Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] What are good lawyer majors

what are good undergraduate majors if you want to become a lawyer and what are good law schools in california?

[edit] Where is 30 December?

Help! All the QAs for the above date have vanished into the ether, just as I was about to tackle a question on the Avignon Popes! I'm not quite sure what to do to set about restoring this date. Can anyone help? Clio the Muse 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's come back! Thanks for taking the trouble, whoever you are. Clio the Muse 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe thanks are owed to Kjoonlee for fixing RDB's New Year drunkenness :) Martinp23 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cute troll?

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#John Smith

For some strange reason I don't think that user:Toytoy is interested in an answer. Vranak 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It does seem a very odd question, but unless he has a record or continues along these lines, I'd be willing to WP:AGF for the moment. Rockpocket 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any trolling here, could you elaborate? --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A 'cute troll' is a contradiction and paradox, that's all I can offer. :) Vranak

There's certainly no harm in answering it that I can see, even if it's a bit peculiar. -- SCZenz 04:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin housecleaning please

Probably not the proper place for this but can an admin edit WP:RD and change {{RD header}} to {{Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header}}? --froth^{T C} 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the talk page is the correct place to request a change to a protected page. In any case, done. -- SCZenz 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All right thanks --froth^{T C} 08:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved section

I moved this from the science desk. Please add further discussion to the section called "further discussion" below the box. -- SCZenz 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that my own explanation is in the "further discussion" section as well. -- SCZenz 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

        DO I READ YOUR ANSWER ON THE BOTTOM OF THE
        PAGE ? ......SEEDPLANTER

       This is a simple question,"Do you realy want to know
    where the ancient atlantis is?"...yes or no?
       I know where the ancient atlantis is.
       This is no joke and this is history being made.
       I have the proof.....seedplanter

[edit] Further discussion

I didn't think this section was worth worrying about, at first, but then the joke went on and on. Now there was even meta-discussion of whether the section should be deleted on the reference desk itself. Under the circumstances, it seemed best to move it here. If you really think it's amusing to ask more about this, consider taking it to User talk:Seedplanter. (Although I personally don't think that's a good idea either.) -- SCZenz 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is best left well alone, though it occurs to me that the proofs for the existence of Atlantis probably come from the same intellectual stable as those for, say, Elephants' Graveyards. Clio the Muse 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect "Atlantis" would have been the best answer, and then ignore everything else. Carcharoth 04:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood question moved

A question was mistakenly placed here. I have moved it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Blood question and replied there. -- SCZenz 09:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RD links line is wide and poorly spaced

The graybox links to the various Reference Desks is currently formatted to be one line and as wide as the monitor. On not-very-wide monitors, that means there is virtually no space between the links...hard to distinguish them, or even recognize them as individual links at all. Adding more space (or even using a just-below-average monitor size) causes the link box to be wider than the whole page, requiring sideways scrolling. Ugh! Would it be better to allow the list of links to wrap as normal text instead of a line of cells:

Or at least use two lines of cells instead of one, if the goal is to spread the links evenly across the whole intro?

DMacks 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I really like how it looks right now with a 1200 pixel wide window (1400x1050, with firefox "Restore"d) but I can definately understand how this could be a problem with smaller screens. Plus it gives room for expansion, eh fresh? ;) --froth^{T C} 08:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answering with "best guesses"

I find it disturbing that StuRat is answering questions by giving his "best hunch' as an answer. When answering question it would be helpful if people only use answers that can be verfied with cited sources. Propogating our own opinons or misconceptions is not the role of the ref desk. David D. (Talk) 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure why it's so important to answer a question when one doesn't know the answer for sure or have a source for it. It is a disservice to our readers. The notion that anyone can make up anything they want and put it on the reference desk, unless there is a "a reference disproving such a claim" just doesn't make any sense. There's no reference stating that the moon isn't full of giant gnomes, but that doesn't mean it would be ok to post that as an answer. We are a reference desk, a place for facts, not a place to argue about opinions. -- SCZenz 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be easy to disprove, just show some photos of the surface of the moon, which are all gnome-free. And while we are giving absurd examples, let's say, in response to a math question, I state that 3454643646 + 256526256 = 3711169902. Now, if challenged, I won't be able to find a specific source which states that sum is correct, so must remove that statement, under your rules, right ? StuRat 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My other comment about the above is that when a user gives an unhelpful answer, it's better not to have meta-discussion about it on the desk. My preferred strategy would be to ask them about it on their talk page, and request that they modify or support their claims. -- SCZenz 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just learned that lesson. Actually, that is why it is here, but user talk pages work too. David D. (Talk) 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The user talk page is the best place to make a request to the user. If broader feedback is needed, then this page is the best. Since StuRat does not seem to respond to requests for references (except by arguing he doesn't have to provide them) and there have been several such issues recently, I certainly agree that broader feedback is needed and this talk page is appropriate. -- SCZenz 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this talk page is best for thrashing editors things out in public! After all it has a wider audience 8-)--Light current 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you had gone, or is this just a final final appearance? Clio the Muse 21:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No. This is not the RDs, but the RD talk page (different!). Also I said I may reappear from time to time on the desks in cases of extreme silliness! See User Talk:StuRat for details 8-)--Light current 21:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Peronally, I have nothing against providing "best guesses" or answers based on personal experience — after all, I've provided several myself — as long as they are clearly described as such. The reference desk are not encyclopedia articles, and we're allowed to engage in some amount of guesswork and original research here, especially if no better answer seems to be available; what we shouldn't do is try to pass our hunches off as facts or expert opinions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Without wishing to pile on to StuRat (as he was not alone in offering personal opinions), a prime example can be found at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Homosexual_High_Pitched_Voice:

I'd say it's a bit of both. That is, some homosexual men have different hormonal levels than heterosexual men, leading to higher pitched voices. This, incidentally, points to a genetic basis for homosexuality. Then, it became the "in" thing for gay men to lisp in some areas, while their lives would be in danger if they did so in other places. This resulted in more lisping in "safe" areas and less in dangerous places. After all, a straight man can talk in a high-pitched voice and a straight woman can speak in a low-pitched voice, with a bit of work, showing that we have substantial control over our voices, if we choose to disguise them. StuRat 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a little research into the field - as reported in my prior response - and there is nothing whatsoever to back up such assertions (as far as i'm aware). Particularly concerning is the suggestion that anything there points to "a genetic basis for homosexuality" - the literature fails to reach any such conclusion. The subsequent theory being proposed is just bizarre. Obviously the nature of some questions mean that opinions will be offered in response. But when there is already a reply that clearly draws from the published literature, to then offer a personal and contrary "guess" is both unhelpful and potentially misleading. Rockpocket 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The "I'd say" shows it's my opinion (that would be the "I" part). As for there not being any genetic basis, I thought there were studies showing a higher incidence of homosexuality among those with homosexual relatives, even if raised apart. This would tend to support the assertion that homosexuality has a genetic component. StuRat 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if that is true, it is not what you said. You suggested a difference in hormone levels between homo- and heterosexuals "points to a genetic basis for homosexuality". If you had read the literature you would have known that there is no clear consensus in the community that differences in post-pubescent testosterone levels play any causative role in homosexuality, therefore your opinion is misleading and - because the reality had already been made clear - completely redundant. Consider what the OP actually got from your answer? He or she got a complete misrepresentation of the facts, used to make an association that is fallacious. Followed by a bizarre theory with no basis in fact whatsoever. At the very best it was worthless to the OP, and there is a very real possibility that he or she will follow your advice and "assume everything stated on the Ref Desk is true" thereby departing Wikipedia with the impression that homosexuality is genetic, as demonstrated their effeminate voices. As for you suggestion that, "You should instead assume everything stated on the Ref Desk is true, unless you have evidence to the contrary." That is simply ridiculous. Why should any of us take the word of some random web-person as fact? Unless the person answering a question can provide a reliable source, we should recommend we all do the complete opposite and assume it is self-indulgent, uneducated theorizing. The onus is clearly on the individuals providing information to vouch for its credibility whenever possible. Without that the RD would become a free for all to spout any old nonsense with impunity. I urge you to please think twice before providing an uneducated opinion on the RD, especially when there has been well a well sourced answer previously. Rockpocket 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment. I didn't mean that the OP should assume everything they read is true, I meant other responders should give everything the benefit of a doubt, or post their argument that it's false. It's completely inappropriate to assume everything without a source to be false, and violates WP:AGF. StuRat 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand WP:AGF, my friend. What would be inappropriate - and in violation of WP:AGF - would be assume other editors are purposely providing misleading information. I am not is suggesting that. I believe you contributed with the best intentions. In contrast, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with being openly skeptical of the accuracy of unsourced information, especially when it is blatantly incorrect as per the sourced material already provided. If your take on WP:AGF was accurate we would have no need for WP:RS, as we would all be perfectly happy taking each others word for things. Rockpocket 07:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think best guesses are needed sometimes, and original synthesis of existing facts is sometimes required as well; however, I think three things are essential to make guesses responsibly:

1. Clearly identify that it is a guess, and what it's based on. "I seem to recall..." is one possibility, while "my experience from working as a particle physicist is that..." is another (and one I certainly might use on occasion).
2. An awareness of whether a better answer has already been given, or whether one is likely to be given. If the former, then there's no need to give one's own speculation. If the latter, then waiting would be appropriate.
3. If an assertion just doesn't look right to other users with equal or greater knowledge, or if it's a fact for which there would be a clear source if it were true, and a source can't be found to back it up, one should have a willigness to withdraw it.

The key idea here is that our goal is not to give everyone's opinion; rather, it's to give the best answer possible. Sometimes giving multiple ideas is the best answer, particularly for questions where speculation is unavoidable, but certainly not always. -- SCZenz 23:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My own guide in these matters is the concluding proposition in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, where Wittgenstein sets limits, it might be said, to both opinion and guesswork: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen-Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Clio the Muse 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Heavily paraphrasing an old English proverb: Better to remain silent and be thought unknowing, than to speak and remove all doubt.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 15:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of you seem to be violating "assume good faith" here, and are instead assuming everything I say is a lie unless I can find a source to disprove your challenge. You should instead assume everything stated on the Ref Desk is true, unless you have evidence to the contrary. If you have such evidence, then, by all means, present it on the Ref Desk and let the OP weigh the evidence and come to their own conclusion. StuRat 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. You're turning a question of fact into a battle of personalities. There's a world of difference between "I know you're trying to help, but I think you're mistaken" and "I think you're feeding misinformation to readers deliberately because you're a jerk." To be clear, the former assumes good faith; the latter does not. It is possible to disagree with someone without calling their integrity into question. StuRat, people aren't assuming that you're lying. They are, in some cases, questioning your statements when you don't support them with references.

As an aside, only a fool would assume everything said – by anyone – on the Desk is true. Statements unsupported by reference or detailed reasoning should never be trusted blindly. While it's fair to say that the vast majority of responses on the Ref Desk are made in good faith, the fraction of those responses that are true (factually correct) is...less than unity.

We have a number of well-meaning and (often) quite bright people who are nevertheless susceptible to the assumption that their expertise in one area automatically translates to expertise in another (or all) areas. Sometimes these people come up with very clever and plausible-sounding – but quite incorrect – responses. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for further information, with statements along the lines of "That's an interesting perspective, but there's something about it that just doesn't ring true to me. Do you have any references to back that up?" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you find a flaw in a statement you should be able to come up with something more substantial than "that just doesn't ring true to me". I've often disagreed with responses of others, and I state specifically which portions of their statement I believe to be in error, and why. I do not, however, insult them, remove their posts, or threaten to remove them if they don't immediately post sources. StuRat 05:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the boxed section above I asked you if there was a reference for your claim. You did not have one. How did I insult you? What part of your post did I remove, or threaten to remove for that matter? My only goal was to further the discussion by getting the reference. I had never heard of such a claim before and a quick search of pubmed did not reveal an obvious source for such a claim. If you, or anyone, can not find a reference for "their hunch" the onus is not on the challenger to then write a rebuttal to the misinformation. The absense of a source is all that a sensible reader needs to know that the claim is dubious, if not wrong. David D. (Talk) 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The insult would be saying that "you are making stuff up", without proof. The removals have come from others, not you, I'm simply giving examples of unacceptable ways to handle disagreements over factual statements. I also don't see the need to bring up factual disputes here, those should be addressed directly on the Ref Desk, not by attacking the other person, but by posting a logical counter argument, either with, or without, sources. "I haven't heard of that, so it much be false" is not a logical counter-argument. StuRat 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's apply some good faith here. StuRat cannot cite the reference but is offended by me saying "don't make up answers", so clearly he did not make it up. So where did the answer come from? Possibly you have a friend working on telomerase who has not published this work yet? Alternatlively you have a friend who suggested this answer to you in good faith and you provided it here without giving it a background check. Which is it? Or is there another alternative I have not thought of? David D. (Talk) 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, which was in response to your comment of "No, do you have a reference disproving such a claim ?". Can't you realise that no one is obligated to prove you wrong? This is really quite simple, you have no citation, then no one has to believe your claim. David D. (Talk) 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Did StuRat say that he expected everyone to believe him? I dont remember that. However the fact that some ignoramus might not believe an uncited statement on the RD (in contrast to article space), does not give that same ignoramus (or any one) the right to to remove the post containing the statement. 8-|--Light current 03:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be going off on a tangent here, this discussion has nothing to do with deleting content. That was a gripe that StuRat brought up and is not relevant. What is relevant is he agrees he is answering questions with information for which there is no known citation. Given there is no citation he must be making it up or incorrectly reguritating something he might have read or heard. Given those circumstances StuRat should be avoiding those questions. Leave it to people that know what they are talking about. By the way he did it again on the potato question when he incorrectly claimed that potatoes are part of the root system.[1] It is not necessary for StuRat to answer every question that pops up. Ref Desk would be much better he he stuck to areas he knows or gives a reference to the content he is using. David D. (Talk) 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT agree that there is no known reference, only that it's not my responsibility to look for it. If you don't believe something I say, then it's your responsibility to disprove it. And, if a potato isn't part of a root system for some technical reason, that hardly matters in common usage. If you want, you can add something like "Nitpick: A potato is technically considered to be a modified stem, not a root". StuRat 05:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Technical nitpick? It's a fundamental difference StuRat. And that is the problem right there, you didn't know the difference and didn't bother to check your answer. Again, you don't have to answer every question. David D. (Talk) 05:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, I agree with David. I read that Ref Desk thread, and I learnt something from his answer, and nothing from yours (sorry, but that is the truth). I knew that potatoes were tubers, but hadn't realised the difference between a tuber and a tuberous root. David's stolon link led me to tuber, where I learnt this. Your answer? Well, I learnt that I can still spot typos of it's for its. Carcharoth 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If the question was "is a potato a root ?" then that would be relevant, but the question was on when a potato is dead, in which case it's status as a root or stem is largely irrelevant. As for using "it's" to describe "the property of it", that's not a typo, I choose to write it that way, for reasons I've previously explained and don't care to get into again here. StuRat 06:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: its/it's - OK, fair enough. Though I'll start a question on this at the Language Ref Desk if you want to pop by. Carcharoth 06:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a waste of time. I'm well aware that one of the silly exceptions in English is that you omit the apostrophe for possessives on pronouns. I just don't happen to choose to follow that bit of silliness. StuRat 06:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Question was asked here. Carcharoth 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do if we want more information about an unsourced statement? It strikes me as rather POINTy to create a new section on the Desk for the question "Some random guy on the Internet told me X. Does anyone know of any research to support that claim?" If a reply says something without supplying sources, we have no way to know if it's supported by peer-reviewed research, expert opinion, or just idle speculation. If someone is genuinely interested in the answer to a question, it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask how well-supported the answers we give are. Demanding that people accept without question every unsourced remark that is written here unless and until someone provides a contradictory source doesn't make sense. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And again to my bin of old English proverbs: If the shoe fits, wear it. And again, ;-) --hydnjo talk 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's the Americanised version. The original is 'If the cap fits, wear it'!--Light current 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading some of the above I feel a need to extend my remarks as subtlety doesn't seem to be at play around here.

If one wants to claim that my comment about an old English proverb: Better to remain silent and be thought unknowing, than to speak and remove all doubt was specifically directed towards any particular individual then claim away. My resurrection of that old chestnut was directed towards any a too forward leaning individual who wants to be first at bat and does so without taking the time or effort to research his response. I've seen plenty of crap fly through here and have unintentionally contributed my own share. The difference between some of us is that when shown for some or the most part to be mistaken we are willing to strike or amend our reply so as to provide some measure of consistency to the OP. If you feel otherwise, that is that any responders first responsibility is to defend his own response then we part company. Our first responsibility is to the OP and not to our own claim of infallibility.

There is no response that is a lie, so please don't play that card. The corollary I suppose is to find some corner of an incorrect response that is accurate and construct a house of cards upon that accurate corner. If anyone needs to do that then don't claim foul when brought up. No one is picking on anyone or assuming bad faith, but the RD community will pick on obstinate adherence to a faulty response with its responder's flippant "let the OP decide", that's just wrong. --hydnjo talk 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wishes a good illustration of all that is wrong with the RD, have a look at what was happening to the question on Vatican Intelligence Services, posted on 3 January. Clio the Muse 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly true. Nice answer though, Clio. Rockpocket 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Clio, you posted a response to that question. Also, why don't you ever point out something gone right on the Ref Desk ? Your posts here are always extremely negative. StuRat 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My original response was lost in the subsequent trivialisation, of which you, Sturat, were a part. An expanded answer was necessary to bring the whole topic back on course. On many occasions I have defended the appropriate and effective use of the Reference Desk, and I am more than happy to point out when things are going well. In my estimation it is most often when you are involved that matters tend to degenerate. Clio the Muse 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "lost" ? If it wasn't deleted, then it's not lost. The OP can still read it. StuRat 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's one of the thousands of good answers I've given (even by your humorless standard): [2]. StuRat 07:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am far from being humourless; but what I find embarrassing, acutely so, is your puerile attempts at 'wit'. I have no doubt you can give good answers where you are intellectually competent to do so, like the technical example you have given here. Unfortunately, you also have a tendency to talk about things where you clearly have not the first clue, which does not advance the RD and does little for your self-esteem. Your latest intervention in the North Korean question is a case in point. Clio the Muse 08:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like it might be funny. <reads> Chinese invasion of North Korea! LOL! That would never happen while the current regime was in power. It might happen if the current regime collapsed, or a puppet US-controlled regime was installed. But the point is that North Korea and China are 'on the same side' but independent - China invading North Korea would be like the US invading the UK or Israel. Carcharoth 09:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

China has much to lose in the current situation. Those threatened by NK's nukes will want their own. This includes Japan and SK (which has already flirted with the idea). This nuclearization of East Asia may then lead to Taiwan getting nukes. China's monopoly on nukes in East Asia would then be lost, as would any hope of ever reuniting with Taiwan, who would then no longer fear China's military threats and declare full independence. Also, if the NK economy collapses, the instability and flood of refugees into China would be most unwelcome. Alternatively, they face have to prop up the NK economy indefinitely with huge amounts of foreign aide, not a favorable prospect, either. StuRat 16:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All too often, puerile is the right word. It is embarrassing, but not for us. David D. (Talk) 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure that StuRat can learn from his mistakes and improve. The question is how much time he gets to do that. Carcharoth 04:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I must remind everyone I get dozens of thanks from OPs, it's only cranky deletionists who say everything I write needs to be deleted. StuRat 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again you avoid the whole point. Don't write answers to questions that you cannot back up with a cite. You don't need to answer questions out of your area of expertise. And if you wish to do so, then I would encourage you to research your answer such that you can cite a reference. I'm sure you do get thanks for the many good answers you give and you get a lot of credit from everyone here for your efforts. Nevertheless there are the not so good answer that we are discussing here. And above your non answers (joke answers) have also caused a problem. David D. (Talk) 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you miss the point, there isn't one standard for answers ("must cite sources") and another for challenges ("no sources needed"). StuRat 06:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read any of this thread? David D. (Talk) 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the whole thread, what's your point ? And, incidentally, what evidence do you have that any of my joke answers have ever "caused a problem" other than the constant complaints of shrill deletionists ? StuRat 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact the people (shrill deletionists) find a problem with your little jokes is enough to make it a problem. It seems you have lost sight of the big picture here. David D. (Talk) 06:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I go with the consensus, which is firmly that jokes are OK (except for highly offensive jokes). StuRat 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that this has nothing to do with people who challenge an answer (people should never have to challenge an answer here). It is ONLY about the quality of the answers that are provided. People who answer a question should either retrict themselves to their area of expertise or research the answer well enough to give an accurate answer. Are you suggesting that answering without researching is acceptable in an area other than your own expertise? If so, you are mistaken and I am certain others here, probably the vast majority, will not agree you. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that this is some type of expert's forum, where only people with degrees in a particular field are allowed to comment. Wikipedia is not that elitist. But, I will apply your standard to you, in the future, and ignore any challenge you make unless you can produce a degree in the proper field. StuRat 06:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, it is only the questions and answers in the areas of my degrees that I usually attempt to answer or challenge. I have never said that people cannot answer questions outside there field of expertise (there you go putting words into peoples mouths again), however, there is no excuse for answering a question without first confirming the answer is valid. Or is elitist now a term that describes someone who is precise? As for showing you my qualifications, that is ridiculous, my answers stand by their merit not by my qualifications. That goes for all who contribute here, and quite a few are questioning the merit of some of your answers. David D. (Talk) 14:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Only deletionists, not OPs, and those are the people whose opinions I most value. StuRat 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they trust your answers, how would they know if you were wrong? David D. (Talk) 23:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If I was wrong, then there should be evidence presented showing that. If there is no evidence that I was wrong, then they have no reason to believe that I was, and neither do you. StuRat 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That Vatican question above, once it gets archived (though there are currently problems with the archive process), should be immortalised as an example of both how not to answer a question and how to correctly answer a question. Carcharoth 04:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We are never going to get anywhere at this rate

Up above, eight or so indents in, Carcharoth said, "I am sure that StuRat can learn from his mistakes and improve." Actually, I'm starting to wonder about that.

StuRat, when questioned on the telomerase claim, what if you had just said, "Oh, sorry, my mistake, I thought I'd read that somewhere, but I could be wrong." Why get your back up, why insist on your "right" to post it, why challenge the questioner to disprove your claim?

All of these histrionics, all of these unnecessarily-polarized analogies, all of this posturing and side-taking, is just an exercise in flame-warring and miscommunication.

StuRat, nobody is saying that everything you write needs to be deleted. But that does not mean that every random thought that pops into your (or my, or anyone's) head while reading the Reference Desk needs to be posted. There needs to be some restraint, there needs to be an attempt to keep things reasonable. And I know you understand and agree with that -- the only remaining question is how best to come to consensus on and maintain some rough community standard for what "reasonable" is.

That "standard" is never going to be rigorous and concise. Sometimes, unsourced speculation is perfectly appropriate -- but not all the time. Sometimes, funny jokes are perfectly acceptable -- but not all the time. Given the uncertainty, all of us are bound to make mistakes sometimes, to inadvertently cross the line over into inappropriateness. That's no mortal sin, as long as we acknowledge the possibility and graciously accept reminders from others when we stray.

You say that you get "dozens of thanks from OPs", but that's quite irrelevant to the real issue here. None of us should imagine we're perfect; all of us should be willing to learn and improve. Many of your answers are accurate and informative -- I've learned from some of them. Many of your jokes are witty and appropriate -- I've laughed out loud at some of them. What we're talking about here is those occasional answers that aren't so accurate, those occasional jokes that aren't so funny. If someone calls you (or me, or anybody else) on a dubiously-acceptable post, that's not a call to arms or a reason to get into another of these huge but pointless debates; it's just a course correction as we all attempt to navigate a blurry line along which we're all bound to make mistakes. It's not -- or it shouldn't be -- a big deal, so please don't keep making it one!

—Steve Summit (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position. The following are acceptable ways to deal with a factual disagreement:

• Politely asking for clarification: "Did you mean X or Y ?"

• Politely asking for sources: "That's interesting, do you have any sources on that ?"

• Politely disagreeing, and providing a logical reason why: "I disagree, because ..."

The following are unacceptable ways to deal with a factual disagreement:

• Ad hominem attacks: "You should not respond because you are unqualified to answer".

• Requesting removals of unsourced statements: "If you don't provide a source, you should remove that claim."

• Threatened or actual deletions of disputed facts.

• Stating that unsourced facts are inherently false.

• Stating that you disagree, with no logical reason given for this belief: "That just doesn't ring true."

• Using an argument from authority: "I've visited North Korea, so I know everything about it and nobody else is qualified to speak."

Do you disagree with any of this, Steve ? StuRat 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[my belated answer:]

I agree on one level, but this is sort of like saying "yes, I've stopped beating my wife", because your two sets manage to omit a pretty wide middle ground of equally acceptable responses.

With respect to the point you implicitly raise in your hypothetical "unacceptable" set: I do not believe, and I do not think any reasonable person believes, that "unqualified" persons are not allowed to speak on topics that they're not experts on. But.

It is unquestionably the case that, for just about any topic, there are experts and non-experts on that topic. Everything else being equal, an expert's contributions on that topic are going to carry a lot more weight than a non-expert's, and when there's a difference of opinion, the non-expert must, reasonably, defer to the expert most of the time, except perhaps under extraordinary circumstances. This obviously doesn't say anything bad about the non-expert, does not in any way imply that the non-expert is any less valued as a contributor, in general. But there's no way we can all be experts on everythng.

I also don't think this is a very interesting question to be arguing about; I hadn't necessarily planned on addressing it at all, until you brought it up again. Although it's clearly interesting to you, I urge you to find a way to back away from it, because when you insist on polarizing the issue this way, you force people to give you answers you don't like.

Can you agree that, everything else being equal, non-experts on a topic should defer to experts (unless perhaps if there's persuasive evidence that the expert is somehow wrong)? Can you agree that, when a non-expert's speculations on a topic are questioned by an expert, it's appropriate (and represents no loss of face or anything like that) for the non-expert to simply say: "Oh, sorry, never mind, I thought I'd heard that somewhere but I could be wrong; this isn't really my field."?

No, I disagree. An expert should be able to provide actual proof that they are right; merely claiming to be an expert should not be taken as proof that everything they say is correct, for two reasons: The first is that they may not be an expert at all, but only claim to be. How do we actually know any claims of advanced degrees, published works, and years of study are actually true ? The second is that "experts" are as prone to make mistakes as others. A particular form of mistake that experts make is dismissal of any new theory which differs from "orthodoxy". An example of this might be when Einstein refused to accept Quantum Mechanics with his famous "God doesn't play dice with the universe" quote. Another nice quote on this topic is "A society which values all philosophers above all plumbers will, in the end, have neither good philosophers nor good plumbers, and neither their philosophical theories nor pipes will hold water." StuRat 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with accepting the word of experts as gospel is that they often have a conflict of interest. For example, nobody would argue that a scientist who studied tobacco for his whole career working at a cigarette company is not an expert, but that doesn't mean that we should accept their "expert testimony" that nicotine is not addictive. An outside view is often needed to provide a more balanced opinion, devoid of this conflict of interest. StuRat 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, this aspect of the question isn't terribly interesting to me. I'd like to suggest that most or all of the points you raise fall under what I called "extraordinary circumstances", but since I'm not interested in arguing about it now, I won't. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the question you explicitly asked, of course I agree that the first set of responses is reasonable and acceptable, and that for the most part the second set is pretty unreasonable. (How could I not agree, when you've painted them so starkly? :-) ) But slightly modified versions of the responses in your second set might also be quite acceptable:

• "You might think that, and it's an obvious thing to say and a pretty common belief, but it turns out not to be the case."

• That would be OK, as long as they followed up with an actual logical argument and/or sources saying why they think the fact is untrue. StuRat 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• "I really do think you're wrong there, so if you can't support that statement, I think you should retract it."

• I disagree here. "Really thinking" somebody is wrong is no basis to demand a retraction. StuRat 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• "That's a pretty startling claim; if you can't provide a some support for it I think we're going to have to assume it's false."

• I suppose they can assume it's false if they want to, but stating it's false, when they have no proof, is wrong. StuRat 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• "That's a pretty startling claim; I have to say it doesn't ring true for me, based on my experience."

• They should follow up with what personal experience they had which shows the fact to be untrue. StuRat 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• "You might think that, and it's an obvious thing to say and a pretty common belief, but I've been to North Korea and you're wrong."

• Again, they would have to offer some proof. What, exactly, in their trip to NK, disproved the factual claim ?

Now, while these are (I'd say) acceptable, they ought to be unnecessary, because ideally a debate would never get to the point where strong statements like these are required. For issues that do have well-understood, well-sourced bodies of knowledge behind them, we shouldn't be redebating those issues on the Reference Desk, and when a question arises as to the veracity of an unsourced, speculative point, in most cases I think the point ought to be graciously withdrawn ("Oh, sorry, never mind") before a challenger has to throw down the gauntlet and start asking for sources.

Finally, there's the issue of good faith. If we agree (as I've proposed) that polite questions and rebuttals are the appropriate way to deal with questionable statements, it follows that if I make a statement and somebody questions it, I should assume that their "challenge" is meant politely even if its wording is more brusque than I might personally like. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the brusque wording should be avoided altogether. StuRat 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be, sure. But none of us is perfect, so sometimes editor X is going to use language that's too brusque for editor Y's taste. Editor Y then has a choice: he can WP:AGF, or he can complain. Often (not always) A'ing GF is a splendid tactic. Often (not always) a complaint escalates inexorably into a big stink, full of reciprocal accusations of bad faith and personal attacks, which in the end accomplishes nothing except distracting from the task of writing the encyclopedia. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So when I asked "Do you have are reference for such a claim?", you took that as an unacceptable request? Under which one of the unacceptable criteria would you classify it? David D. (Talk) 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See below. StuRat 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the final point on the above list (argument from authority) is an obvious corruption of an argument I developed in the North Korean Solutions question, posted on 6 January, I would ask other editors to read this thread, if they have not already done so, to see what I actually wrote. I would also ask people to note the implied personal attack in StuRat's response. My only interest here is one of simple clarification. I will not have the character of my response distorted in so gross a fashion. Clio the Muse 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[N.b. There've been several insertions here; Rockpocket's word "Above" refers to my comments of 17:44 7 January 2007, not the more recent words that are now immediately above. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Above capture the reality of the ref desk perfectly. Well said. David D. (Talk) 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Excellent point. What we have failed to adequately express here is the fact that we are talking about a small number of StuRat's responses. The majority of them are very good indeed. I'd like to go one further and propose a way forward. StuRat, would you take Steve's suggestions on board for the future? In response, I would propose that we all draw a line under the various concerns we had with StuRat's reponses in the past and look to the future with good faith. Rockpocket 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cough! Has StuRat actually been found in breach of the new draft guidelines by any chance?--Light current 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bless you. The aim of my proposal was to move forward without the need to request outside oversight. I doubt StuRat would welcome an investigation into his Ref Desk behaviour. Rockpocket 07:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how fixed these guidelines are since they have been in flux recently. Currently there is a sentence that reads: "Giving personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers." and a whole section of Verifiability. All of this seems like common sense if we are to be seen as a reliable and useful resource. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know the guidelines are only in draft form, but since no one seems to have commented on them in the last 4 days, they seem to be pretty well accepted.--Light current 22:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much anything any inclusionist puts in those guidelines is just immediately deleted by deletionists, so they aren't ever likely to get to a consensus state following that process. StuRat 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well its been stable for quite a few days since Light Current rewrote it (who does not identify as being labelled a "deletionist", and whom you identify as an "inclusionist"). S/he asked for input here, if you don't agree why not comment? David D. (Talk) 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem as I see it (in concurrence with Steve Summit above): Sturat seems to think that disagreement is a sign of disrespect. He takes it personally. This should not be the case. We should all play nice and treat other editors with respect, certainly. But, I think Sturat believes that "respect" must mean "Your opinion, on anything, is just as useful to the reference desk as any other response." Apparently, the suggestion that he refrain from answering in cases where he does not have a reliable answer comes off as rude. Sturat, please understand that this is not mean to be mean or rude. In fact, it's not really about you- it's about what's good for the reference desk. Nobody's saying we must all be infallible and nobody expects that of you. But when other editors bring a problem to your attention, please don't just blow them off. This is not a panel discussion with you as a member of the panel- it's a reference desk. Let's use references. Friday (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind having my answers challenged, it's the disrespectful manner in which they are challenged that is offensive. See my bullet points above. Here are some examples of my answers being challenged in the proper way: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Movie_credits_.28U.S..29, [3]. StuRat 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sturat when I asked you for a reference I wrote:

"Sturat, you write: "So, activating telomerase throughout the body potentially could help to fight cancer, where telomerase is already activated within the tumors". Do you have are reference for such a claim?"

Your reply was:

"No, do you have a reference disproving such a claim ?"

So when I asked "Do you have are reference for such a claim?", did you take that as being disrespectiful and an unacceptable request? Under which one of the unacceptable criteria in your bullet points above would you classify my question? Would you consider your reply more or less disrespectiful than my original question? David D. (Talk) 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that was OK, but your later statements, if I recall correctly, implied that my failure to provide a source proves the fact was false and that it should therefore be removed. If you request a source, that doesn't mean I'm obligated to provide one or remove the factual claim. My response was respectful, requesting that you provide a source, but neither saying that failure to do so proves your challenge is wrong or asking you to remove your challenge if you didn't provide a source. StuRat 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced, disputed material can be removed at the discretion of any editor. Where's the problem? We should work together to ensure we're giving factual information in our answers. Friday (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that that standard applies to Wikipedia articles, not to talk pages such as the Ref Desk. StuRat 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct- see the talk page guidelines. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Friday (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the specific item in that guideline to which you refer. StuRat 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That won't work with the RD, it's too high-traffic to keep track of deletions (which is important or unilateral action ruins everything). The web-forum type system where everyone makes their own posts and nobody infringes is worth the problems it causes. --froth^{T C} 05:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the verifiability of your point? I still say, if you didn't make it up, which you solidly defend, why is it so hard for you to provide a source? Why would verifiability be emphasised in the guidelines if we do not adhere to it? Currently there is also a sentence that reads: "Giving personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers." Are you saying you disagree with these points in the guidelines. Didn't you help write these guidelines?

Secondly, it is a lot of work, if not impossible, to prove your point is not true. It requires finding negative results that are not generally published. Any other argument against your point requires an essay outlining the whole biological rationale for why your idea is not sensible given our current knowledge of cancer. Much simpler is for you to provide your reference, which I assume you have, even if from a verbal source, since you were offended when I asked you to "stop making answers up as you go along" (see top of this section for full context [4]). I agree that my latter comment was terse ("Don't write down your hunches on ref desk. Have a reference to back it up or don't write it here. Thank you"), but if you read the dialog above it was a result of your resistance to offer a source of any kind. This is not the way a reference desk should work. I think you even agree with that since you participated in writing those guidelines. David D. (Talk) 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that guideline, no. The guideline I wrote, which was voted upon and agreed to by the majority of those who voted (unlike that one) was: "* Are opinions allowed ... * In responses to factual questions ? Yes, but opinions should be identified as such, i.e., with "I think..." or "I believe..."." Those guidelines are constantly deleted by, surprise, surprise, the deletionists. I also don't understand how an opinion can ever "get in the way" of a factual answer. The only way to "get in the way" of an answer it to delete it. StuRat 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And yes, you did start getting quite rude. If you don't want to take the time to disprove something, that's fine, but don't then expect someone else to spend the time to prove it and become abusive if they decline to do so. This works both ways. StuRat 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. We are never going to get anywhere at this rate. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone's sole goal is to disrupt, there comes a time when you just have to pretend that they are dead until they get the hint. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, that is an unnecessarily provocative and negative remark. There is no one here whose sole goal is to disrupt. Please assume good faith, just as we are trying to convince others (those who you are labeling disruptive) to do. Also, although it's a bit of a stretch, your allusion to death could be construed as the worst kind of personal attack. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Does not apply. That would let you claim that someone here has been disruptive. It does not let you claim that their sole goal is to disrupt. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in counter evidence. Other than WP:AGF, which does not apply in the presence of massive and repetitive evidence to the contrary as we so obviously have here, what leads you to believe that this is not just trolling? Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That what is not just trolling? —Steve Summit (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion about how the RefDesks should support blatantly and intentionally wrong answers. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My sense is that there is support for blatantly wrong (with a prove I'm wrong mentality) but not intentionally wrong. The philosophy expounded above is that any answer, even if not researched, is better than no answer. I support quality, StuRat supports quantity. Personally, I do not see how the original posters benefit from this philosophy. Above we have seen three recent examples: Telomerase can cure cancer, potatoes are part of the root system and testoterone levels are linked to homosexuality or something along those lines. None sourced and all challenged. There is a theme here; biology. David D. (Talk) 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The quality of answers is equivalent in my areas of strong expertise, economics/finance. The vast majority of answers are fine, and then some are just basic and fundamental errors of obvious fact. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject. You spoke of "someone whose sole goal is to disrupt". Presumably you had some particular person in mind. But I am not aware of anyone involved in this discussion whose sole gole on Wikipedia is to disrupt.

It is my impression that StuRat's sole goal in posting on this talk page is disruption of the talk page in the hopes that people that want him to stop asserting blatantly wrong answers, telling off color jokes and chatting will go away. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point I thought you were making and that I challenged, so I will leave it at that. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When you say, "This entire discussion about how the RefDesks should support blatantly and intentionally wrong answers", you are polarizing the issue as badly and misleadingly as StuRat, in his own way, tends to. This discussion is about more than that. We are trying very hard to get StuRat to drop his argumentativeness and polarization. Please don't you do it either; two wrongs don't make a right. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You have failed over a period of months. Time for a new approach. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally have not been involved for all of those months, and I am not willing to concede defeat quite yet. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization and ampersands in desk descriptors in header

This is surely a rather inane topic, but I'm not at all sure it's not the most substantive issue to have been raised here in weeks. :) In any event, because editors rarely happen upon the RD header talk page, I imagine I ought to leave a note here apropos of a discussion of the formatting of the desk descriptors I've begun at such talk page; if anyone is particularly interested (i.e., is as idiosyncratic as I), his/her happening by would be much appreciated. Joe 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm stumped! Follow the link above to see why. I've tried to show the current header above a (proposed by Joe) new header but ran into trouble getting out of the current header box. Help? --hydnjo talk 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Canderson7, you fixed it.  :-) --hydnjo talk 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So, back to the original question: there is no problem whatsoever in bringing up suggestions for improvement and there should also be no problem if your suggestion isn't acted upon. I hope that you keep a close eye on everything that you see on WP and provide feedback on your observations. Criticism has always been the foundation of change around here. Thanks for your suggestion and we'll see if others pick up on it. --hydnjo talk 01:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel in American Politics

I've removed this question from the Humanties desk[5], Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The thread contained a great deal of speculation, opinion presented as fact, and very little effort to direct readers to reliable sources addressing the topic.—eric 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The RD is not for such argument - take it elsewhere. --hydnjo talk 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As this was a non-consensus mass deletion, I restored the deleted material. You should discuss it first and gain consensus for the deletion. Also, even if some of the responses don't answer the question directly, that's no justification for deleting everything (the question and helpful answers included). StuRat

Helpful answers? Jooler linked to a couple of BBC pieces but they were not directed towards answering the original question. No one even bothered to link "Israel-United States relations" or "Israel lobby in the United States" etc. Which responses attempted to answer from a neutral point of view making use of reliable sources? The only thing helpful about the entire thread is that it provides a good example of what Wikipedia is not.—eric 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why you didn't add those useful links instead of deleting the question ? StuRat 05:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, because in my opinion getting rid of the discussion, speculation, and opinion helped the desk more than adding in a few links, and there should be a few editors around who could provide a more complete response than i ever could. Now could you take the time to answer my questions? What was so good about this thread? Beyond your disagreement w/ no prior consensus deletions, how did putting it back improve the desk?—eric 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Eric, but I don't think this thread should be deleted. Although it is a controversial topic, I see no evidence that the OP is trolling - it appears to be a genuine question to me. And although the following discussion is lengthy, it has been conducted in a civil way, and does not harm the image of Wikipedia. If you feel that certain answers should contain more facts and less opinion then you should discuss this with the relevant editors, or raise a more general concern here on the talk page - deleting the whole thread is too blunt an instrument for this purpose. Gandalf61 09:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there was no trolling or incivility and that the question (while leading) could be a legitimate one for the ref desk. Maybe some of the responses made good arguments and would be valuable additions to some other forum. On the reference desk tho, they were the opinions of editors presented as fact, advocacy of a particular point of view, and speculation w/o any attempt at support from reliable sources. I do think this thread was harmful, mainly because it encourages more of the same, the responses harm the image of the reference desk by giving the impression that it is some kind of discussion forum.

You might be right in thinking that deleting the thread was too blunt an action, some editors may argue against the deletion yet refuse to discuss the value of the responses themselves, but it's my opinion that this deletion improved the reference desk. I'm willing to discuss why this thread was innapropriate here, but those who think the thread needs to stay (and Stu who put it back) should be willing to do the same. What value did any of these responses add to the desk? Why should it remain?—eric 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I fully support your actions, eric, based on a cost/benefit argument. Rockpocket 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You also have my moral support, Eric; but for some people Wikipedia is not so much a soapbox as a megaphone. Clio the Muse 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking the question out also deprives anyone of the opportunity to answer in the factual, link intensive way you want. If you feel an answer isn't giving enough factual answers and links, then, by all means, add them. Deleting the question is far more harmful to the OP, and thus the Ref Desk's reputation, than any answers you personally dislike. StuRat 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, are you still insisting that removals should be discussed before they happen? I think the best thing to do to avoid this sort of squabbling over the questions themselves is to set up a system whereby all questions are posted on a separate noticeboard, and then approved questions are passed through to the appropriate desk to be answered (leaving a link to the question and the later archive in place, or using a numbering system). That way the silly questions can be filterd out and passed to a "rejected" area where those who want to post silly answers, or rephrase the questions, or argue about why they were rejected, can do so. This system would still leave the problem of what to do with Ref Desk question threads that degenerate, but as many of these are from 'silly' questions in the first place, getting rid of those would help. Carcharoth 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm far from the only person who believes that nonconsensus deletions from talk pages (including the Ref Desk) are to be avoided. I'd support any scheme that stops people from doing this. Note that your system is rather like the Strict/Lax Ref Desk division I suggested long ago. StuRat 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You and who else? Our "departed" LC? THB? --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think he means a certain wizard. Carcharoth 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a Ref Desk inclusionist. To be more precise, I agree with the bit in Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines that says "it is often wise to open a discussion with the post's author or on the Ref Desk talk page before removing a comment" - wording due to TenofAllTrades, I believe, but my emphasis. Gandalf61 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a partial list of Ref Desk inclusionist (my apologies if anyone on the list is actually a deletionist):

• Admin Talk:Zoe
• User Talk:THB
• User Talk:Froth
• User Talk:Gandalf61
• User Talk:Edison
• User Talk:Light current Im actually an exclusionist Aprt from the RDs wher Im an anti deletionist. Can I have it both ways? 8-)--Light current 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• User Talk:DirkvdM
• User Talk:StuRat
• User Talk:Dweller
• User Talk:Maelin
• User Talk:Cernen
• User talk:Ummit "Neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist be." —s
• User talk:Sluzzelin
• User talk:Loomis51
• User talk:QuantumEleven
• User talk:Tragic romance
• User talk:Nricardo
• User Talk:Vranak

StuRat 06:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that does it, people who don't want to see peurile jokes and trolling questions but rather a semi serious decorum on reference desk are clearly out numbered. David D. (Talk) 14:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting us. We oppose nonconsensus deletions. In other words, we feel that you need a good reason, agreed to by consensus, to remove a Ref Desk post. This is at odds with the deletionist POV which seems to be that anything which "doesn't contribute", in any one editor's opinion, may be removed without discussion. StuRat 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on discussions above, it is your position. And you defend it vigorously. David D. (Talk) 16:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is neither necessary nor helpful to polarize these discussions. It is not necessary to paint every participant as an inclusionist or a deletionist. And it is not necessary to assume that our only two options for maintaining control over topicality are "allow everything" or "summarily delete what we don't like".

Off-topic postings can be a problem, no question. Meandering, opinionated speculation (whether on- or off-topic) can be a problem, no question. But outright deleting a problematic thread is not necessarily effective, for several reasons: (1) it tends to outrage the people whose contributions were deleted, (2) it doesn't do much to educate other contributors, going forward, as to what our expectations are, and (3) the lines between on- and off-topic, and meandering/opinionated/speculative versus incisive/factual/sourced are often rather blurred.

So I'd like to, again, remind people that there's another, middle-ground option: If someone posts a question that's off-topic, or an answer that's speculative, or if in general a thread shows signs of spinning off into opinionated POV ranting, you can always just gently point that out, right there in the thread. Most of us are reasonable and will take the hint. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad some one decided to speak for themselves, rather than be pidgeon-holed into a simplistic black vs white perspective. I generally agree with you, Steve. However, the problem with your suggestion is that - when I did exactly when I did as you suggest here - the individual involved didn't simply acknowledge their inaccurate speculation. Instead straw man after straw man was held up (see discussion above) in a desperate attempt to justify the misleading post. What do we then do when editors continue to be unreasonable and most certainly do not take a very obvious hint? Rockpocket 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[(deliberately) belated response:]

Thanks, Rockpocket. Since this branch of the thread (like so many others) has spun off into trivial recriminations, I'm going to defer my response to a new section below. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First you tell me it's OK to delete some negative comments you left on my talk page, then you use it against me when I do just that ? I should have suspected that was some type of a trap you were setting for me. StuRat 08:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not a trap. It was a good faith attempt to divert you from a path that appears, to me, to be heading towards external intervention (what i was "hinting" at). That you chose to delete it without positive comment (which I offered as an option because I felt that is the best way for you to show you disagree with my comments without further escalating the conflict) and continued to defend your position against a forming consensus leaves me concerned with what other options there are to resolve this situation. Hence, I asked Steve above if he he has any ideas of how to deal with such an editor, because i've run out of ideas. Rockpocket 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "forming consensus", just a bunch of highly vocal deletionists who hang out here all day. Most of the inclusionists have better things to do, like actually spending their time answering Ref Desk questions. You should have said "feel free to delete this, but know that I will then hold it against you forever, and bring it up wherever I can possibly fit it in". StuRat 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did not see Rockpocket's comment on your talk page as "negative", or the metacomment offering you the option to delete it as a trap, nor his bringing it up now as "using it against you" or "holding it against you forever". But at the same time, I'm not (or I wasn't) ready to conclude that just because you deleted it, you hadn't gotten his essential (which I saw as a positive) message. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a valid point, Steve. I took the deletion as a dismissal of the contents of my message - reasoning an brief reply would have a been a polite sign of acknowledgement. It may of course be that StuRat did take the hint. If that is the case, I apologise to StuRat for my insinuation. Though that he has insofar declined to even respond to my proposal to move this debate on, does not fill me with confidence. Rockpocket 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the deletion itself was not the problem, more likely your edit summary of " Deleted negativity". David D. (Talk) 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's anyone who's looking for an explanation of why using terms like 'deletionist' isn't helping to move this discussion forward, my comment on the issue is here. Namecalling and pigeonholing aren't good strategies for resolving disputes. I appreciate the efforts of those who've heeded my requests not to engage in those behaviours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Though many questions and many responses are definitely inapproriate, silly, and even downright offensive, deletion is definitely not the answer, even in the worst of cases. This may seem a bit off topic, but please hear me out: I remember getting into a discussion with Phil about the fact that Swastikas are banned in Germany. I actually disagree with such laws. The same goes for inappropriate comments on the RefDesk. I remember some ridiculous troll accusing me of being some sort of insane porn addict. While I suppose others in my shoes would have preferred that that post be deleted, I'd be totally against it. I say let the fools rant, and rave to their hearts' content. These trolls are their own worst enemies. Delete their posts and you're only protecting them from being exposed for the morons they are. Deletion (especially UNILATERAL deletion), is definitely a cure far worse than the disease. Count me in as a firm inclusionist. Loomis 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of what you call "feeding the trolls". Getting rid of their posts and making sure people don't feed them, then warning them on their talk page and not letting them draw you into an argument is often a better solution. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "on Holy Wars, and a plea for peace"

In continuation of some ideas I posted at 17:08 on 7 January, and in answer to Rockpocket's musing about what to do when editors continue to be unreasonable, I think we all have to agree on five things going forward. (And yes, these points probably belong on the evolving guideline/policy page or its talk page, not here, but anyway.)

1. What the Reference Desks are for, what the expected norms for participation are. These have been extensively discussed elsewhere, and I think there's pretty good consensus on them. In particular, excessive speculation, Original Research, and humor are all discouraged, although limited amounts of all three of these are appropriate under certain circumstances.
2. That the guidelines are not perfect, received on stone tablets, or all-encompassing. None of the Reference Desks is ever going to be a paragon of what any one observer might wish it to absolutely be. The guidelines are loose and subject to interpretation. From time to time people are going to make mistakes.
3. That when people do make mistakes, gentle reminders are appropriate.
4. That good faith is the norm: gentle reminders will, in fact, be applied gently, and only when they're needed.
5. That good faith is the norm: a recipient of a gentle reminder will receive it graciously, will not assume he's being ganged up on. The appropriate response to a gentle reminder is almost always along the lines of "I'm sorry, I'll try to be more careful next time." [Footnote: there's a delicate little diplomatic balance here. The recipient should say this, without argument, even if he doesn't agree 100% with the reminder. The issuer should accept the apology in good faith, should not insist that the recipient grovel contritely, should not evince fears that the recipient is only going to make the same "mistake" again next time. We'll worry about that next time.]

If everybody can unreservedly agree to all five of these, I think we have a decent chance of putting all the acrimony behind us, and moving forward with Reference Desks we can all enjoy and be proud of. The various policies and agreements do not absolutely guarantee perfectly harmonious success -- nothing on this vale of tears can ever guarantee that -- but they should be workable, and we should be able to understand and deal with any exceptions as they arise.

In particular, here are two exceptions that might arise, and how we might deal with them.

• If person A, holding some kind of grudge against person B, systematically issues "gentle reminders" about every one of person B's posts, that is probably a bad-faith action, and subject to RfC or other dispute resolution. (The exception would be if all observers agree that person B's contributions are all inappropriate.)
• If the recipient of a gentle reminder treats it as a personal attack, and begins attacking the issuer of the reminder or otherwise raising an argumentative ruckus, that is probably a bad-faith action, and subject to RfC or other dispute resolution.

I've got some more to say on this, but that's enough from me for now. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for responding to my musings (and for doing so under a merciful heading break to boot). I strongly endorse this sensible proposal and am very willing to be first to step up and pledge to adhere to its spirit in future. Rockpocket 07:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I absolutely Endorse it and wholeheartedly agree to do my utmost to abide by it. Anchoress 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• With hope. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent. --Dweller 12:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a great plan to me. Friday (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose this, at least the part about having to apologize when you haven't actually done anything wrong, only husbands have to do that. :-) StuRat 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't have to; it's just a suggestion. But suppose I take that out: what are your other reactions? --Steve Summit (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bah. Middle ground, gentle reminders, and gracious acceptance all sound great, but isn't this more an attempt to avoid conflict rather than find a workable solution? You say above that there is pretty good consensus for what is and is not acceptable on the desk, but is that really correct? We have a number of editors taking a more or less strict position, others diametrically opposed, and a large number of interested parties (including some great contributors who add considerable value to the reference desk) simply ignoring the debate. I would like to claim a consensus for some mildly strict application of policy to the desk, but would this be any more helpful than StuRat claiming consensus based on a few straw polls? Those of us who have been most vocal here should realize that we only have a small part to play in deciding the outcome. Asking now for "gracious acceptance" of the draft guidelines is premature, there is little weight of opinion supporting them.

One way of testing consensus and gathering a wider audience is, i suppose, thru the wiki-process. Since we're still in the deleted thread section i assume the "call for peace" is at least partly in response to that discussion. Where's the battle? The discussion could have been more productive (i'm partially at fault there for not providing a timely response) but i don't see any outrage, no edit warring or incivility. Gandalf and Stu made some fair points, was there any harm done?

Disagreement can be a good thing. If another editor disagrees with some point i make then i would hope that they would simply state as much. They should not graciously accept or diplomatically agree if that is not the case. Debate until the debate is no longer productive then seek some other solution. In the present case, i think asking nicely and hoping for acceptance is the wrong approach. Reminding each other that we disagree, even if done gently, is probably unproductive. It's too soon to ask for acceptance of a guideline that has not been exposed to a wider audience.—eric 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I was suggesting a model for discourse on the Reference Desk, not a model for discourse here as we hammer out what our Reference Desk policies and/or guidelines should be.

The reason I suggested there might already be pretty good consensus on the emerging Reference Desk guidelines is that every time I find myself in a reasonable conversation with reasonable people about them, everyone seems to agree. The impression I get (I could be very wrong, but I hope I'm not) is that all the remaining bickering consists of the usual (and relatively small number of) suspects desperately clawing at the edges of the corners they've painted themselves and each other into. At some point we're going to have to ignore them all and go about our business, and hope that once they calm down, they'll realize that the middle ground of consensus isn't so egregiously unacceptable to them after all. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, i misunderstood your suggestion, if someone thinks it best to challenge a response on the desk itself then yes, please keep it short and sweet and if any debate is needed take it elsewhere.

Yes, there is pretty good consensus on the guidelines. As a document. From those who have taken an interest. The actual operation of the desks however is wildly at variance with those guidelines. Scroll through the current threads on the Humanities Desk. Do you see responses that are mostly inline w/ the guidelines, and just a few editors who need reminding that this is the "reference desk"? In fact the opposite is true: speculation, opinion, and little effort towards verifiability are the norm not the exception. If there was anything approaching consensus would we have a "Culture Warrior" thread on the desk? Would Hipocrite's statement that we cannot provide legal advice be followed up w/ speculative legal advice?

You say that at some point we will have to start ignoring editors who have disagreed w/ the guidelines. I say they are already being ignored, as are the rest of us. The emerging guidelines are not a description of how the reference desk works, they are a description of how some of us would like it to work. We are not just trying to tidy things up a bit, clarifying a few issues with a guideline page, we are trying to change the way things work around here, and for that there is no consensus. The reference desk is not improving, changing in the way some would like, clearly it is getting worse.

There is much continued debate here, but to what purpose? I see little hope of more argument changing anyone's opinion (anyone who has so far expressed an interest) on the issues we've already covered. It is certainly anyone's prerogative to disagree—even stubbornly—with the majority. Doesn't one of the guidelines describe consensus as consisting of those who agree to disagree, and those who continue to argue and disagree in a non-disruptive way?

At some point we need to put things to the test, test if there is consensus for change on the desk. Doing so is not "ignoring" those who have expressed contrary opinions, it's a realization that we disagree and need the help of a larger group of editors. I think things will go more smoothly if everyone is clear on what should happen next, open the debate to a wider audience by trying to put into practice what we've so far only discussed.—eric 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. I've heard this argument that "the RDs aren't working and need to be sorted out" before, but I just can't see it myself. The threads that spiral out of control are in a minority, numerically speaking, although they attract more than their fair share of attention. The less frequented byways of the RDs are fascinating places. Things I've learned today because I was wandering through the RDs include:

• A concrete canoe can resurface even after it is submerged.
• Fear of being alone is called autophobia.
• The unknown soldier is not always unknown.

Consensus guidelines are a good thing, but if we over-regulate the RDs, I fear we might lose this happy serendipity. Gandalf61 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And so we disagree, i think we can get rid of culture warrior yet keep concrete canoe. We can debate the issue for awhile, make sure we both know where the other stands, but at some point the discussion changes from a productive attempt to find common ground into annoying noise. Somewhere along the line we need realize that neither of us is in charge of the reference desk, and we should look elsewhere for a solution, a solution that still leaves room for non-disruptive disagreement.—eric 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

One part of that "room for non-disruptive disagreement", as I have written elsewhere, is to remember that what we're looking for in terms of a high-quality reference desk is a long-term average, not pointwise perfection.

One of the big remaining points of debate is how O.K. it is to summarily delete something that's off-topic or disruptive. That debate has gotten very polarized, but the reality is: if one only somewhat off-topic or disruptive post gets deleted that shouldn't have, it is not going to spoil the Reference Desk forever. And if one truly off-topic or disruptive post doesn't get deleted but should have, that's not going to spoil the Reference Desk forever, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring persistently disruptive conduct by various ref-desk regulars who appear to be here only to chat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But not all those who have expressed disagreement are being disruptive.—eric 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We're covering a lot of ground here and i agree with many of the points you have made. Gradual improvement to an imperfect but mostly reasonable reference desk: yes, sounds good. Our disagreement is i think about how to begin. As i understand it, your position is that summary deletions are still on the table, and we should not proceed w/ any until some consensus is hammered out thru debate here and on the guidelines pages. Deletions now are too polarizing and do not forward the process.

My take is that any consensus we find here on the talk pages will lack support, will not have been tested by exposure to a large enough group of editors. Since there is such a wide disparity between the desk and the guidelines the real test will be when we move from proposal to practice. Deleting a thread is one way to gather further opinions, test the waters, see if there are objections or support beyond the same old names and faces.

Below, LC mentions his deletion of a question after discussion on the desk itself. I disagree w/ this method, thinking it likely to lead to some distracting arguments and a little food for the trolls, but i would encourage him and others to continue if they think that is what's best for the desk. I can always just nuke the entire thread if the discussion turns sour—and any who disagree w/ my take could always put it back—no permanent damage done and hopefully somewhere along the way a few new voices will join the discussion.—eric 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Your position is that summary deletions are still on the table" -- well, yes and no. It's probably the biggest -- perhaps the only -- remaining point of contention. But I don't think we're going to get an ironclad hammered-out answer that's acceptable to all those at the various extremes of the debate, so personally, I wouldn't expect to wait for that before "beginning".

You're right that any seeming consensus on a draft policy page reflects only those few who've participated in the drafting, not nearly all those users who might ultimately be affected (and might end up objecting). But that's in the nature of all Wikipedia guideline and policy pages, at least when they're first drafted.

I don't know what the right line to take on deletions is. Personally, I don't like them, but the core Wikipedia policies (which I wouldn't dream of arguing with) do condone them in certain circumstances, and even if the appropriate set of "certain circumstances" is slightly different for the Reference Desk, I don't think the set is empty -- which is to say, I certainly agree that some summary deletions are always going to be necessary. I keep hoping that the best way to answer the question of "is it okay to delete merely off-topic stuff -- excessive speculation or dubious unsourced information, for example -- even if it isn't rampant trolling or vandalism?" is to say, "It shouldn't be a big issue, because people should be posting very little speculation and dubious unsourced information in the first place." But some of the skeptics are, well, skeptical that that would work in practice, and I really can't blame them. So I dunno. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

For same question, see Wikipedia talk:Help desk. THis will probably apply to other pages as well. Simply south 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Response at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Dates. --hydnjo talk 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this normal?

I have just posted a question back in the Reference desk and after looking at my edit I notice tha question in front of mine, titled: "Homesteading help, please? " Is this normal? It is nonsense and a waste of space. I would ask it to be deleted. Francisco Valverde 02:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're the one in the wrong place. Your question belongs on the Help Desk, not the Ref Desk, as another person stated in response to your question. The "Homesteading help, please ?" question is entirely appropriate for the Ref Desk, although rather long and poorly formatted (I fixed that). The Help Desk is for questions about Wikipedia while the Ref Desk is for questions about anything except Wikipedia. StuRat 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry! Francisco Valverde 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk Problem

I don't know if someone does it manually or if its done by a bot, however, the porblem lies here.

All Question before December 31 have been archived.

However this is not being done for Jan 1, 2007 on all reference desks, and now they are exploding in size.

Furthermore the new Entertainment desk has never been archived.

What I mean by archive is you know once archived {{is there on the start date of archive with the date}}. --Jones2 03:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a problem. Can anyone remember who set up the archiving process (is is done by a bot?) Carcharoth 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's User:RefDeskBot. I have left a message for the operator at User talk:Martinp23. StuRat 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth 06:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I've been setting up a box for it to run on, so when it catches up and I can get the entertainment desk ready, we should be good to go, with the bot running properly. Martinp23 11:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Entertainment is now coded in, and up to date. Also, all of the other desks should now be up to date with archivals. By the way, WP:RD/E has an archival time (ie - dates are taken off the page) of 7 days - will this be OK, or do you want the 3 day option? Martinp23 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

3 day option. thnx. besides unanswered question can be put at the bottom it says above the desks.--Judged 12:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it to be the 3 day option on all desks (including the traditionally less popular ones?). Go back to the start, the bot was originally designed to do 7 day archives, but for the 3 most popular desks 3 day archives were introduced (causing some complaints at the time). I'd like to get a firm consensus on the issue before I make it final in the bot coding - so - any more opinions? Delma1 has just been and taken off the earlier days from all the desks (taking them all to Jan 5), which will cause the bot to crash, so I'm going to have to revert. If the dates do need changing, the bot should be able to remove the excess ones automaticaly IIRC. Martinp23 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay how about this: Humanities, Science and Misc are very popular. So for them 3 days, others 7 days. What do you think? --Foundby 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering how can the bot crash? --Foundby 13:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's how it is now :). The bot will get an "arguement out of range exception" and die if the dates it's looking for aren't there. There's no point in me coding around this, because it can't archive the desk anyway when dates are missing (and if they've been removed by mistake, the bot can be run again later). Martinp23 13:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if this is related, but I just removed what appears to be bot-generated junk consisting of "}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}ge}}"--Shantavira 12:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a strange proble, which I've not been able to pin down (sorry!). It is probably to do with what actually gets through when Wikipedia returns a 502 bad gateway error, the distorted comms producing that junk. Martinp23 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RD 2006 archive navigation screwed!

Hey everyone, I just noticed that the links in the archive pages e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 November 3 are stuffed, to get to the next/previous month/day, it goes to the page of the current year when it should go to 2006. Anyone have a bot that can fix all this? --WikiSlasher 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this problem, there seems to be an issue with the templates that the bot uses. I lack the know-how to fix them (they weren't designed by me in the start), but I suspect a request at WP:BOTREQ and some corrected templates will be able to correct the issue. At a guess, there is perhaps a missing "subst:" or two in the templates (the help desk appears to have the same issue). Martinp23 11:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I did mention this a while back, but it got buried in an archive somewhere. Essentially I'd assumed someone would have fixed it before 2007. The only thing I can think of to fix it now is to use a bot to go back through all the archives and correct the glitch by adding 2006 after every instance of {{#time:F Y|Month Day}} otherwise it will default to CURRENTYEAR. This is my fault since I more or less created the problem in the first place by incorporating the autodate feature into the old template, and since the new template copied all its date math from the old template, the error was copied over. At the time I was trying to handle all desk maintenance single handedly and settled for a template that worked, as opposed to one that would continue to work. The only way to prevent the same thing from happening again in 2008 is to recode the template to ask for a year input from the bot --VectorPotential 12:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been corrected, the only thing is the bot must now use this format {{Subst:Archive header|1|December|Science|2006}} -- VectorPotential 12:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll adjust the bot code for that. Unfortunately though, RefDeskBot has no architecture to make such changes - at some point I'll try to get MartinBotIII to do it. Did that template add all the pages to a category? Martinp23 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But if you use the subst before the template, any edits done will not be done on the actual template, so then the archive will be useless. Do you get me? This is regarding using subst on the current ref desk page in the archive template. --Foundby 13:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For the templates as they are now, subst is needed in order to make the date resolve properly - the downside is that the fixes made to the templates today now need to be manually replicated across all the previous archive days, requiring a bot (probably). I should be able to get MartinBotIII to fix it at some point. Martinp23 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is too much trouble, we could maybe fix it by hand, if we each took on a month, and changed all occurences of CURRENTYEAR to 2006. That would be a global search and replace on some 180-210 pages each, that wouldn't be too bad. StuRat 15:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking - I can probably just use AWB to get all the pages with the prefix for the archives (whatever that is now) and set the bot on auto mode to go through an correct all uses of CURRENTYEAR (presuming this is the problem). I'll do some stuff now to test if it would work. Martinp23 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, it's a bit more complicated than all that, the template used several instances of {{#time:F Y|November 31-1 Month}} which needs to be changed to {{#time:F Y|Novmeber 31 2006-1 Month}} for instance, which should only be done by hand if you're very used to that form of meta variable. The best solution might be to remove all headers, and re-subst the new version of the template onto each page--VectorPotential 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The best thing (I think) is for the bot to subst all the instance of #time (which it's doing now), then I can have the bot go through all the pages again and replace all instances of 2007 before a certain point with 2006. it seems to be working - take a look at MartinBotIII (talk • contribs)'s contribs. Martinp23 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that should work -- VectorPotential18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it should work. But unfortunately last year was 2006, not 2007. I'm glad this has been responded to - but it'd be nice if it was done right ;) --WikiSlasher 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Have patience - the bot needs to do two runs - sone substing (which gets the wrong year) and then one find and replace. Have faith! Martinp23 13:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've set the default year, {{{4|2007}}} to 2007 so in the event that a 4th parameter isn't entered, it defaults to 2007. -- VectorPotential 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - I think that the bot should be putting that parameter in anyway. All the isses from last year sohuld now be fixed, thanks to MartinBotIII. Martinp23 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One small problem, your corrections only seem to go back to October 16th, but the same date math was in use all the way back to October 9th, I assume the issue is that they fall under a different subheading so the bot missed them-- VectorPotential 00:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computers and technology? October 12 <--> 17

Just one minor question, shouldn't Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computers and technology/2006 October 14 be at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2006 October 14? -- VectorPotential 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Urgh - must be something from testing back then. I shall perform the moves when all the pages are fixed. Martinp23 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remaining Navigation Holes

I've clicked through all the archives, and manually corrected for all the various gaps and missing days, so that you can click all the way back through the archives to October 16th uninterupted -- VectorPotential 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Martinp23 and VectorPotential! --WikiSlasher 02:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, much appreciated ! StuRat 13:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Day consensus

Is it to be the 3 day option on all desks (including the traditionally less popular ones?). Going back to the start, the bot was originally designed to do 7 day archives, but for the 3 most popular desks 3 day archives were introduced (causing some complaints at the time). I'd like to get a firm consensus on the issue before I make it final in the bot coding - so - any more opinions? Martinp23 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may make a note: Three days mean that there are 3 days of questions and today (so 4 active days on the desk). So this would be January 4th onwards as of my timestamp (the bot runs by UTC/GMT/Z). Martinp23 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Once the consensus is decided will your bot work every day on time? Because I have seen that your bot puts the date after the questions have already been asked. example: Question asked on jan 7 goes to jan 6. ur bot comes along marks jan7 at end. thus the question asked on Jan 7 is stuck on Jan 6. --Foundby 16:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• From past experience, the bot will put the date header in the right place every midnight. I'm trying to manually fix any incorrect headers until RDbot is running smoothly. Feel free to do the same if you spot any errors. --hydnjo talk 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, as the code won't be changed today, at least, I'm going to put the bot on the always-on box, so hopefully we'll be able to get largely back to normal. Martinp23 19:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment User:Hydnjo requested uniform 5 days for all ref desks, I just want to tell him the big desks (Humanities, Science, and Misc.)then it will explode in size above 300 KB. --Foundby 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree that it might be a page loading problem for some users and in consideration of those folks I have no problem with a three plus today horizon for those busy desks. My comment below was more of an idealistic wish-for. If several others chime in with a desire for a five plus today solution well, lets hear them out. If that isn't the case then I would definitely prefer discriminating (rather than three for all) which defaults to my second choice: 3&7 as I have stated below. --hydnjo talk 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Support --Delma1 13:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose: I'd like to stick with 3 days for the big desks (Humanities, Science, and Misc.) with 7 days for the small desks (Math, Computers, Language, and Entertainment). StuRat 15:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose: I'd really prefer a uniform 5 days at all desks and my second choice is as StuRat's 3&7. --hydnjo talk 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know that this may be bad time to bring this up, but would a solution like EssjayBot II be a good alternative? It's used to archive high-traffic pages like WP:AN/I, and it does the archiving on a section-by-section basis. That is, rather than flushing all of a day's sections at once, Essjaybot II moves each section to the archive a fixed time after the section received its last post. In this way, only inactive sections are archived. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Essjay has even been asked to do this. See archives here. I agree it is the best strategy since only the inactive questions get archived. This is much better than have an arbitrary number of days. David D. (Talk) 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If I could just note here - it may be helpful to know that RefDeskBot does to actually make navigation of the archives easier. First there are the templates (which will be fully working very soon) but the best thing about it is that, despite the pitfalls of the current system, it is a lot more kind to questioners than an EssjayBot/Werdnabot system. The benefit of the Essjaybot system is that questions are only archived when not touched for a certain number of days - so questions with active discussion won't be "taken off" the page (in fact, it's transclusion, but the cureent system does break watchlisting for registered users). RefDeskBot is often touted as the "date adding" bot, which I confess does annoy me, so I'm going to give a quick rundown of what it does. First, it gets all the questions from the day before yesterday (this is at 0:00 ish) and adds them to a daily archive page. It then grabs the section titles from this page and adds them to the monthly listing: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/January_2007, before transcluding the archive page onto the desk. This monthly page is the "good bit", as it's easier for someone with a slow interent connection to look through that one page containing 30 days of questions (at the end of the month), than to load up 30 full pages of questions and answers. Of course, although it would be possible for me to make the bot only transclude those questions which have had no activity for (x) days, this would wreck the whole monthly archival system. The best way I can see to make RDB more mutually satisfiable (the issue seemingly being the mass removal of questions) would be to change the number of days before a page is transcluded. Out of interest - does anyone have any information on just how many people have actually been adversely affected by the current system (where today and yesterday's questions are still active on the desk which the others are transcluded)? Just on a final note - if you look through the archives you'll see that discussions about "why" for the tranclusions are common (fairly common), and it has been determined that it is to keep the Wikitext length short for those with slow internet who may get an edit conflict and wait a long time for the edit box to reload. Now, it would be easy for me to stop the bot from doing transclusions, and just remove and archive the day after, say, 3/4 days, but then people would complain about the desks being too big. You can see where I'm stuck, and I have only built the bot to the design specifications given by freshgavin. It seems that the ref desk needs to sort out what its priorities for archiving are - page size or watchlist convenience - the current solution can be adjusted to either (whereas I suspect that w/EssjayBot/WerdnaBot, the date headers may have to go, and the pages will probably become longer, and navigation unwieldy). Thanks for reading :) Martinp23 13:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently used the archives to look up some very old questions that I asked, and found them relatively painlessly. The watchlist thing did confuse me for a moment, especially as I thought that adding more stuff to archived questions isn't the done thing, but then I realised that other people who have the question watchlisted would still see my answers. I'm still not entirely clear though. Does the transclusing archiving mean that questions appear in both the archives and the desk at the same time? Carcharoth 14:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the bot puts the older days into their own archive pages, which are then transcluded onto the desk for the remaining day or 4 days of their time there. Im sure that someone will be able to better explain it than me - the best thing to to is look at RefDeskBot's contribs. Martinp23 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Response: If RefDeskBot aint broken; DONT FIX IT with ESSGY bot. --Foundby 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of desks

Is anyone else bothered by the RD (main) order of the reference desks: /C, /S, /Ma on the header (top line) being different from the desk "address bar" list having /S, /Ma. /C.? I find myself being confused when I need to travel all of the desks for maintenance.
OK, if you don't care which I change then no comment is needed. If on the other hand you have a preference as to which I change then now is the time to speak up. If no one objects, then I intend to change the main header. The main RD would then have the order: /S, /Ma, /C and would then be consistent with the order at the common desk address bars. --hydnjo talk 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey we have to be consistent, one day someone'll find out and we'll be the laughing stock of the entire Wikiland! --WikiSlasher 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going for at least 24 hours for comment (maybe 48 hours if controversial). --hydnjo talk 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RD header changes

I implemented some quick 'n' dirty changes to DMacks's proposal and now it tells you with a big colorful box what desk you're on. Seven Fourteen #if statements is definately not the way to do it so somebody please optimize! It's a pity we don't have two more desks, it would be perfectly spaced --froth^{T C} 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty! DMacks 22:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me offer my uncoditional approval of your conditional statements. StuRat 23:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks --froth^{T C} 04:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Misc to here

I moved the following to here, since it was just an abusive non question. Should I have left it or just deleted without moving? Edison 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The move sounds good, so long as you left a link so they can find it here. StuRat 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kindly demo what such a link would look like. Edison 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, leave the title and replace the text with the following:

This post did not contain a question, but rather a complaint, so has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#You_suck. StuRat 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You suck

you cant dont answer my ?'s YOU SUCK!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.151.119.66 (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

The anonymous poster, 70.151.119.66, had previously asked about "[edit] Internet VS Travel agents" on the Misc RD on Jan. 5, but it was archived (way too hastily, I would say; please allow some time for people to answer the questions.). The IP has been used before for vandalism as well as normal edist and RD questions, and has done vandalism since the above was posted to the RD. Edison 14:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the original question: [Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Internet_VS_Travel_agents]. StuRat 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He also vandalised wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 14:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The questioner is clearly not a happy bunny. Just in case he ever looks back at his original question again, I have added a response to it that basically says "sorry we can't help you". Gandalf61 14:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a school based sharedip, in which case, the origional questioner may not be the same person as above, at one point, the ip even claims to be a teacher, so there may be several persons at this school who are aware of wikipedia -- VectorPotential 15:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out we have a complaint here, and it's not about jokes, or off-topic remarks, or incorrect answers, it's about getting no answer at all. And how do we get more people to be willing to answer questions here (and retain the ones we have) ? By valuing their contributions, allowing them to have some fun, and treating them with respect, of course, not by deleting their responses, posting nasty little notes on their talk pages, complaining about their answers, etc. Can we learn anything at all from this ? StuRat 21:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're looking for good answers, not just any answers at all. I think there's a bit of false dichotomy in your response here- we don't have to "take the bad" in order to get the good- all editors are expected to make useful contributions. Friday (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A so-so answer would still have been better than none at all. StuRat 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Can we learn anything at all from this ?" Given many other questions were answered, we learned one of two things. It's hard to track down the stats. Or it was written in a manner that suggested it was trollish and the regulars ignored it (as they should if they feel that way). David D. (Talk) 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The analysis above suggests it was a perfectly valid question, but still went unanswered. StuRat 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So it must have been too hard to track down the info. I notice gandalf answered in a way to delay the research. Sturat, many of us only respond to a question when we see a topic that we know something about, or it is relatively easy to research the answer. Apparently this question failed both these criteria for many that saw it. This does not mean ref desk is a failiure. Just out of interest, how many question are typically not answered. From my observation it is very few. David D. (Talk) 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my last two questions on the RD went completely unanswered. Even by StuRat! However, having already tried to research the question myself to no avail, It was not a simple query, but I was hoping that an expert may have had access to more obscure sources of information than I could fine. Obviously I was disappointed, but I would rather have no answer at all than one that may have mislead me and thus wasted more of my time trying to validate it. Rockpocket 07:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that unanswered valid questions show we need more volunteers, and thus we need to attract more and keep the ones we have by "valuing their contributions, allowing them to have some fun, and treating them with respect, of course, not by deleting their responses, posting nasty little notes on their talk pages, complaining about their answers, etc." StuRat 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but we want volunteers who'll give good answers. There's simply no need to foster an environment where "any answer is better than no answer". In fact, such an environment would be actively harmful. The ref desk is to be a useful education resource, not a place for anyone to say whatever they want. We all need to be able to disagree without making it personal. Friday (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A rough estimate, so stated, would have been far better than none at all. We might have even had a travel agent who passed through, then left in disgust because of all the abuse they saw here, which might have stayed and been able to answer that question, if only we treated posters with respect instead of questioning everything they do. StuRat 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is unlikely this pasing travel agent looked at this talk page. I did not look here until very recently after answering questions here for over a year. David D. (Talk) 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to look here to see the abuse, plenty of that occurs right on the Ref Desk, especially from Clio, who seems to be incapable of disagreeing without engaging in an ad hominem attack against the author of the post. StuRat 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your link is not a contextual link. What are you talking about? David D. (Talk) 23:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You want an example ? OK, here's her response on a discussion of North Korea, as near as I can figure she's trying to say that my argument is invalid because I repeated the use of the same root word (no, this makes no sense to me, either):

Comprehension, comprehending, comprehension-very good! Could you maybe manage just one more, purely for the sake of balance? Let me see: what about comprehending? Clio the Muse 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Context? Which ref desk? David D. (Talk) 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't she already say comprehending? :p --froth^T 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold on here. If all the other questions were answered it does not point to too few people answering questions. It points to the lack of knowledge by those who are willing to answer questions. More is not necessarily better. David D. (Talk) 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The more people you have, the more knowledge you will have, thus increasing the chance that somebody will know the answer, or at least know how to obtain it. StuRat 23:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but given no one knew the answer you could double or treble the number of people answering questions and still not be better off. On the other hand you could recruit someone who is writing the travel agent page. David D. (Talk) 23:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

By my calcs, if you double the number of responders, you double the chance that somebody will know the answer to any given question. StuRat 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No doubt your chances would be better, but double no one can answer the question is still no one can answer the question. Clearly it would be more effective to seek people who edit travel articles. Rather than doubling or trebling the contributers. Although, with all the action on WP:ANI you do seem to be getting more people involved here at the ref desk. David D. (Talk) 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

All the wrong sorts, unfortunately. If there is only a 10% chance a question on a given topic will be answered with X Ref Desk Volunteers, there would be approximatley a 20% chance it would be answered with 2X Ref Desk volunteers (technically, I think it's 19%, which is 100% - (90% x 90%)). StuRat 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem occurs, however, when we tolerate plausible sounding, but entirely unfactual answers as part of this "open doors" policy to attract new responders. If we have twice as many people opining misleading nonsense, the value to the unwitting OP is diminished. I think most OPs would rather have a mean of less than 1 accurate, sourced, factual answer to their questions, than a large number of misleading opinions. Rockpocket 07:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not as black and white as you think. There are many answers which are somewhat simplistic but still better than nothing. For example, in response to "What's a TIA ?", the answer "I think it's some kind of a stroke" is definitely better than no answer at all. We shouldn't yell at the responder with "Where are your sources ?", "Do you have a medical degree ?", etc., when they offer such a response. StuRat 17:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it does not take so much time to confirm that this is accurate and therefore it is a valuable contribution. But when one presents original research that cannot be confirmed, then the original poster is being misled. It is in these rarer instances that people have asked for sources, who knows it might be hot off the press or in-press. From the OP's perspective why would you consider that such unverifable speculation is valuable? David D. (Talk) 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Your example is neither a "plausible sounding, but entirely unfactual answer" nor is it a "misleading opinion". Instead it is an individual offering information that is indeed "somewhat simplistic but still better than nothing" in the absence of a detailed, sourced answer already provided. Such a response is not the kind I am referring to. However, if a TIA turned out not to be a type of stroke and someone had asked the responder to provide sources (which he or she obviously then couldn't) then one would expect that individual to withdraw their incorrect answer, one would not? Rockpocket 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If the first responder got it wrong and said a TIA was a heart attack, all you need to do is provide the link that shows it's not a heart attack, along with the correction. There's no need to remove the original response. StuRat 06:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about removing the original response? You appear so obsessed with deletionism, StuRat, that every issue comes down to that with you, even if it is completely unrelated. I am not proposing - nor have I ever proposed - removing your answer or any other editors answer. My point is simply that if you take responsibility for your own misleading answers (by being careful about making unsourced speculation when sourced answers have already been provided and by acknowledging your error when it has been pointed out) then the value of the ref desk increases for the OP and our credibility is maintained (and, incidently, the need to remove answers becomes a non-issue). Please stop equating any proposal you disagree with as "deletionism", as it is innaccurate, unhelpful and tantamount to namecalling. Thank you. Rockpocket 07:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Who said anything about removing the original response?" Friday did: "Unsourced, disputed material can be removed at the discretion of any editor." You also just said that if I do as you say "the need to remove answers becomes a non-issue", clearly meaning that it IS an issue if I don't do as you say. StuRat 13:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Could you point me to where in this thread deleting material was mentioned by anyone but you - and thus how it is relevent to this particular dialogue on the quality of responses? My comment was in response to you bringing up deleting material (hence the "incidentally"), it is only an issue because you are intent in making it one. Can you understand how unhelpful it is when you insist in bringing every issue back to two opposing ideological positions: yours = inclusion, and anything you disagree with = deletion? Could I ask if you willing leave the issue of deleting answers out of this and focus on the content instead? Rockpocket 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"open doors to attract contributors" is not how we conduct this reference desk, I have no idea where you got that concept. It's more like "totally free speech" like an internet forum --froth^T 05:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Serious question. What does free speech have to do with the effective function of a ref desk? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion NEw Desk

Maybe we should make a new desk named Archive on the RD template so if people want review the archive before asking it would be cool. --Foundby 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The last word of the first paragraph on Wikipedia:Reference desk is a link to the archives. --hydnjo talk 22:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well cant we have a picture for that too? --Foundby 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the skeleton of an librarian, wearing horned-rim glasses (with chains), with her bony finger on the open page of a massive, dusty, ancient tome, staring pensively at the page, with assorted spider webs between the skeleton, book, and desk. :-) StuRat 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Who ya gonna get to pose for it? And how will we know its a woman?8-)--Light current 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what the horned-rimmed glasses with chains are for. :-) StuRat 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But I know some men who wear those! [6](Not many I'll admit) 8-)--Light current 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This (on left) is the illustration from our librarian article. I rather like it. Gandalf61 09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't work at small sizes. I've created a relatively simple image (right), based on the other images, of a clock (representing that these are past questions). Laïka 16:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, makes it even. If we need a new desk we can always remove the Archives icon and use that space. But that image is really, really bad. Doesn't fit with the other icons. I put the svg one there --froth^{T C} 19:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Archives or historical things are always, of course, represented by a sundial. I dont know why.--Light current 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a very, very thick, shut book? --froth^{T C} 05:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Job HappyCamper (sentence) & Laïka + Froth (picture). And others who helped in this discussion. Thank you. --Jones2 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well I suppose a clock is the modern equivalent of a sundial!--Light current 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've often thought that Windows shouldn't use a clock cursor to show it's working, but should use a calendar icon instead. :-) StuRat 07:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 5 has been duplicated

Presently the whole of January 5 is duplicated. Can someone knowledgeable of the reference desk-system fix this? And also I'd like to know what went wrong? Was it my fault? --Alf 09:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry in which desk? --Jones2 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It was science and has been fixed. Sorry for the ambiguousity. --Alf 07:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality control

I am starting this new section rather than the point being lost in the noise of the best guess section above.

My experience here is from a biological perspective. To postulate a hypothesis which is not verfiable does not seem to be the best way to answer a question. To be wrong is OK, especially if one thinks they know the answer, but it would be better to confirm the answer is correct before answering the original poster. To demand proof that it is wrong, in light of no verfiable evidence, flies in the face of reason.

In the case of the telomerase example, discussed above, how would one go about proving telomerase cannot function in the way StuRat proposes? In my opinion, it is not reasonable to expect other people on ref desk to prove an answer wrong if a quick reply will not suffice. Far better to just note the claim is not verifiable, or even better, we should be wary of writing speculative answers in the first place (i.e. unsourced).

With respect to StuRats comment:

" If there is no evidence that I was wrong, then they have no reason to believe that I was, and neither do you"

How is this helping the OP? A better policy would be in the form of "if the answer is not verifiable then they have no reason to believe". StuRats argument seems to be at odds with the importance placed on verfiability by wikipedia and academic institutions. It is similar to the tactic that creationists use, along the lines of "were you there", to slow down biologists when debating evolution. David D. (Talk) 20:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality control really should be implemented. Wrong answers should be removed, and stuff that appears to have been improvised off the top of someone's head - someone with no particular knowledge to impart - really should be too, particularly if a correct and referenced answer has been provided.- Nunh-huh 21:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. StuRat has been unreasonable on this point. The minute someone says things like "Oh yeah? Prove me wrong!" they've missed the boat. This is not a forum for debate or free speech. Answers should be as accurate as we can make them. Anyone not interested in accurate answers is apparently uninterested in improving the ref desk. Friday (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality control is the way Wikipedia improves. It's used throughout the website. If we don't remove misinformation and wild-ass-guesses, we won't be much of an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes that frame the debate

I object to my views being characterized as "Arguments against sources". I have absolutely no objection to the use of sources. What I do object to is the assumption that anything which lacks a source must be false, and should therefore be deleted. There may be a source which was not found or there may indeed be no sources at all (or at least none which are online). Neither of these mean that the statement of fact is false. StuRat 06:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I also object to only including my comments to make it look like I'm the only one who thinks including sources is optional. Here are some comments from others:

Sturat add any other quotes you think frame the debate with regard to using sources. Again, let's not get into the deletion issue, this is about the quality of answer NOT what happens to an answer that is deemed low quality. In my opinion we need to create a culture of using sources where possible. That is the discussion at hand. In this context Froth's recent quote above does not add to the debate (we can discuss deletions as a separate issue). David D. (Talk) 15:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with using sources wherever possible, and this includes in challenges to statements made by others. Don't just say "that's wrong" or "it doesn't seem right", provide some actual evidence. The same standard for sources should apply both to statements of fact and to challenges to those statements. StuRat 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)