V is meant to apply to articles and talk pages thereof; the refdesk is obviously not an article. That said, people answering questions should in general give answers that are verifiably true. (Radiant) 10:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I'd say that people answering questions should give answers that are true. Verifiability would be great but it can't be required --frothT C 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the page is part of Wikipedia, there are good reasons to observe WP:V and WP:NOR even here. However, that said, a fairly wide latitude can be given for answers that are geniunely helpful. We should be cautious about arguing over personal opinions since this has the potential to degrade the reference desk into a debate forum. I suggest language that discourages original research, but I do not suggest that we run around removing it with an iron fist. Such a solution could easily become worse than the problem it was intended to solve. Friday (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you pay a doctor, a lawyer, a chemist, or an engineer to consult on a problem, you can expect get an answer based on their many years of training and experience. They may not give you a citation to a textbook or journal article for every fact they state. In that sense, they are giving you original research. If you told the doctor, "I know you have made a diagnosis of appendicitis, but you must give me a reference to a textbook published by a respected publishing firm or an article in a peer reviewed journal," he will send you for a psychiatric consult. I will answer a question by characterizing trhe answer such as "In the early 1980s, Scientific American had a special issue on the question of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, where an author said that...." without jumping in my car and spending the morning at a college library finding the exact citation. The questioner can do that if they really want the exact article. My answer is close to o.r. I may also state things about electrical power system based on training and experience in the field. An answer which does not cite directly to a Wiki article, a publication or book, or a website, should be qualified as "If I recall correctly" or "To the best of my knowledge, having watched every eposide of of the XYZ show, the hero was never abducted by aliens." Someone might say "No, it is impossible for a 4 by 4 inch solar cell without a reflector or lens to concentrate the energy to power a 1500 watt space heater" or "No, a frog could not survive on the Moon without a protective enclosure" or "No, a World War 1 airplane could not perform aerobatic maneuvers in interstellar space" based on expert knowledge of the field of electricity, biology, or physics from their training and experience. Some questions are so absurd they are unlikely to have a specific answer stated anywhere, and must rely on synthesis of knowledge, which is also original research. An answer is NOT an encyclopedia article, although more answers should become or should add to articles than is presently the case, if the questions are of general interest and the answer is well sourced. Edison 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The no original research crowd can really get out of hand at times: "You claim that 1 + 1 = 2, but do you have an authoritative statement to back up your assumption ?", LOL. StuRat 10:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this not a proposal?

This is a proposal, right? The proposed template got removed, so I put it back. Friday (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, there's no consensus even that such a guideline is a good idea, let alone that everything is decided and we shouldn't make any changes.EricR 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yah, the fine print saying not to change it is just plain bizarre. Those of you that are actively driving this- is there some reason that this proposal needs to be treated so differently than is common practice with such things? Friday (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The fine print is a temporary measure, we will make a template for it eventually, but I'm too busy defending against constant attacks on the process to do so now. StuRat 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a consensus both to create these guidelines and on each individual point. Therefore, the tag that claims we have yet to reach a consensus is incorrect and should be removed. StuRat 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Several people have pointed out that this has gotten nowhere near the kind of input we need to call something a guideline. Call it an essay if you like, but it's definitely not an accepted guideline yet. Friday (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
And even more people have said that it is a consensus, so we have a consensus that it's a consensus. StuRat 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we may be talking past each other. There's perhaps a consensus among RD regulars that these should be guidelines, but that does not mean there's a community consensus about it. Guidelines require community consensus and that is the "consensus" that is being disputed. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That's circular reasoning, StuRat. Consensus is not a supermajority. (Radiant) 10:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I never said that consensus was a supermajority, but that it a supermajority is used to measure whether a consensus exists, as our WP:CON states. StuRat 10:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Rick has a good point, radiant you do not. But we're doing the best we can, the onus is on the people who are actually trying to change the desk (ie not me) to draw in people from outside the regulars --frothT C 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The onus is on the people writing new policy/guidelines to demonstrate substantial support for them. First, that is not done through voting, and second, a dozen or so of refdesk regulars is not substantial support if there are several other people coming in with arguments to the contrary. (Radiant) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Ref Desk volunteers aren't trying to change things, but just record the current "best practices" already in use here, as a set of guidelines. This is especially important since we've had an influx of Admins, knowing little or nothing about the collaborative process used here to produce good answers, who want to make a Ref Desk response look just like an article. Due to this total lack of understanding of the process used here, they start deleting valid responses and blocking both those who provide valid questions and answers. This is quite disruptive. If the Admins want to change the Ref Desk to a process which won't work at all, the onus is on them to garner a consensus for this change. StuRat 10:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But the "deletion" section of this page is obviously not a description of best practices in the past. (Radiant) 11:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discourage "Go Google" as an answer

Please see additional discussion of my position here. Personally, I think that just saying "go Google" is somewhat disrespectful to the asker. In general, I feel that it adds little to the answer stream as it could serve as the answer for ANY question. So, I propose that "Go Google it" be outlawed discouraged as a response unless you yourself go google first, refine the search, and then link to a specific useful search. And in that case I still do not consider it an "answer" but at least an effort worth adding to the answer stream. --Justanother 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, linking to a list of search results is a good idea. StuRat 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Depends Bear with me, but I actually quite like Mathiemood's use great sense suggestion, i.e. "don't post smartass questions unless there's a clever smartass question asked first; don't give nonsense answers unless there's a silly question asked; don't give good answers unless there's a good question asked.". It seems to me that this could be expanded into a generally useful rule, which roughly boils down to "respond in kind". If the OP asks a stupid question, a stupid response seems OK to me. Of course, there are limits to this (rude questions should not be responded to with rudeness), but a question that could easily be answered with a trivial google search (implying the OP did NOT even take the time to do this) doesn't warrant anyone taking the time to do the google search for him/her. In this case "google it" seems like a fine answer (OK, maybe something not quite so curt). Insisting a link to a relevant google search be provided, unless the search is somehow unobvious, seems unnecessary. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
While I kind like that Mathiemood bit also just becuase it has that irreverent wikipedia attitude about it I do not think it is appropriate for the RD where people are likely unfamiliar with that self-same attitude. I think that "Go Google" for an obvious "Go Google" situation is unnecessary. If you think the asker should do it themselves then just move on to the next question and leave it alone for someone else that may not agree with you. If need be we can put USE GOOGLE FIRST in bold letters near the top of the RD page but I am sure plenty of people are a bit put off by all the information google gives you. If you want them to google it then take minute and format a search - it is usually just a mtter of copy and paste from their question. No big deal and it may help someone out and that is supposed to be what we are about there. --Justanother 03:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It's rude as hell. We should at least Google it for them. -THB 21:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If some people do google searches for others, and some people don't, this is alright. I assume even people who don't think we should do this would not go so far as to interfere with someone who does wish to spend their time googling for someone else. So I think this is an area where it's alright to disagree. Friday (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Rick Block explained this issue well. We need to use judgment and make the answer fit the question. Friday (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that if we're not willing to take 5 seconds to do a google search and 5 seconds to post the results, we shouldn't be taking 5 seconds to post an instruction for the OP to do the search themselves. Amazingly, not every single person in the world knows about google, not every single person knows how to do a reasonable search (reasonably specific, reasonably general, using reasonable search terms). I feel the same way about homework questions, FWIW. Anchoress 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, sometimes it seems like a Google search would work, but it doesn't. StuRat 22:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless more of a complete and polite response is provided. I remember years ago when I had first heard of "Google" and tried to use it by typing in WWW.GOOGOL.COM like the mathematical concept is spelled. Why BITE the newbie? I think it is both appropriate and educational, when someone asks "Did Thomas Edison ever develop something called a 'pyromagnetic motor'" and Wikipedia provides no answer,(actually it does) to say "If you Google Edison pyromagnetic you will find references such as the Edison Papers Project[12] at Rutgers University, where it says ...." This is along the lines of "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him to fish you feed him for life." This is like a real librarian telling a person what reference might be useful, such as a terminal connected to a database, then showing how to do an initial search, and is not being a DICK [1] like if they just said "Why don't you go look it up?" Edison 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Edison, don't you mean Support (smile)? As in support discouraging the "go google it" without doing a bit of work yourself first and getting the newbie started? --Justanother 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree we should never bite (in fact, I've been responding at WP:HD for over a year attempting to model how to respond without biting) and that "go google it" bites. On the other hand, the proposal here goes way beyond not biting. I'm fine with anyone providing explicit links if they feel like it, but I don't think anyone should feel compelled to add a google search link if the question is sufficiently obvious. This is a matter of judgement that I don't think can be reasonably instituted as a specific rule. The general rule should be don't bite the poster. We don't need to enumerate the ways that posters might be bitten and discourage each one - they're all discouraged (in fact, they're all already discouraged by the wikipedia-wide WP:BITE guideline). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur with Rick. (Radiant) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

OK, I think I see a general consensus that just saying "go Google it" is insufficent and has a WP:BITE feel about it. I will therefore add the following to the guidelines:

  • Is "just Google it" a good response ? No, you should do the search yourself, verify that it provides useful results, and provide a link to those search results, instead.

[edit] Deletion Policy

I think that the "speedy deletion" goes well beyond things on the level of death threat. Take a look at this string of nonsense I deleted. I would not have been so quick but one bit was designed to upset the OP that was looking for a lost relative (yea, she is in my basement and freaking out). That is, to me, a no-brainer. What I would like to see is a deletion log where I could note my deletion. Comments? --Justanother 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This deletion looks entirely appropriate to me. Others have argued that the RD pages are very high traffic, and thus the page history is insufficient. How about if deleted comments are simply replaced with a visible, signed, comment, e.g. [offensive|offtopic|irrelevant|...] comment deleted, see history. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC). Knowing who deleted the comment, and at what time, allows anyone who's interested to find the original comment from the page history quite easily. I'd be willing to create a template for use in such circumstances that could be given a single word argument for the deletion reason (offsensive, off topic, irrelevant, etc.). To use such a thing, you'd just subst it, providing the deletion "reason". -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Great! I am for a template rather than a log; something like {{RDdelete|inappropriate}}. I don't think we want to get too specific. --Justanother 03:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. A deleted question/deleted answer template looks good to me. Should also be accompanied by a polite note on the editor's talk page explaining why their question/answer was deleted - but the guideline already says this anyway. Gandalf61 09:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I still would argue that "quick deletions" should be limited to posts which qualify as "disruption", which is rather strictly defined (WP:DIS). Also, new users aren't going to know how to find a deleted comment using History, so a link to the specific deletion should be provided for them. StuRat 09:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I really really like that idea rick. Implement it! --frothT C 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
What froth said. WP:BOLD. -THB 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Rick, it looks like there is sufficient interest in your proposed template to go further. Please create it and show it to us here, then we will gather consensus on when it should be used for "speedy deletions" and when the more formal process is required. StuRat 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition - not a chat room

This guideline is sorely lacking from the page:

"The reference desk is not a chatroom. Humor for humors sake is not appropriate. If you cannot or will not add informative information, it is inappropriate to write just to be funny. Likewise, the reference desk should not be used by "regulars" as a way to get random questions answered. Unless you are truly unable to find the information you seek on your own, you should not ask questions just to spur jokes, conversation and activity."

I suggest this gets to the underlying dispute in play. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We've already reached consensus that humor is allowed. And regulars have just as much right to ask questions as anybody else. StuRat 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Humor for humor's sake is not acceptable. I suspect a strong consensus exists that it is not. I suggest we discuss what humor is, and what is not, acceptable. I also suspect that asking questions to spur jokes, conversation and activity is also not considered acceptable. I suggest that we attempt to gauge a wider subset of wikipedia by mentioning this in various locations including, but not limited to, the village pump and some of the more relevent wikiprojects (the academic ones). Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
People who understand Wikipedia well will generally have little use for asking questions at the reference desk, I'd think. If it's a question about an article, it belongs elsewhere. I agree with Hipocrite that something like the above would be a useful addition to the page. Friday (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
See - Hipocrite and "chat" - on the RD talk page. We can move that here if it is better discussed here. --Justanother 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Remember WP:Beans. If you make that a rule, people might do something like that. Better not to mention it. -THB 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like an argument against all rules, rather than against this particular one. Are you in the "let's not try to make RD-specific rules" camp? Friday (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Beans is a good point and so is WP:CREEP. Why not just a statement that "remarks and tangents that have little or no relation to answering the question are discouraged". Do we already have something like that? --Justanother 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hipcorite has thrown another ball into play here - he has suggested that "regulars" should be discouraged from asking questions on the RDs. This is the first time I have seen this particular suggestion. I think we should discuss this. Gandalf61 10:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't think of why a regular would want to. They already know how to find information in Wikipedia, I assume. So while I agree with the idea that regulars are discouraged from asking questions, I'm surprised someone would suggest we need to say this explicitly, unless it's in response to regulars misusing the reference desk. Ned Wilbury 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Suppose I'm a regular, and I have a question, and my searches of Wikipedia and Google (and any other references I might have to hand) have failed to answer it. You're suggesting I should not ask at the Reference Desk, where my fellow regulars (who I admire and trust) might have some information, or a search strategy to try, that I missed? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, I said something other than what I really meant. I don't think anyone is suggesting that regulars be discouraged from legitimate use of the reference desk. Sorry, I should have said "regulars should be discouraged from asking irrelevant or silly questions". I'd be shocked if anyone had a problem with proper use of the reference desk, whether by a newbie or by the oldest oldtimer you can find. Ned Wilbury 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
But shouldn't everyone "be discouraged from asking irrelevant or silly questions" ? Why should there be any distinction between what questions Ref Desk volunteers can ask versus everyone else ? StuRat 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a reason to make reference desk specific rules?

This has been touched on here and there, but perhaps could use its own section. I'm in the camp of "existing wikipedia practices are sufficient, we don't need specific rules for the reference desk." One of the major problems pointed out is that there'll be no enforcement of such rules. This was discussed a bit at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#How_is_the_ref_desk_any_different_than_the_help_desk_or_village_pump_pages too. In short, while the RD is different from an article in many ways and different from a talk page in some ways, it's not an entirely unique beast. I think there are already customs for such pages that work well. Friday (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Friday, the problem is you choose to to enforce the "rules" yourself however you decide to interpret them. If it weren't for you, there would be no push for rules. The rules are to protect the RD editors lovable idiots from User:Friday. You still don't see that. -THB 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I see too much fun going unpunished. Let's make some rules we can use against people contributing their time and expertise to Wikipedia. Edison 00:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There probably isn't a reason to make rules specific to the refdesk; what we're discussing here boils down to wikiwide issues like WP:BITE and WP:VAND. Note also that we're discussing (well, actually voting for some reason) on additions to this page, whereas it has not been established that the existing content is consensual. (Radiant) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Been round this loop several times before. The reason we need RD specific rules is that different editors have very different views on what are acceptable questions and answers on the RDs, how existing policies and guidelines apply to the RDs and how unacceptable content and behaviour should be handled. So we need to try to reach consensus on as many specific topics as possible, and then document that consensus. Without this, every incident will continue to be endlessly and inconclusively debated from first principles on the RD talk page. The endless debates are divisive, waste time and energy, and do not benefit the encylopaedia. Gandalf61 10:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well said, I concur. StuRat 10:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's a sad day we've come to. -THB 11:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can Ref Desk volunteers ask Ref Desk questions ?

Added per statements by User:Hipocrite to the effect that such questions should be prohibited:

  • Allow Ref Desk volunteers to ask questions. We are people, too, and also have things we've wondered about, especially those outside our areas of expertise. StuRat 10:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Allow "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others". See also: Joseph Merrick. -THB 11:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy allow, what a nonsensical poll. dab (𒁳) 11:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

OK, there doesn't seem to be much dispute here, even User:Hipocrite seems to now agree that Ref Desk volunteers may ask questions, too, so I'll update the guidelines accordingly. StuRat 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Describing the issue as "can regulars ask questions?" is missing some important points of what Hipocrite said at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Proposed_addition_-_not_a_chat_room. Ned Wilbury 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken mechanism makes this page worthless

The broken mechanism of constant proposed "votes" for polemical statements designed to advance arguments rather than guide individuals to what we have reached consensus on makes this guideline useless. I intend to ignore it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would make sense if you're the one who proposed not allowing anyone who contributes answers to the Ref Desk to also ask questions. Ninety percent of all Canadians live within one hundred miles of the U.S. border. -THB 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No one ever proposed banning regulars from being allowed to ask questions. The "vote" above is designed to divide the "regulars" from me, to make my proposal look insane, and to make it appear the other "side" won a "vote." This is why we do not vote here. This guideline is not a guideline - it is a polemic. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you certainly seemed to have an objection to Ref Desk regulars asking questions, so, if you don't like the way I stated it, how would you word it ? StuRat 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't vote, nor do I call votes. I stated my proposed addition for discussion above.Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several suggestions there:

  • "The reference desk is not a chatroom." - Rather vague as written. If you mean "no side conversations are allowed" or "address only the question asker, not other responders", then those are things we could reach consensus on. I believe some of those are already on the list of things we will discuss. We can't discuss everything at once, though, that just doesn't work. StuRat 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I will not allow you to structure the conversation so only things you like are discussed. The reference desk is not a chatroom. Do you believe it is a chatroom? If you agree it is not a chatroom, we should agree to that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Like I said "not a chatroom" is vague, it could mean anything from "never say anything that isn't a direct answer to the question" to "keep side conversations to a minimum". We need to all agree on exactly how much, if any, chat is allowed, in order to "build a community". Just saying "not a chatroom" leaves us right where we are now, with everybody having their own interpretation of what that means. StuRat
  • "Humor for humors sake is not appropriate. If you cannot or will not add informative information, it is inappropriate to write just to be funny." - We already discussed this, and the consensus was recorded that humor is OK, provided that at least one serious answer has been given. If, after we finish everything else on the list (like the items above), you want to reopen this issue, that's fine, too. StuRat 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The issue was never closed. You took a vote and never discussed it. Humor for humor's sake is not appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It was thoroughly discussed many times, see the archives. StuRat 13:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Likewise, the reference desk should not be used by "regulars" as a way to get random questions answered. Unless you are truly unable to find the information you seek on your own, you should not ask questions just to spur jokes, conversation and activity." - This seems to be in the "beans" category, and which questions are "just to spur jokes, conversation, and activity" is so highly subject to opinion that it's rather pointless to have a rule on it. StuRat 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you will support my actions to stop this, correct? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I'm for rules that actually mean the same thing to everyone, not the same type of vague generalities which we have now, which everybody then interprets in their own way, leading to conflict. StuRat 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I can make an observation- I have read various contradictory policies and essays about voting versus discussing. There's some good food for thought there and I think the answer is that sometimes we use either one. So instead of having an abstract "vote versus discuss" discussion, I'll give MY opinion. Right now, on this page, for our purposes, discussing is clearly the way to go. Look at what's actually happening: voting is discouraging a good decision-making process, while discussing is helping. The folks insisting on voting keep saying "But look, it's sometimes allowed!" Yes, that's true, but in this case it seems like discussion is working- slowly, perhaps with difficulty, but it's working. I endorse the plan to ignore whatever votes are held, and discuss things instead. Ned Wilbury 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ref Desk policy issues under dispute

Copied and refactored from the Ref Desk talk page archives:

Here I wish to only build a list of Ref Desk policy issues under dispute. I don't wish to discuss them here, just build a list. That discussion can happen elsewhere. Please add any issues I missed to the list. Also, add a link after each item to where that discussion is or has occurred, if you have one:

  • Purpose of the Ref Desk [2]
  • Is the Ref Desk considered to be like an article or like a talk page ? RESOLVED
  • Rules for deletion RESOLVED [3]
  • Is opinion allowed RESOLVED
  • Are references required for all statements of fact ? RESOLVED
  • Are answers containing original research allowed? RESOLVED [4]
  • Are answers with references outside of Wikipedia allowed ? RESOLVED
  • Are responses which don't directly answer the question allowed ?
  • If still related to the topic
  • If totally unrelated
  • Can we address another responder, or only the original poster ?
  • Is humor allowed ? RESOLVED
  • Is sexual content allowed ? RESOLVED
  • Are poorly written questions allowed ?
  • Should signatures be required ? RESOLVED
  • May we edit the posts of others ? RESOLVED [5]
  • Avoid using abbreviations like "OP" ?
  • Is "just Google it" a valid response ? RESOLVED [6].
  • May the same people post both questions and answers ? RESOLVED

[edit] Discussion

  • I think you shouldn't phrase this as "X is allowed, Y is disallowed". Rather, you should state something like The intent of the reference desk is to help people who have questions. Try to take the question seriously; it is not productive to give a joke answer. Likewise, it is not recommended to simply send people to Google instead, as that doesn't really answer anything. You should treat this page as an instructive guide to new users who wish to help answering refdesk questions, not as a strict book of law. (Radiant) 12:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The word "guideline" describes that concept quite clearly, doesn't it ? StuRat 12:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. I take it then that you agree to a description rather than a checklist? (Radiant) 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, we agreed on the items one at a time, and they should stay in that form. It's also far easier to read than a long paragraph. We need to be concise, and long rambling descriptions fail that test. StuRat 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not easier to read. You are attempting to catch in strict rules what should be commonsensical. But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so guidelines aren't written that way. You are also wrongly assuming that a brief vote among the frequenters here is an appropriate way to decide an issue for Wikipedia as a whole. And finally, you are wrongly assuming that policy/guidelines may not be edited; if that were actually true, we'd protect the lot of them. See also WP:POL, WP:PPP, WP:VIE and Wikipedia:How to create guidelines. (Radiant) 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have concerns about the practice of using votes with very little discussion to try to claim a 'consensus'. To look at one example above, restating another individual's suggestion in an absolute and unpalatable form, then declaring the matter resolved after less than ninety minutes of 'discussion' (see #Can_Ref_Desk_volunteers_ask_Ref_Desk_questions_.3F) is a ludicrous abuse of process. Per Hipocrite, I see no reason to participate in a discussion that is going to be conducted in such an utterly autocratic and bad-faith manner. Claiming that there is agreement on each of these points is in many cases selective blindness of the worst sort.

This has gone from exercise in preventing the abuse of the Ref Desk to an exercise in developing loopholes through which both the Ref Desk and administrators can be abused. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

With three votes in favor, and none against, and even the original person appearing to request the item no longer arguing for it, we appeared to have consensus. If you dispute this, no problem, I will remove the item from the guidelines until we get more votes. Is this what you wish me to do ? StuRat 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
One more time: Consensus is not a vote. (Radiant) 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
One more time, no, but a supermajority is a way to gauge whether a consensus exists, as per WP:CON. I refer you to the Arbitration Committee votes happening right now. StuRat 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New version

Hipocrite's version is a great improvement. (Radiant) 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It has some rough edges and sounds a bit abrupt in spots, but it's much closer to the format that is usually used for guidelines around here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to propose replacing the guidelines we've developed so far, that's fine, but don't replace them and then discuss it. You should create an alternative page, then we can compare the two and decide which we like the best. StuRat 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You haven't developed any guidelines so far. You have developed a proposal that has not gained consensus yet. Also, Hipocrite didn't replace anything, but added to it. (Radiant) 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As a minor correction, I was initially over-bold and replaced the page with my starting point for discussion. That was reverted, so instead I tacked my starting point on top of the voting-version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
List of things that are wrong with Hipocrite's version:
  1. You may not seek opinions - we've discussed this, and agreed that there are certain situiations where an opinion is a valid response to a question.
  2. We don't have opinions - obviously silly.
  3. We don't do novel research - we do, on Mathematics RD, all the time. Again, we have discussed this.
  4. Your personal knowledge is not acceptable except to the extent it guides your selection of sources - answers on the Comoputing/IT RD are often based entirely on personal experience of a similar situation.
  5. Do not provide answers to homework questions or opinions, no matter what the questioner wishes - sounds as if it is prohibiting any response a homework question. Certainly needs major re-wording.
So much wrong here, I think there is little or nothing worth keeping. Gandalf61 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
But how could such responses (opinions and personal knowledge/original research) help out the encyclopedia? I agree that the current version is somewhat overly restrictive and think that we could make a good case that answers which, for instance, state the editors opinion can in some ways improve the encyclopedia. But these are based on some core Wikipedia principles, the reference desk needs to find some way to live inside the project, not as a separate entity whith it's own unique goals and methods.EricR 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
An open, helpful and responsive RD improves the image of Wikpedia and encourages new editors to join the project. OTOH, if we followed Hipocrite's rules we would have to keep saying "I'm sorry, Wikipedia doesn't have an article that answers your question, so we can't help you" - which would be a waste of time for all concerned. Take a look at Dec 10th and Dec 11th on the Mathematics RD - full of original work and suggestions from personal experience - under Hipocrite's rules, we would not be allowed to answer any of these questions in any meaningful way. Gandalf61 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to review dec10 from the math RD.
  1. maximum value of a cubic function?
    1. Answered in our article on Cubic function.
  2. Bézier Curves
    1. KSmrq's answer references his sources.
  3. rewrite using partial fractions
    1. {{homework}}
  4. vector perpindicular
    1. {{homework}}
  5. natural log integration
    1. Meni Rosenfeld cites her sources.
I do not see substantial disruption here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1. The cubic function article does not actually answer the question that was asked. 2. The questioner on Bézier curves had already read the article and was asking about stuff not covered there. 3. & 4. A homework template on its own is no help at all to the questioner. 5. KSmrq amplified Meni Rosenfeld response by working through a specific example - your rules would not have allowed him to do that. Gandalf61 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the guideline to accurately reflect what we desire from the mathemematics RD. Thank you for helping guide our thought processes through discussion. As a note, The cubic function article does answer the question, and KSmrq linked to algebraic geometry. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StuRat's objections

My objections to the new version are as follows (I will build the list item by item):

  • "Giving personal opinions in answers should be avoided." - The consensus is just the opposite, that both OR and opinions should be allowed. StuRat 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "1 You may not seek opinions. While we have opinions, we're not going to tell you what they are, so don't ask for them. We will give you the facts, and allow you to form your own conclusions." - Same comment as above. StuRat 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "2 We don't do novel research. While we may check things, we will not test your experiment, your theory, or your thoughts. We can point you to other people's work, however. We will not answer your homework question. We will, however, direct you to sources that will help you answer your homework question." - Same comment as above. StuRat 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My main objection, however, is to all the things which are not included, such as what process should be used to decide what should be deleted and how that deletion should occur (Can we delete anything we don't personally like ? Do we need to notify the author ? What happens if they put it back ? etc.). StuRat 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • These things you object to are a consequence of the fact that the reference desk is part of Wikipedia. As for what to do exactly about off-topic content, describing an exact editing procedure is not something we need to do. Ned Wilbury 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we disagree there, but that's OK. StuRat 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's see if we can't turn it into an agreement or a compromise then. You do agree with the basic idea that the reference desk is part of Wikipedia and therefore must support the goals of Wikipedia rather than going its own way entirely, right? Ned Wilbury 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In general, yes, but that doesn't mean that every Wikipedia policy applies to the Ref Desk, especially since many of those policies contradict each other. StuRat 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next item for consensus: *Can we address another responder, or only the original poster ?

  • Allow addressing anyone. I think we need a way to comment on other's comments, such as asking for a reference on questionable statement, and/or providing a reference of our own which disproves their statement. This is an important "quality control" feature, as we all occasionally make mistakes. Of course, as always, we need to try to keep the discussion civil. For example, "I've never heard that before User:Example, do you have a source on that ?" verus "User:Example, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, so STFU." StuRat 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet another nonsensical straw man poll. Nobody is seriously proposing legislating against talking to other responders. (Radiant) 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Next item for consensus: *Can we use the letter 'E' in our posts?

  • Allow using the letter E. I think we need a way to use every letter in the alphabet, even if the original poster doesn't, and/or use glyphs or exotic letters not in the standard Roman alphabet if this is necessary to meaningfully respond to the question. This is an important "quality control" feature, as we all occasionally use the letter E. Of course, as always, we need to avoid forcing this letter on everyone. For example, it would be wrong to remove a post simply because it does not contain the letter E. (Radiant) 13:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an obvious attempt to disrupt the process of developing and measuring a consensus, please stop. StuRat 13:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No it's not, it's more like a koan. How is this any different at all from what you have been doing? This is not a trick question, but do think about it. (Radiant) 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is more Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point but doing that is something that I personally support in the context of talk pages (see my "Two Cows" usage on the RD talk page), though obviously not in articles. Though Radiant, I fear that there are many that would disagree with us. --Justanother 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the same people can ask questions as answer them is quite useful to know, and at least some would (and appeared to) argue against it. Nobody would ever argue against using the letter "E". StuRat 13:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support use of E, oppose É, È, Ě, Æ, etc. they are just silly.EricR 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ducks in a pram For the old schoolers. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Point of order! Do we want to just jump right into asking about the letter E without first determining if there's consensus for having the discussion? What about the letters before E? Are we even doing things in the right order? I suggest we vote by black ball. Ned Wilbury 14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Guys, voting is NOT consensus!!!11 one one --frothT C 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-consensus changes

Ok, I've moved those items agreed to by consensus to Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. Those of you who wish to make non-consensus changes feel free to do so here. StuRat 14:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think making a fork right now is a good idea. And why are you saying "non-consensus"? People are working on describing consensus, from what I can see. Ned Wilbury 14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We were, but then User:Radiant!, and others, just started deleting the items we had already agreed upon. I feel the fork is needed to stop an edit war. Hopefully, once both versions are completed, we can reach consensus on which is best and should be linked to from the Ref Desk page templates. StuRat 14:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a wiki. Text gets edited. The wiki-process is how we build content, even on policy and guideline pages.EricR 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, and so I made some edits, too. -THB 15:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Making bad faith changes to the guidelines is not helping this process move forward. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Hipocrite, If you are accusing ME of making bad faith changes, please do so in a direct manner. Thanks. -THB 15:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop making bad faith changes on the article page. Discuss your proposals in talk, don't just disrupt the page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF and remember WP:NPA. And stop ordering others around: WP:DICK. Thanks. -THB 15:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me of those important policies. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Obviously you can't get consensus by starting a new debate that only involves those users who agree with you. (Radiant) 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Everyone is invited to voice their opinion of each proposed rule on the new page. They are not, however, invited to delete any rules, without consensus, that they don't like, disrupt the conversation, and constantly complain about, and remove, poll results. Those actions aren't designed to work towards a consensus, but rather to disrupt it. StuRat 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk

I was thinking that the very use of the term "Reference Desk" implies some formality would be expected in the way it is run. I know that some have a problem with the informal appearance of the desk. OK, that is fine with me but I don't want to go all draconian with warnings on users' pages eventually leading to blocks for simply inserting a quip. I think if we have policy that "responses that consist solely of off-topic remarks are subject to deletion by any editor" then those that don't like them can pull them. We would also have a policy to stay on point and not use the RD as a chat room. I am not talking about someone that is disruptive. I am talking about people like me and others here that like to joke around while they work. But "work" is the operative term. I just know that, for me, if the RD is micromanaged then I am "outta here". --Justanother 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Micromanagement is not a risk- that's more or less the opposite of how Wikipedia works. This is why we phrase things in a general way and depend on people to interpret guidelines reasonably. See Wikipedia:Interpret all rules. Just having a list of exactly what is or isn't allowed is unsatisfactory- troublemakers will simply invent ways to make trouble that aren't yet on the list. See also WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Ned Wilbury 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We aren't trying to deal with troublemakers so much as honest disagreements between good editors, who are operating under different sets of rules, since none have been defined specifically for the Ref Desk. Since it's not clear which general Wikipedia policies apply, everyone has a different interpretation, leading to conflict. StuRat 15:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Micromanagement is very much a risk if some editor decides to vet every response. And I believe that I saw something suspiciously like that on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. If we have consensus that off-topic remarks can be removed by any editor then just remove it and be done with it. If someone takes offense then they can bring it up. That is how I have observed wikipedia to work. We continue to dance around what I see as the only real issue. Is the Desk formal or informal and how much informality is acceptable. I think that we are making progress in the direction of answering that question though even if we are not directly asking it. --Justanother 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think we were making progress in that direction, with the consensus leaning towards an informal, but, above all else, polite Ref Desk. And that's politeness to everyone involved, not just the OP. StuRat 16:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of objections

Well first of all, to be a little pedantic I guess, the whole thing needs to be rewritten to sound less like "Hey newbie, this is stuff we're not doing for you so don't even ask". Some examples: While we have opinions, we're not going to tell you what they are, so don't ask for them, We don't do [novel research], don't chat, because this is not a chat room. Just joking around is not acceptable, ...do not provide answers, no matter what the questioner wishes. Whatever, this can be fixed easily, but I want to make sure that at some point it does get fixed.

Anyway, first off I oppose the first "instruction for questioners." This might be a little controversial, but opinion questions often are appropriate to the RD. For example, we get a lot of that kind of thing at the computing desk, especially with stuff regarding "real world experience." Often people ask stuff like "what linux distro have you guys found best for Q use?" and people answer along the lines of "yeah personally I like X because of A, but if you find B and C important you might want to consider Y or Z." I can easily see the same thing applying to other desks. If I want advice from experienced people who have well-formed opinions based on experience and actual knowledge, there's nothing wrong with asking for them just because they're unencyclopedic. It's still important to talk past your personal biases, but opinion can be valuable.

Secondly I am strongly opposed to the second "instruction for answerers." I don't believe it's always possible to answer with a source, and I don't believe most OPs really want a source. AFAIK very few (if any) OPs are using the RD for actual research, and just want the info, and don't really care that it's verifiable as long as a couple other editors agree. Also, though sources are great, experience is really what gives the RD its strength, and placing any restriction at all on giving advice from experience or personal knowledge isn't helping the RD in any way.

--frothT C 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the idea of hosting an experts forum, while possibly useful, is outside the scope of Wikipedia. There are other websites that DO have that exact purpose, though. I don't see why we'd want to compete with those forums- wouldn't it be better to direct questioners there? Ned Wilbury 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen sites with expert forums on one topic, like computers, but I haven't run across "all topic" expert forums. Do you have examples ? StuRat 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing comes to mind. Most forums aren't going to be all topics, they're going to be specific. I don't see that this matters? Unless we want to maintain a list of various expert forums to refer people to? Ned Wilbury 01:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't have to promise expert advice, but if someone has that "expert advice" there's nothing wrong with giving it --frothT C 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the closest we come to "quality control" in articles is the guideline about reliable sources. How do you propose we have quality control when using individual expertise? I see that people disagreeing with each other's advice is already not unheard of. Ned Wilbury 02:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to ask and answer

We've already got Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer. If (sigh) we're after all going to end up with a guideline page, then shouldn't it read like other guidelines? Less prohibition and more prose, more a description of how thing should work than a list of do's and do not's?EricR 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought (at least I hope) that these are more behind-the-scenes guidelines so that if an issue comes up with another editor we can show him that we reached consensus on the issue already. For this very practical use, a list of dos and donts is most useful. You're right, if these "go public" then prose would be more appropriate, but if they do then God help us because the RD will be more restrictive than the mainspace itself! --frothT C 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I too have wondered what the guideline does that Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer doesn't already do. The current version seems well-grounded, but is worded too harshly here and there. I agree with froth that maybe there is value to having a more detailed description apart from the obvious stuff. Ned Wilbury 02:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer is good, as far as it goes, but completely avoids many critical issues, like whether opinions are allowed in questions and answers. That's why more detailed rules are needed, like those at Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia_talk%7EReference_desk_guideline_c608.html"