User:Friday/RD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, please edit this however seems useful. It could maybe even be moved into project space at some time if this seems better.

Contents 1 Purpose of this discussion 2 View 1: general scope of the desk 3 View 2: on removal of content 4 View 3: we need a specific process for removal of content 5 View 4: There is a consesus, RFC-like things not needed 6 View X

[edit] Purpose of this discussion

A bit of structure may help things from wandering off topic. Excessive discussion should not take place on this page- use the talk page instead. The views should probably be given a bit of time to mature before people start endorsing them. One purpose of this is to discover common ground, so that we can separate what we do generally agree on from what we don't. This is not really a poll, altho I think it might be good for people to endorse what they agree with so we can see who's where. Ideally, a view should be made only if the authosr of the view think it will get significant support from other editors. A unique opinion of just one editor is less useful here. If certain things are more controversial than others, it may be good to put them in a separate view so people can still easily agree on the noncontroversial parts. In the interests of keeping this about the reference desk and not about individual editors, I don't think the views should have an owner. They can be drafted by collaboration and endorsed by individual editors.

[edit] View 1: general scope of the desk

This is my attempt at a view I think reflects mainstream consensus across the project in general. It's also meant to be short, since if you want more detail you could read User:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts.

The reference desk is in project space. It's one of the project space pages where people sign their comments, so it has some aspects of a talk page. The reference desk pages themselves are for the asking and answering of questions, while discussion about the reference desk belong on the talk page. Because it has some aspects of a talk page, fairly wide latitude will generally be given to editors there- the ref desk doesn't need the same bland, formal tone that an article would use. However, the reference desk should fit in with the general character and standards of Wikipedia, since it is part of the project.

The reference desk is not for debate or general chatting. In particular, we should avoid rehashing the debates on controversial subjects there. Instead, we should point questioners to references that describe the debate. Ideally, questions are answered by linking to the appropriate Wikipedia article(s). Other sources could be used too, but we should take care that they're reliable. Whenever possible, answers provided should be attributed in the same manner we source information for the encyclopaedia and answers consisting of personal opinions, theories or anecdotes should be avoided. In this respect, Wikipedia's reference desk should aim to follow the model of a traditional library reference desk.

[edit] View 2: on removal of content

Also attempting a view that reflect mainstream consensus here.

As stated before, the reference doesn't need the same tone as an article. Because there are signed comments there, it will unavoidably be conversational in tone. While wide latitude is given to good faith contributors, some content may be seen as inappropriate for the reference desk. Common examples include excessive soapboxing, and potentially offensive content. While the reference desk, like the project as a whole, is not censored, answers should not wander away from the topic of the question.

Some editors may remove content they feel is inappropriate. This is largely a question of individual judgment, so prudence is needed. We don't need specific rules on exactly what "can or can't" be removed. Instead, if a disagreement arises, it will be discussed on the talk page. In the interests of preventing edit wars, content should be removed only when the editor believes the removal will have consensus. Likewise, removed content should be restored only when the editor believes the restoration will have consensus. As with the rest of the project, explicit consensus is not always required ahead of time. A reasonable, experienced editor may be pretty good at guessing what will or won't have consensus. When in doubt, it may be a good idea to float the idea on the talk page first.

[edit] View 3: we need a specific process for removal of content

Attempting to describe the opinions of those editors less willing to accept removal of content.

Removing someone's comments is an aggressive, impolite act. So, it should either be done not at all, or only after being brought up for vote on the talk page and receiving supermajority support. Each author whose comment is removed counts as a vote in support of the comment, whether they participate on the talk page or not. We should not rely on individual judgment, since everyone's judgment is different. Instead, in the interests of fairness, we count votes. Once there is support for removal, it is necessary to notify all the authors whose comments were affected first. Any removal of content not following this procedure should be reverted as many times as are necessary to get it to stick, until such a time as this proper procedure has been followed.

[edit] View 4: There is a consesus, RFC-like things not needed

The problem is not dissenting opinion about the ref desk in the general sense. The problem is a small handful of disruptive editors who are best ignored at this point. There seems to be a general feeling that more than enough time has been spent trying to get people on the same page.

[edit] View X

The reference desk is a big purple frilly thing.. (alternate views go here)