Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Archiving 2 A primer on what medical advice is: 3 Archiving 4 Dangerous advice removed 5 Rotten Apples are Carcinogens. 5.1 My Email to Brad Patrick 5.2 A suggestion 6 Meta--question moved from Science desk 6.1 how come 7 Soapboxing removed 8 Imagemap 9 January 9 Science RD not archived 10 Restoration of dangerous incorrect information and argument 11 Prettification on the RD front page 11.1 Something nifty 12 Soon to be deleted? 13 Misc Desk 14 Questions concerning cinema 15 Searching copyvio 16 Im back!!! 17 Is RD talk better, worse, or just as bad without Light current? 18 WP:RS 19 Humanities desk mess

Archiving

How come the RD page isn't getting archived? It's becoming much too large for my dial-up connection. —LestatdeLioncourt 09:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this - I've not been able to run the bot recently due to the bad British weatcher damaging my phone line, and making it impossible for me to run the bot in anything other than debug mode, due to the sheer number of web errors I get. Again, sorry about this - I'll being it up to date tomorrow (need to boot into a different partition). I've applied for a toolserver account, so there may be *slightly* better service in future :) Martinp23 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't stand those "bad British weatchers" myself. Edison 18:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A primer on what medical advice is:

I notice people insist on continuing to give medical advice. If someone describes a condition that they have, and you attempt to either solicit more information about the patients history or attempt to diagnose the condition, you are acting negligently, unless you have the requisite experience to diagnose the patient. If you have such experience, you pay substantial sums of money for malpractice insurance that protects you from most liability problems. If you are not covered by such, you take substantial liability by describing someones health questions, or even soliciting more information from them. For example, the person complaining about tinted vision could very well be going blind. If he reads the amature doctoring by LestatdeLioncourt, and chooses to not see his doctor... Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, the original poster later explained why he was asking here, and what kind of information he was seeking.

"Oh please, I'm well aware of the RD policies, but what I'm asking is not medical advice, at all, I'm not concerned or anything. I just want to know if anyone out there ever heard of this sort of thing, and just so I can look more into it. And I've been to an ophtamologist already, he never heard of anything like this, and didn't seem to be very interested on it either."

I'm not saying your concerns aren't justified, Hipocrite, but perhaps this example lies in a greyer area compared to other medical questions that have been asked and answered at the desks. ---Sluzzelin 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Oh please, I'm well aware of the RD policies, but what I'm asking is not medical advice, at all. My vision has a blue tint sometimes. I'm not concerned or anything. I just want to know if anyone out there ever heard of this sort of thing, and just so I can look more into it. And I've been to an ophtamologist already, he never heard of anything like this, and didn't seem to be very interested on it either." How should we respond to that? I'll tell you how much $$ we are out after your answer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then what if I were to respond "you have made up waffle, it very serious come to my quack website where I will sell you my expensive snake oil cure. How much money would wikipedia be out? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

They died from an operable brain tumor the next day. Wikipedia is undoubtedly fucked. If we had said "do you take viagra?" we would be only slightly fucked. If we said that "it's obvious they have a genetic mutation that causes them to see blue more vividly, do any of your parents have this condition?", we'd be totally fucked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On that note, please review Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006_December_24#Watermelon_reaction and tell me whether it was appropriate to a) answer at all, b) to answer the way I did (including reference and including disclaimer). I'm curious to understand whether there is a fine line and where it may lie. Or do you suggest that we don't even touch questions with medical implications at all? ---Sluzzelin 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You diagnosed without taking a full history. Stating that you're not giving medical advice and then giving medical advice is giving medical advice. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this was a diagnosis. Even Wikipedia's first definition of diagnosis doesn't include referring a person to an article containing information. But I get your point and take it that you do suggest that we don't touch questions with medical implications at all (apart from the standard go-see-a-doctor phrase). ---Sluzzelin 14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe you misunderstand. If someone says "I have [symptom]" we cannot say "you have [condition]". Period. Not even around the bush. Not with disclaimers and possiblies and maybeys. If someone says "I have [condition]" we cannot say "you shoud [treatment]". Period. Not with disclaimers and possiblies and maybeys. If someone says "what are some conditions that cause [symptom] we can say "[condition]." If someone says "tell me about the treatments for [condition]" we can say "[treatment]." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, if someone says "I have blue vision" we cannot say "See viagra." That is an implicit diagnosis that may be seriously wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So the crucial difference is whether the poster personfies the question by typing "I have diagnosis or symptoms xyz..." or "some other person I know has..." (but not "Napoleon allegedly had ...") and in these cases, any answer or reference beyond "We can't give medical advice, go see a Doctor" would be potentially subject to liability claims, if I understood correctly? ---Sluzzelin 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That is my lay understanding, yes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find that hard to believe. I think we should check that with Brad. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you have a better call into him than I do. I defer entirely to his professional judgement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've sent him an email Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be interesting. Did you ask about the negligence issue as well as the liability issue? I still think it is not good for wikipedia to be negligent even if it is not liable. I see no harm in cutting these discussions off early with a template to remind wikipedians not to respond to such questions, or to respond with extreme caution. Recently there was a question where a kid wrote something along the lines of 'i just swallowed some shampoo is this a problem?' The first or second answer was along the lines of "So try to call a poison control centre or see a doctor like the other editors said, but don't worry, there will be no severe effects.". David D. (Talk) 16:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Like here (shampoo) and here (listerine). ---Sluzzelin 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal issues aside, I still think we have good reason to avoid giving medical advice. I'm personally in the "don't touch it with a 10 foot pole" camp. Discussing health-related or biology issues in the abstract is perfectly fine, but we should not cross the line into guessing what condition someone may have, or telling them what to do about it (other than perhaps, "See your doctor if you are concerned.") Friday (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see where Hipocrite and Friday might be taking this line of argument. Hmmm ... we can't stop questioners posting questions that might look as if they are asking for medical advice, and any response at all to such a question is dangerous in Hipocrite's opinion, but we can't stop editors posting answers, and we can't guarantee to delete such an answer before the questioner sees it, and even after it's deleted the answer is still visible in the edit history anyway ... so ... it looks as if the very existence of the RDs is harmful to Wikipedia. Let's just cut to the chase, folks, shall we ? Gandalf61 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is protected from liability if it has prohibitions on giving medical advice and takes reasonable action to enforce those prohibitions. Reasonable action like deleting medical advice and blocking repeat offenders. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(after e.c.) Gandalf, I think this is a genuine issue (it's important to me, anyway) with cause for concern, and has been so ever since I discovered the reference desk a few months ago, meaning before Hipocrite and Friday joined the discussions on this talk page. No trouble assuming good faith here. ---Sluzzelin 17:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gandalf, if anyone was trying to get rid of the RD's, they would have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion by now. It seems more reasonable to assume that they're trying to improve the reference desk, rather than making these impolite insinuations. (Whether you agree with their concerns, or their approach, is a separate issue; agreement is not needed to assume good faith.) -- SCZenz 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly did I practice my "amateur doctoring", Hipocrite? If you had actually bothered to read my answers you would have very easily seen that I was trying to explain what might be the origin of such a peculiar condition. I did not give Kieff a diagnosis of the condition he had. I did not attempt to draw any coorelation between his symptoms and a known medical condition. I did not give a prognosis. I did not suggest any treatment. —LestatdeLioncourt 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"I was trying to explain what might be the origin of such a peculiar condition" From diagnosis - "to analyze the underlying physiological/biochemical cause(s) of a disease or condition." Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then the article must be mistaken. According to the Encarta Dictionary, a diagnosis is the "identification of illness: the identifying of an illness or disorder in a patient through physical examination, medical tests, or other procedures". According to the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, a diagnosis is "the art or act of identifying a disease from its signs or symptoms." I tried to make that clear in saying: "I did not attempt to draw any coorelation between his symptoms and a known medical condition". You yourself put it more eloquently: "If someone says "I have [symptom]" we cannot say "you have [condition]"." This is diagnosis. —LestatdeLioncourt 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article itself mentions that diagnosis has two definitions, and specifically states that "In medicine, diagnosis or diagnostics is the process of identifying a medical condition or disease by its signs, symptoms, and from the results of various diagnostic procedures." —LestatdeLioncourt 19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that a semantical arguement will get you very far with people that agree with you, nowhere with me, and even worse with any hypothetical court assessing your liability for practicing medicine without a licence and gross negligence. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing semantics. You provided a wrong definition for a word and I corrected it. The conclusions you based on the definition of the word are therefore wrong. While I am flattered by your concern, I assure you no court will be assessing my liability for practicing medicine without a license, as I have not done so. Courts with sane judges generally do not try people for malpractice when they haven't practiced at all. —LestatdeLioncourt 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Gandalf. I've been taking a fairly hard line on the medical advice issue, but surely you don't think that I'm trying to shut down the Ref Desk, do you? Let's try to discuss the substance of the concerns, not ascribe ulterior motives or conspiracies.

I think it's obvious that shutting down the Ref Desk would be an absurd overreaction to a problem which (per my analysis, at least) involves a very small fraction of the total Ref Desk traffic and a fairly small population of editors. A two-pronged strategy – similar to what is used in dealing with most other Wikipedia problems – should suffice. The first prong is education. Newbies who ask for medical advice need to be advised that their questions can't be answered in this forum, and politely directed to other, more appropriate resources. Novice responders on the Desk can be gently informed of the policy and the reasoning behind it.

The second prong is enforcement. Editors who repeatedly disregard gentle reminders of our policy will face sanction (either escalating blocks, or bans from the Ref Desk) if they can't control the urge to dispense medical advice.

I don't see where any of that leads to the elimination of the Ref Desk. It may lead to blocks or bans for editors who obstinately refuse to accept standing policy, but I would hope that such editors would listen to reason before that became necessary. We don't shut down the rest of Wikipedia just because we periodically encounter editors who refuse to follow policy and community norms; we try to educate them, and failing that we use blocks. The Ref Desk isn't any different. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The current problem as I see it is not really a disregard for the No Medical Advice rule, but rather a lack of understanding for what constitutes medical advice and what doesn't. —LestatdeLioncourt 18:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that is a problem, and I'd appreciate any advice or suggestions on how to improve the guidelines that I sketched out further up the talk page. The need for education obviously isn't limited to people asking and answering questions, it also extends to people who want to enforce this policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my last post wasn't very WP:AGF, was it - I apologise. I just don't understand why Hipocrite and Friday are suddenly getting so concerned about the "medical advice" issue and are so hard line about it. Wikipedia and its editors are surely protected by the disclaimers. We seem to be comfortable with an article like headache, which says, without source, "more than 95% of headaches are not life-threatening". Yet I feel if someone posted these words on the RD they would be flamed. Why do we suddenly want editors to meet higher standards on the RDs than when editing articles ? Gandalf61 18:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between the fact that 99% of headaches are not life-threatening and the opinion that YOUR headache is 99% likley not to be life-threatening. The difference is in the standard of care required for statisticians vs. that of doctors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is that our articles are a general source of information, in the form of an encyclopedia, that don't purport to offer medical advice by answering specific medical questions or diagnosing people's ailments.

In real life, the analagous situations would be looking up 'headache' in a paper copy of Britannica versus asking a doctor for an opinion about your headache. There are very different expectations at work. Here on Wikipedia it's very easy for an 'armchair physician' to sound very authoritative and link to wonderful articles full of technical prose. Unfortunately, it's also very easy for that armchair physician to be wrong in his diagnosis. I'm actually kind of appalled that there are people here who are so willing to offer their unqualified medical opinions to complete strangers (often minors). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this distinction correctly. If a questioner says "I have a persistent cough - what can I do about it ?", then we shouldn't respond "Your cough could be due to A, B or C, for which the treatments are X, Y or Z", because that is medical advice, but it is okay to respond "For information on coughs see our article on cough". Is that correct ? And should we have checked what the cough article says first - especially the unsourced bit about "50 grams of dark chocolate may be an effective treatment for a persistent cough" ?? Gandalf61

No. The only response to "I have [symptom], what is the diagnosis/treatment?" is "Speak to a doctor." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Hipocrite, your position seems to be stricter than TenofAllTrades, who said above, on how to respond to questions describing symptoms: "Where appropriate, offer links to suitable resources. This may include internal wikilinks and external websites". You seem to be saying that offering links to Wikipedia articles or external websites is never an appropriate response to a question describing symptoms. Is that correct ? Gandalf61 20:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not. "I have cancer, what does this mean?" should be answered with a link to Cancer. "I have cancer, what should I do?" can be answered with a link to reputable doctors or support groups. It cannot be answered with a link to chemotherapy - even worse, it cannot be answered with a link to psychic surgery. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My position obviously wasn't entirely clear. When I suggested referring users to appropriate internal and external resources, I was not thinking that we should suggest diagnoses by so doing. Rather, if a user came to us and said, "I have cancer; what should I do?", we could respond with an internal link to our article on cancer, to provide some useful background information for them, and to an external link to the American Cancer Society (or another appropriate local resource). Similarly, if a person provided us with symptoms and identified themselves as being from a particular city, we could provide them with contact information for their local health unit. I was not intending to suggest that we should offer links to prospective diagnoses or treatments, only that we should point them to articles and external resources which address topics that they have specifically already identified. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, your "I have cancer" post would appear to contradict what you said in your previous "I have [symptom]" post - except that cancer is a diagnosis not a symptom, so I guess you have switched to a different subject instead. Hipocrite, your changes of direction are confusing me, so I'm finished here. I'll let you have the last word. Gandalf61 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, there's another factor: perhaps people ask medical questions here because they do not particularly respect the opinions of their local medical professionals. Is it really better to turn them away, especially if their condition is not serious? Moreover, is anyone with a serious medical condition going to be seeking attention on the internet for it in the first place? I think not. Vranak

Okay, now this is just a tad much. Yes people with serious medical conditions may be looking for what it is on the internet. This is not an uncommon practice nowadays because of the the doctor-fear. What might seem like a relatively minor symptom to you, or the person in question, could very well indicate a serious condition to a trained professional. You can't make that judgement. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The question of giving medical advice is a larger issue than the reference desk, and there's no point in arguing for changing it here. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, which I suspect we can't change without the advice of the foundation's counsel. -- SCZenz 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Vranak makes a point. Not everyone is blessed with the level of medical care provided in the US and European countries. But it's true that we can't change the rules here. —LestatdeLioncourt 19:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the end, I have no problem with anyone removing medical advice or medical questions. It may be a bit paranoid, but as far as official policy goes it's the only answer. As in all things, use discretion: don't automatically nuke questions just because they are health-related. One could argue that health-related questions are the most important of all, so to categorcally exclude them for fear of litigation is, well, I'll let you be the judge. Vranak

I thought Vranak was saying that some people don't even trust their european/US medical doctors. One scenario would be those that are into alternative medicine but their doctor is not. But this is not a valid reason for giving medical advice in an online forum. The implication is that our knowledge is as good if not better (more open minded) than people that do this for a living. I can't buy into an argument like that, sorry. (apologies if that is noit the argument Vranak is making)David D. (Talk) 19:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My argument is this: someone may be seeking information at the Reference Desk because they won't take advice from anywhere else. To deny them opinions in order to protect ourselves might be construed as a bit cowardly and negligent. However this presupposes that people here know what they're talking about. Since, for better or worse, there's loads of people here not willing to make that assumption, then clearly giving medical advice is out of the question in the foreseeable future. Vranak

Here at Wikipedia, we don't have very good ways of knowing whether some editor's opinion is very accurate- this is part of why we use reliable sources rather than our own personal knowledge or opinions. We shouldn't assume that editors are automatically right or wrong in their opinions. And, to be honest, we do get our share of blatantly incorrect answers, so it's understandable why some folks are hesitant to accept unsourced assertions. Friday (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Vranak

I once deleted from an article on Kerosene the claim that drinking it would cure worms. So much for just referring people to the related article if they ask how to get rid of worms/heartburn/headaches/fatigue/polyuria/polydipsia/scotoma/lower right abdomen pain/photophobia/shortness of breath. The article could expose the project to as sure a lawsuit as if we gave the advice here. Edison 05:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Is the Reference desk archived or deleted? John Reaves (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's archived. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives which links from all the desks and also from the reference desk's main page. ---Sluzzelin 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous advice removed

I removed the following from WP:RD/Science#gallon challenge:

From memory, it is the lactic acid in milk that causes you to throw up if you chug too much of it. Get lactose-free milk and chug away. You may want to build up to it though by stretching out your stomach to hold a gallon of liquid. It just hit me - what can you drink ahead of time to nullify the lactic acid? Baking soda? Would you just turn your body into one of those third-grade science fair volcanos? --Kainaw ^(talk) 06:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, refrain from giving support to people on their antics, at least here on the RD. We don't want responsibility for this crap if anything happens. (keep our medical disclaimer in mind) — Kieff 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reply by Kieff because it wouldn't have made sense out of context, and Kainaw's original message for the reasons given by Kieff. I would say that, in general, we should not have the slightest hesitation about removing advice (especially medical advice!) that may be dangerous if followed... and I tend to prefer removal to replying in this case, both because of my general opposition to Ref Desk meta-discussion and because it's better for the original poster not to see the dangerous advice at all. -- SCZenz 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah as you can see from the above discussion that I am all for harmless medical advice, but Kainaw's suggestion is patently unwise, so good job. Vranak 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm always glad to see folks who can see things in shades of gray here at the ref desk, so thanks for your comment. :) I do think, though, that this helps illustrate why we need to be careful about all medical advice: whether medical advice is "good" or "bad" or "dangerous" is something that non-experts can't always judge. Except for a few well-publicized deaths recently, I would never in a million years have known that water intoxication can kill someone, and I couldn't have imagined that telling someone how to do it would be dangerous. A doctor would know, which is why they give medical advice and we don't. -- SCZenz 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely... but it's fruitless to discuss the harmlessness or greviousness of medical advice without actually having examples to discuss. There's no need to categorically declare all medical advice verboten -- but posters should be damned confident about what they say, and if anyone feels the slightest doubt about it, removal is never going to to be controversial. I think this is pretty much the status quo anyway. Vranak

Medical advice is not to be given on Wikipedia. This is not up for debate. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. See also the top part of the ref desk pages which also says we don't do medical advice. Friday (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. But the law, and the application of the law, are different things. Vranak

Agree with the removal and the well-explained reasoning for it. To me, the general principal here is that the ref desk should be a useful resource to readers. Useful means accurate, but it also means don't give dangerous advice. This must outweigh any concern we have over offending answerers by removing their remarks. Yes, the chances that something bad would happen and fingers would get pointed here is small, but there's no reason to take that chance. Friday (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning SCZenz let Kainaw know about this as well, so there's no chance (from Kainaw's viewpoint) that his comment just mysteriously vanished. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of the comment, however please note that our disclaimers mean - "Wikipedia doesn't give medical advice" not "you are not allowed to give medical advice on the reference desk" as user:Friday seems to be implying. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, under strict examination, there is no Wikipedia. Just a bunch of people. Where people's agreement converges on unanimity, Wikipedia as an entity starts to emerge. Vranak

"Wikipedia does not give medical advice" is aimed at the question asker. From it, the answerer concludes "I am not to give medical advice, because Wikipedia does not give medical advice". What is so hard to understand about this? Are you answering questions? Then YOU are Wikipedia, to the question asker. Skittle 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No we are individuals. Anyone can edit wikipedia, we do not represent the foundation, only ourselves. I have an email reply from Brad on this, I am waiting for his permission to reproduce it here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I was not talking about legally. I was talking about, what the question asker perceives. They ask Wikipedia a question, you answer. Therefore, to them, YOU are Wikipedia. If you give medical advice, then Wikipedia gives medical advice. Wikipedia does what you do on Wikipedia. "Oh, I'm an individual." What difference does that make? I'm a human. Does that stop me being a mammal? Or someone's relative? Skittle 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Information on the legal situation is of course relevant. If it turns out there is more freedom of action on this than I had thought, I would still support enacting specific restrictions on medical advice from question-answerers. The reason is that (a) we want to be helpful, not harmful and (b) regardles of legality, how we answer questions here reflects on Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree. I think it extremely important on moral grounds that we police ourselves to not give bad replies to questions. I'd hate to feel that I played a part in someone harming themself. I just don't think we need legal parania here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it was my comment, I feel that I should comment about the removal. I have no problem with the removal because I understand why it was removed. My point was about lactic acid - not an attempt to consume vast amounts of liquids. Of course, since someone died recently from water poisoning, there is a fear that people will start dropping like flies from water poisoning. I'm sure that worried mothers are packing smaller water bottles in their children's lunches just to be safe. In a few weeks, nobody will care about it anymore and my comment will be read as: "Lactic acid is most likely the cause of throwing up when consuming vast quantities of milk" and not as "Hey kids! Try to down a gallon of lactose-free milk! It will make you seem cool to all your friends!" --Kainaw ^(talk) 06:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I read your question as saying what it says; it seems enthusiastic, and not at all cautionary, to me. If you meant to say "Lactic acid is most likely the cause of throwing up when consuming vast quantities of milk," why didn't you say that and leave off all the baking soda eating and stomach training? -- SCZenz 12:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding insult to injury, it's also wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A reader might attribute too much authority to a random person posting incorrect medical advice on Wikipedia. Years ago a prankster would call women at home and say he was a doctor from the health department, and tell them that their husband had some medical condition, and that they should do certain harmful things to correct an infestation, and they often did it. We should be always vigilant for intentionally or unintentionally bad advice, because the reader may not have the same appreciation we do of how lacking in qualifications some posters may be, and the fact that we have no way of knowing if someone really has the qualifications they may claim.Edison 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is currently some claims that mercury is not all that dangerous, since many of us have survived handling it, and that the Material Safety Data Sheet is a worrywart. Should such stuff be removed from the Ref Desk?Edison 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Apples are Carcinogens.

Congratulations, you've scored your first latent lawsuit. Rotten apples produce Patulin. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've eaten badly bruised apples many times. They never seem to have done me any harm. Ditto for brown bananas - they look nasty and are a bit mushy but they taste fine. --Kurt Shaped Box

I trust this is the offending comment. It's not exactly medical advice. And it sounded like Seans Potato Business really wanted to eat the rotten apples from the start – all he needed was Kurt's slight encouragement and he did the deed. Still, this whole episode is really a bit silly and probably not what was envisioned when the Reference Desk was created. Vranak

Well let's see what happens about a lawsuit eh? I warned him about potential toxins and he went ahead anyway. He can't sue Wikipedia because Kurt shaped box doesn't work for wikipedia, doesn't represent wikipedia, is not an agent of wikipedia. Oh and he can't sue Kurt shaped box because he didn't do anything except answer a question truthfully. You OTOH know something (or profess to know something _ I don't know if rotten apples really are dangerous or not) and didn't actually tell him (presumably for fear of a lawsuit?) Keep calm and don't be so paranoid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we providing medical advice or not? If not, we need to stop doing it. If we are, then let's say we are, and responsible people can shun this area. I doubt Brad said "yeah, it's ok for people with no clue to provide innacurate medical advice, we're protected by the disclaimer." I suspect he said something like "Well, if they are being responsible and are generally right, it can't hurt too much, as long as obviously emergent conditions are referred directly" Let's be clear - they are not being responsible, and they are generally wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I will post what Brad said as soon as he gives me permission but I will paraphrase it now. You cannot sue Wikipedia for what a random person says on the RD. Simple as that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So let's provide medical advice then. I'm not going to touch it with a ten foot pole, because I like my house belonging to me, but you can all go crazy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No let's not. But lets not be frightened to speak either. 217.207.153.114 08:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a more nuanced position, Hipocrite. We need to listen to what Brad has to say about the legal situation... if the legal disclaimer doesn't mean we're forbidden to give medical advice, then we need to stop using that as a reason for not giving it. That does not mean we should start giving medical advice, however; rather, it means we need to discuss and find a consensus for the appropriate way to handle medical questions. Clearly advice of any kind that is dangerous should be removed; how to handle things that are simply wrong (given the importance of verifiability) is a matter of ongoing discussion for the guidelines being developed. -- SCZenz 12:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The best reason for not giving medical advice on the Ref Desk is that we are very likely to harm someone by so doing. We've been around this merry-go-round before, but here's the brief synopsis for those who've missed it.

• Most of the people who have attempted to answer medical-type questions on this board have no medical training or qualifications.
• The people who ask questions never give anything that even approaches a sufficiently detailed medical history.
• I very seldom see anyone asking a followup question to attempt to narrow a diagnosis, check for contraindications for a proposed treatment, etc.
• We get occasionally really dangerous advice offered. Further up this page there are (removed) comments from someone who doesn't believe the germ theory of disease. This represents perhaps the furthest extreme of medical ignorance, but there have been many different shades of medical...incorrectness expressed.

This is a mischaracterization of my position. Germs are indeed the conduit for disease, but more attention needs to be paid to the underlying conditions that allow germs to proliferate in the first place.Vranak

That's not what your position originally consisted of.You originally stated that the cold/tonsillitis was caused purely by an overabundance of foreign debris in a person's body. No one denies that environment affects germ proliferation (Common_cold#.22Cold.22_as_a_misnomer, Flu season). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. You can say that a disease is caused by germs, but it's more conducive to helpful long-term treatment to address the underlying causative factors. Just going strictly after the germs is misguided and mistaken. Vranak

I see what you mean, as in when somebody "gets cancer", the deeper question is why their immune system, which would normally suppress cancer, isn't doing it's job. StuRat 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying so hard not to get into this, but Vranak I really hope you never try giving medical advice to someone with AIDS, for example. Skittle 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Sorry to come back to this, but this really does exemplify why people shouldn't post medical advice. Rather than investigate the links between diseases and 'germs', we should look at the immune system? What exactly do you think the immune system does that is unconnected to germs? Should we vaccinate people agains Human Papilloma Virus, or should we just try to minimise the miasma around them, if we want to decrease rates of cervical cancer? Skittle 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So glad you brought up the issue of AIDS. There's a whole community of men who actively try to get AIDS, yet many of them can't, despite their promiscuous activities. If it were strictly a matter of viral infection and not underlying suspectiblity to infection, it shouldn't be a problem for them -- they should be able to eventually become HIV positive after enough unprotected sex. However this is not the case. Vranak

And many people smoke all their lives without developing lung cancer. However, this doesn't mean cigarette smoke isn't the cause of lung cancer in smokers who get it. Skittle 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly – it's more important to consider environmental and lifestyle factors that predispose someone to a disease, than the particulars of a disease itself. Preventative measures are preferable to palliative care, that's really what I've been getting at all along. Vranak

If that was your point, why were you saying colds are caused by dirt in the air rather than 'germs'? 'Germ theory' doesn't say everyone has an equal risk of catching something when exposed to a bacteria or virus that causes it. Catching a disease can be like getting pregnant; some people are HIV positive after one risky situation, some take years of risky situations. There are preventative measures we can take, and they are based on these diseases being spread by a virus or bacteria. If someone asked what causes AIDS, the best, simple answer you could give would be 'the HIV virus spread through bodily fluids'. You might add 'there are poorly-understood factors that effect how likely you are to become HIV positive', but the virus would still be what causes AIDS, not the underlying suseptibility. Skittle 10:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we have different understandings of the word 'cause' so I'll let this one go. Vranak

• Many people who ask questions are minors. While giving advice to adults who might have an inkling of the risks inherently associated with seeking advice in this sort of forum is bad enough, giving bad medical advice to children is...well, a bad move.
• Providing medical advice may discourage people from seeking professional help.

The next best reason for not giving medical advice is that a bad outcome will be harmful to Wikipedia. While it is apparently likely that our disclaimers will allow the project to escape any legal responsibility, trial by media is a likely outcome.

• The next time Jimbo is on CNN, do you want him to have to explain why 'his' Ref Desk gave bad advice to a twelve-year-old and left little Jimmy (An A+ student and star athlete) in a coma?
• The time and money of Brad and the Foundation are both valuable and limited commodities. I'd rather not seem them have to deal with even frivolous lawsuits.

In the event of such a bad outcome, what will happen? We'll get an edict from above telling us to stop issuing medical advice and to remove posts that offer such advice anyway, or the Foundation will just shut down the Desks as a public relations nightmare. We're back to two choices—either we police ourselves, or we wait for something very bad to happen, and the option is taken out of our hands. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly and well put. We can (and the answerer can) be sued if someone dies as a result of advice given here. While the disclaimer may protect us from losing the suit, it won't protect us from suits being filed, nor the awful publicity that would come along with it. Additionally, it can be shown that in many cases, the people who answer questions here are not "random" but regular contributors and some readily identifiable in the outside world. Why on earth would we engage in an activity that is potenially harmful and potentially a lawsuit when the negative outcome possibilities far outweigh the positive? Just because some people like to play doctor? Let's be sensible here folks. There is absolutely no harm in being more restrictive than Brad suggests if indeed he says giving medical advice is ok. There may be harm in not being restrictive. (Not to mention, this applies to all dangerous advice, not just medical. A suit is just as likely if someone tells a 10 year old it is ok to hold fireworks in their hand as they set them off and the kid gets hurt. The danger in medical advice is simply less obvious.) Primum non nocere (First, do no harm) - might be a good motto for the ref desk to follow. pschemp | talk 16:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather frivolous point, as anyone can sue anyone for any reason. You can only prevent them from winning, not from filing a suit. StuRat 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilste I agree that there is no harm in being more restrictive than Brad suggest, and whilst I agree that giving bad advice is wrong I do feel that we need to exercise some restraint before going off on one. Look at the apples thread. Who gave medical advice? IMO the point of trying our best to give good answers is not to try and avoid a lawsuit but to simply do the right thing morally. In this instance I think Hipocrite should have pointed out (along with references) the "dangers" of eating bruised apples on the desks itself where it would be seen rather than here. His failure to do that is IMO immoral. All this talk about lawsuits is a red herring. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

Agreed. Unfortunately many people seem to enjoy complaining about the Ref Desk far more than actually contributing to it. StuRat 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A number of editors (TenOfAllTrades, Hipocrite, SCZenz, pschemp, maybe Friday and David D) are emphasising the risks of "dangerous advice" on the RDs. What I don't understand is this - if the risks are as great as you (collectively) seem to believe, then why don't you get yourselves organised and create and run a proper process to "police" the RDs and protect everyone from this dangerous advice ? At the moment we have random editors deleting random questions and answers in random ways at random times, which is hardly an effective way of self-policing. I may be wrong here, but my perception is that there is a big overlap between the editors who are emphasizing the dangerous advice issue, and the editors who have argued against guidelines or process because "Wikipedia doesn't work that way". Which seems a bit inconsistent to me. Gandalf61 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually i have no strong opinion on this issue ( i don't see my self deleting an answer), however, I do consider that we should consider if our answers are negligent or not before hiting the save button. Certainly I would consider it negligent if someone tries to diagnose a case folowed by the line, "but you'll probably be fine". I am not against discussing facts, and my strong opinion is that all editors should research their answer to confirm they are facts before posting (if we don't know for sure don't guess). It is very hard to write quidelines for such examples and we have to use common sense on a case by case basis. David D. (Talk) 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding you- the "process" is obvious. The process is, remove problematic content when necessary. This is already being done. You want "policing" and "organization" beyond this? What are you suggesting exactly? Friday (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that we're all volunteers here. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and even on Wikipedia I am involved in things beyond the Ref Desk. I can't be everywhere at once, and even when I'm here I can't lay claim to the wisdom of Solomon.

As with nearly every other project, practice, and process on Wikipedia, the Ref Desk demands that the bulk of its contributors be of good faith and good judgement, and requires that its participants exercise self-control and self-regulation for it to work. Any attempt to create a class of Ref Desk monitors would surely meet with scorn, would it not? Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and creating a privileged class won't help.

It's also rather overkill for a problem that amounts to dealing with perhaps one question per day. We expect people to generally work in line with existing policy, and sanction editors who persistently resist remediation. I expect sanctions will be required in very few cases, as long as everyone here approaches this problem in good faith and with open minds. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The huge number of words you have all posted on this topic and the comments about "latent lawsuits", "really dangerous advice" and "awful publicity" made me think that there was a real problem here and something needed to be done. But now David D has explained it is too hard to write guidelines, Friday says that haphazard deletion is working just fine and TenOfAllTrades says that anything more would be overkill. So now my feeling is that this can't be such a big problem after all, you all just like talking about it a lot. Gandalf61 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have confused people with one another. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that it is hard to write a guideline to fit all cases, which is why common sense editing is the way to go, if possible. Unfortunately, several here seem to need guidelines to clarify right from wrong (and try to shoe horm grey areas in to one or the other). Clearly guidelines will be useful for such people but to think that a guideline can be written to apply to all cases would be naive. David D. (Talk) 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Theresa now – and have agreed withi similar sentiments further up this very long talk page – that there needs to be a certain amount of education as to what constitutes 'medical advice'. I acknowledge, as well, that there are definite gray areas, and that it might help if some editors cooled their heels a bit and considered bringing questions to this talk page if they're unsure about whether or not a question really is inappropriately seeking such advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Put things in perspective: Some dude just used a rotten apple in his banana loaf, and here we are having a two-page debate. (!!!) Vranak

But isn't this a big picture debate rather than specifically a rotton apple debate? I am learning from the different inputs here. David D. (Talk) 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But if Seans didn't post his baking question at the Science desk, none of this discussion would have taken place. Vranak

I view it as an extension of the A primer on what medical advice is: debate above. David D. (Talk) 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest hipocrite, he ate a bad apple. Also to answer one of your comments above, none of us are personally liable for giving medical advice. I realize it's abstract discussion, but the sheer number of trivial complaints brought to the WT page to "spark conversation" make the situation seem worse than it is --froth^T 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire. The disclaimer means Wikipedia (as in the Foundation) is not liable. Any individual here can certainly be held liable for anything that individual says. Of course, IANAL. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Theresa, we really need that e-mail now, so we can move away from the legal speculations. ---Sluzzelin 04:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

IANAL either, but the medical disclaimer does say: None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site (my emphasis), which seems clear to me. I believe we should not give medical advice on the RDs (in most circumstances) but that is a personal ethical/moral stance. Going by the disclaimers, I don't think there is a legal liability issue here - and if there is, then the disclaimers clearly need to be re-written PDQ. Gandalf61 09:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I suspect that the disclaimers are all okay as far as they go. Nevertheless, I also suspect that all the disclaimers in the world won't help someone if they deliberately, flagrantly, and with prior warning, choose to step over the bounds of the disclaimer. If someone's answer to a question is "We don't give medical advice here, kid, ask your parents...wink wink...but I think you've got a strained muscle that's nothing to worry about, and you should maybe take a couple of aspirin*"—well, that's medical advice regardless of what the disclaimer says.

Whether the disclaimer provides legal shelter for the person who gives such advice is one concern. I think that there's very much an open question there; see for example [1] for a discussion on disclaimers as they apply to advice from legal and medical professionals. (It is worth noting that the very legal and medical professionals most qualified to answer questions are also compelled by the rules of their professions to be the most circumspect in offering advice.)

Such a disclaimer definitely provides no moral shelter. When advice is clearly being given – when our editors are clearly engaging in the practice of medicine by offering diagnoses or prescribing courses of action – we have no moral high ground when someone experiences a subsequent bad outcome. "I was just trying to help" only goes so far. Who here wants to be the one who has to say, "I helped all those other people who really did have harmless headaches; it's just bad luck that I got a kid with meningitis this time"? Who here wants to be the reason that Jimbo is stuck explaining on CNN why his Reference Desk is giving out medical advice? I note that 'trial by media' is usually much faster and much less concerned with procedural niceties than trial by judge and jury.

*Bonus points to readers who noticed that this is genuinely bad advice even on its face; children shouldn't take aspirin as it may cause Reye's syndrome. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My Email to Brad Patrick

Well I've waited several days and he hasn't got back to me, so I'm going to assume he doesn't mind if I post it here. Here is what I wrote:

Basically the discussion boils down to this - if someone asks for
advice on medical symptoms, and I decide to give that advice,despite
the disclaimers about Wikipedia not giving advice, and I am not a
doctor or in anyway qualified to give such advice, then is Wikipedia
legally liable for me giving such advise despite the disclaimers?

And here is his reply:

It's a wiki.  Our disclaimer is crystal clear on this, and I have
said repeatedly that having a medical-wiki is doomed to failure in
the US for precisely this reason.  We don't give medical advice,
i.e., WMF doesn't give medical advice.  If *you* give medical  
advice, like you would tell a neighbor what you do if your baby has
colic, that's on you.  Period.

Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that- it's about as I expected. He won't comment on the risk any contributor takes by giving medical advice, because he's not their lawyer. I'm totally fine with forgetting about legal issues- we could argue all day long about them and get nowhere. There are plenty of other reasons to avoid medical advice (and sometimes even remove it when someone gives it) without worrying about legality. Friday (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it'd be better to focus on those. Cries that some bad advice is going to result in Wikipedia being taken offline gets a little tiring after a while. Vranak

To be fair, I don't see that anyone was particularly suggesting that. What people were concerned about (and this is, IMO, a more realistic concern) was that particularly bad advice could cause embarrassment. This isn't a complete fairy tale- inaccurate content has caused public trouble for the project before. Friday (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Still, if it were mere embarrassment that was the cause of concern, there probably wouldn't be such lively debate on the matter. Vranak

I disagree. "Mere" embarrassment is of great concern to me. I want Wikipedia to be a great resource, and to be a great resource it must be seen as a great resource; if people look at the ref desk and see potentially dangerous advice (or, to mention a related topic, false or uninformed-best-guess "facts"), it hurts Wikipedia's reputation. We can do better, and therefore we should; Wikipedia deserves the best in everything that we can produce. As you have seen, I and others are ready, willing, and able to work as long as it takes to make sure the desk improves. -- SCZenz 20:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. But there's also the idea that Wikipedia is its users; Wikipedia is humanity. Getting embarrassed over its content might mean that you've subconsciously 'taken ownership' of the project, viewing regulars as the employees and everyone else as its clients. Vranak

It could just as easily mean that many of us recognize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Friday's comment. You are an editor and have a say in Wikipedia, no matter who you are, but that does not mean that views that support the production of a lower-quality encyclopedia carry equal weight. At the same time, I certainly have no interest in driving away editors or seeing questions go unanswered; that's why I'm taking baby steps. -- SCZenz 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

'Views that support the production of a lower-quality encyclopedia' is a red herring. Everybody wants Wikipedia to be as good as it can be. It's just that this goal is pursued with varying levels of seriousness:

• 'Wiki-fundamentalists' see 'Vandals and trolls' as disruptive trouble-makers.
• 'Vandals and trolls' see 'Wiki-fundamentalists' as way too serious about Wikipedia
• Each acts with the best interests of 'Wikipedia' in mind...
• Wiki-fundamentalists act in the interest of keeping things sober and professional
• 'Vandals and trolls' act in the interest of keeping things fun, light, and entertaining

There's no such thing as a person who wants to ruin Wikipedia. It's free, cool, and open to everyone – who can argue with that? It's just that there's different factions. The Wiki-fundamentalists have all the power, so it's a classic case of 'victors writing the history books' or 'justice of the victors'. 'Trolls and vandals' become the despised underclass, everybody agrees they do not mean well, and the myth that people actually 'support the production of a lower-quality encyclopedia' emerges. Vranak

This is off-topic for the ref desk, but I've replied to Vranak's rather astounding statements on his talk page. Friday (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've surely heard of groupthink. We don't want that. :) Vranak

I'm not talking about people who want to ruin Wikipedia; I'm concerned about people who want to produce a lower-quality encyclopedia. I wouldn't dream of comparing anyone to a vandal or a troll unless they are vandalizing or trolling. Vandals and trolls are clearly bad for Wikipedia (and actually DO want to break the site in many cases) and should be blocked until/unless they change their ways. People who prefer worse content to better content are not at all in that category, but they should be educated rather than pampered. -- SCZenz 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, a 'lower-quality encyclopedia' is by definition a bad encyclopedia. Bad as in, to be avoided, as in nobody in their right mind will support such a thing. There's no argument to be made for or against such a thing. Vranak

And yet we have users who argue that we should accept the presence of unhelpful, counterfactual, and even dangerous answers on the reference desk. Those are all examples lower-quality content than we could produce. -- SCZenz 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel like we're arguing in circles because you never really connected my comment at 21:12 with my comment at 20:50. To me, this is all one conversation, and you';ve gone off on a peculiar tangent since 21:12. -- SCZenz 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Which users have argued for the inclusion of unhelpful, counterfactual, and dangerous answers? Anyone who would argue for such a thing no doubt would disagree with these labels in the first place. Vranak

I believe recently we've read arguments that potentially-dangerous medical advice isn't a big deal. Several users have argued that their answers don't need to be verifiable upon request, made jokes that get in the way of answering the question, argued their opinion in place of answering the question, or claimed that their own guesses are equally as valuable as answers based on references; all of these things are promoting unhelpful and lower-quality content. (I refrain from naming names because it's unnecessary, not because I can't, as I'm sure you canguess.) Furthermore, earlier in this conversation you said: "But there's also the idea that Wikipedia is its users; Wikipedia is humanity. Getting embarrassed over its content might mean that you've subconsciously 'taken ownership' of the project, viewing regulars as the employees and everyone else as its clients"... I took this to mean that you see my efforts to require high-quality answers as imposing my own peculiar values on the project—i.e. that you would like to keep everyone involved at the price of giving up on quality standards. If that's not what you meant, please clarify. -- SCZenz 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonono... I think misunderstandings might be preventing useful and cordial discussion, so I'll just sit down and be quiet now. I'm sure that we're all after the same things here: a good Wikipedia, a good reference desk, useable and not-too-harsh rules, inclusion of as many Wikipedians as possible. At any rate there's no hurry to work out every little niggle of disagreement. :) Vranak

A suggestion

I don't know if you'll find this silly, but I got this idea, which I hope can be helpful. Why not have a template that users who post medical advice can use to forgo their rights? It would be something like "By signing this template, I acknowledge that I am fully responsible for the consequences of any actions I take based on advice provided on this RD. I waive any and all rights to take legal action against any answerer, etc...." This way, both answerers and Wikipedia are fully protected. (Of course, the wording will take time to refine, and would have to be reviewed by a lawyer). Questions asking for medical advice without posting this template would simply be deleted on sight. I also think it would be best if all questions regarding medical topics (regardless of whether the asker actually requests medical advice) were required to have this template; this way, most of the debate over whether a question explicity asks for medical advice can be avoided. My suggestion is still crude, and I welcome any improvement. Please tell me what you think. —LestatdeLioncourt 14:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. There are no legal issues; as discussed in the last section, Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer means that the WikiMedia Foundation is not liable for what we say here. The reasons not to give medical advice are therefore issues or quality and content: no template will make incorrect, speculative, or dangerous medical advice better, and most of our editors aren't expert enough to tell good medical advice from bad. -- SCZenz 14:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants a website for amateurs to give medical advice, let them go for it. But Wikipedia is not that website. Our purpose here, broadly put, is to educate, not give out wrong information. Friday (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, the purpose of Wikipedia has been and will always be to educate and not provide wrong information. But the fact is people are asking for medical advice and people are giving it. I feel it would be much more logical to face this than to ignore it or leave it to endless debate (particularly in the absence of any clear policy/guidlines for the RD). And, in reponse to SCZenz, I do know that the Wikimedia Foundation is not liable for what we say here, but we are, as I believe someone mentioned a little further up this page.—LestatdeLioncourt 15:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So we can make our own decisions about whether to answer questions that are inappropriately-close to medical advice. But I do not believe we should create a template to encourage this kind of request; after all, this is a page for answering factual questions, not an advice column of any kind. If something that isn't good is happening, we don't have to accept it and organize it; often, it will be better to encourage people (slowly but surely) not to do it. -- SCZenz 15:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From a purely practical standpoint, where are you going to get the lawyer who will review such a template? Brad Patrick – the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer – won't do it, as he's not our lawyer, and he's sensible enough not to offer legal advice to us as individuals. In any case, I'd still prefer to avoid giving medical advice at all – regardless of the number and type of disclaimers – because laypeople shouldn't be practicing medicine, and because any bad advice will still be laid at the feet of the Wikimedia Foundation in the public eye. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I offer this as an open question—Are there any websites or online forums which specifically allow and encourage lay volunteers to answer specific medical questions? If there are, then we can kill two birds with one stone. We can point people who ask medical questions here to an appropriate resource, and we can encourage people who want to (inappropriately) offer their medical advice on Wikipedia to start offering their advice in a forum where it is welcomed. (Of course, if there are no such forums, I hope that such a state of affairs will give people pause and encourage them to consider why that might be the case.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While I can see sending people who want to answer this sort of question there, I don't know how, in good conscience, we could send people to seek such advice. Given that we would know it would be provided by people with little to no medical knowledge/experience and access to few facts about the person asking the question. Again, I am not talking legally, I am talking morally. Skittle 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Skittle has a good point- as tempting as it is to suggest people go elsewhere for this, if I knew of such a site, I could not in good conscience refer anyone to it. There are sites out there full of snake oil and quackery but I personally won't be referring people to those, either. Friday (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair and reasonable points. Mostly I was interested in being able to direct the armchair doctors on this site to offer their advice in a more appropriate venue; on reflection I agree that it would be unethical for us to refer innocent people to such unqualified and untrained individuals. I am also curious about how such sites – if any exist – handle (or pretend to handle) their liability issues. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If such sites do exist I hope they are closely shadowed of other sites, offering an online version of barrels of tar, feathers, brushes, rails and angry townsfolk, all ready to deal with frauds and charlatans in the age old fashion! Clio the Muse 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone aware that we have a general disclaimer which covers this whole 'no medical advice' issue? Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Vranak

Yes. -- SCZenz 12:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that, in theory at least, we could put a link to this disclaimer in front of any medical advice and be quite safe from litigation. Vranak

The point isn't whether or not Wikipedia is safe from litigation. Brad Patrick's position – paraphrased – is that Wikipedia's ass is covered by the existing disclaimers, and that the Foundation doesn't bear legal liability from whatever bad advice armchair doctors try to give here.

There are two or three other problems, which aren't solved quite so neatly.

The first and most important is that encouraging people to come here for advice puts those people at risk of serious harm or death. Just a few hours ago on the Misc Ref Desk we had someone confidently advising a reader that handling liquid mercury "isn't dangerous". While I've seen attempts at medical advice that have been reasonably correct (to my knowledge) the proportion of answers I've seen which encourage risky behaviour, make a faulty diagnosis, or offer an incorrect explanation of a disease's causes is...not comforting. Offering false confidence or a false sense of alarm both can have serious negative consequences.

A corollary to that is that harmful advice doesn't just harm the person who got it. Recall the Siegenthaler debacle about a year ago, which resulted in a huge amount of media attention for Wikipedia just because one individual's biography had been vandalised and included a hoax accusation. Note that the first Google hits for Siegenthaler – right after our articles – are links to news stories about the hoax. We got a lot of egg on our faces from that, and it resulted in the Biographies of Living Persons policy and a lot of intervention from the highest levels of our administration. That will be nothing compared to the embarrassment, media attention, and loss of goodwill the project will suffer if the media perceives us as having hurt or killed someone (possibly a child) through giving bad medical advice.

Another point is that individuals may still be liable for their actions. You'll have to consult your own lawyer to determine the level of shelter any disclaimers you might add to your remarks will provide—the Foundation's legal counsel isn't responsible for (or interested in) advising or protecting you. In an ugly twist of fate, medical professionals best qualified to give such advice (medical doctors) are most strongly discouraged from doing so in this sort of forum; a disclaimer from a doctor is also least likely to provide a shield from a claim of malpractice. (There's a scholarly article that I've linked to a couple of times now on this talk page which discusses such disclaimers in detail; please find it and read it.)

In a nutshell, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a doctor. We're not interested in blurring that distinction or finding legal loopholes that let us answer medical questions without liability. We provide information, we don't don't diagnose disease. If you want to give unqualified medical advice to unsuspecting people, hide behind a disclaimer to avoid legal liability, and let Wikipedia take the public relations hit...well, this isn't a place you should be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about litigation. However I do care about incorrect responses, and if they're potentially dangerous, this makes it even worse. As many people have pointed out, leaving legal issues aside, we have good reasons to want to avoid people giving medical advice. I have a hard time believing any responsible editor actually disagrees. Friday (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Linking to the disclaimer before offering medical advice is not necessary as we aleady link to the diclaimers at the bottom of every page. Doing it before he advice sends a bad message to potential question answerers i.e. it's OK to give medical advice as long as you link to the disclaimer. That's not a message that we should be sending. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, I do not understand you are taking a personal tone. I do not want to give medical advice. All your arguments are absolutely correct. I have never suggested otherwise. I do not need convincing that the RD should never give medical advice. I was only offering a suggestion to alleviate the debate regarding the issue, in the absence of clear policy. I regret that my suggestion has only spawned more debate. —LestatdeLioncourt 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

LestatdeLioncourt, I can't speak for TenOfAllTrades, but I dont think her or his posts were meant to take a personal tone. Rather, this topic has been raised and re-raised so many times here, and the discussions have become circular (e.g. the whole 'legal' debate), frustration ensues for those who feel that their well-informed and referenced arguments get overlooked. Most of the editors who have expressed their opinions here seem to agree that we shouldn't give medical adive at the reference desks, period. So, as far as I'm concerned, I wont attempt to respond to any of these questions (as specified clearly by TenOfAllTrades) at all. I learned something here, but you shouldn't feel bad about '"spawning" another chapter in this discussion. ---Sluzzelin 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this -- all medical advice with even the faintest whiff of dubiousness is to be killed on sight, by anyone, with no justification needed. I just really resist any kind of categorical imperative... thou shall not dispense advice of a nature related to human health. It's so easy to make a one-size-fits-all rule, which is why I question the wisdom of doing so. Vranak

No. People without medical training shouldn't be practicing medicine, especially not on anonymous individuals (often minors) who haven't even provided an appropriate medical history. Who did you want to judge 'faintest whiff of dubiousness'? I think any medical advice offered by an unqualified layperson to a stranger is dubious. Period.

If anyone wants to play reckless games with strangers' health, they can do it on their own website. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are all absolutely correct. I apologize for "re-raising" the debate around this issue. I realize how frustrating it can be to go in circles, as Sluzzelin put it, especially on topics of this nature. My intention was to prevent more debate like the one that took place between me and Hipocrite, which also followed the same circular trajectory. Most of us agree that it's in the best interest of Wikipedia and its editors that the RD not allow medical advice questions/answers, but shouldn't we have a well-defined/formulated/detailed policy about that? My hope is that having a concrete set of guidlines will cut down the debate. Instead of arguing with seemingly unilateral arguments, we can just point to specific sections of the policy. —LestatdeLioncourt 11:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a well-formed set of guidelines, and I support work on them—and I also note that there's no need for you to apologize for bringing up a subject that's worth discussing. But the reference desk, according to its own header, is not an advice page; therefore anyone who dispenses advice of any kind is misusing the page already. I have no problem with being lenient about this at times, but medical advice is dangerous, so we deal aggressively with it. -- SCZenz 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you support my move for a policy. Of course I know that the RD says that it isn't a place for medical advice, but like all policies that can be summed up in a nutshell, there's gotta be more clarification. For example, the WP:OR policy says you can't post original research, but how would you like it if that were the entire policy? No clarification, no detail, just "no OR". Hence the need for a medical advice policy. —LestatdeLioncourt 12:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be a long policy; I think the important points can be fit into a small subsection of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, and that the section should perhaps cover broadly advice of all kinds. -- SCZenz 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Length is not an issue. We can have a medical advice subsection of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, right? —LestatdeLioncourt 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Conveniently, a draft of such a guideline exists in the most recent archive of this page. See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_22#Dealing_with_medical_questions. It provides rules of thumb to help identify a question seeking medical advice, rather than (permissible) questions which simply relate to medicine. Feel free to copy and manipulate any or all of that text. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually left a comment there, but no one responded so I assumed that the discussion was no longer active. Still, it's really nice of you to provide this help. I will chance my luck and ask for some more, because I have never been involved with drafting policies, so I'm not sure of the protocol. Is this an appropriate time to make the proposal at the RD/guidlines talk page? —LestatdeLioncourt 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit the guideline if you wish- the more help we get, the better it will be. Or make a suggestion on the talk page if you prefer not to edit the guideline page. Friday (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think editing the guidlines immmediately is a good idea. I'd rather propose the new guidlines at the talk page first to gather consensus. TenOfAllTrade's guidlines are pretty much comprehensive and very reasonable, so I don't think they'll run into significant opposition. We'll see :) —LestatdeLioncourt 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Meta--question moved from Science desk

Moved from science desk since it's not an RD question. -- SCZenz 12:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

how come

this reference deks is the only one with a sense of humour? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.3.207 (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't know, but I would hazzard a guess that if you're at all involved in science you need to have a sense of humor - the ability to have a good laugh at yourself when you realise that the data you've been working on for two weeks turns out to be noise... otherwise you would go mad! --Neo 12:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no big deal, but in my opinion this particular question could have stayed on the science desk, inspite of self-referentiality. At any rate, I don't think it belongs here. It's not about what belongs on the reference desk and what doesn't, and it's not specifically about how we could or should handle the reference desk, its archiving, trolls etc. You do have a valid point in that the question invited for a "discussion of the Reference Desks", in compliance with the template at the top of this talk page, but moving the question here does the original poster no service, as the question was directed at the people who read the science desk, not at the people who read the talk page. Just my two cents. ---Sluzzelin 13:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The key point is that it is certainly not a science question, and the science reference desk is certainly not a place to have general discussions with "the people who read the science desk," so it doesn't belong there. Maybe I shouldn't have put it here either, but people seem to prefer that anything removed from the ref desks go here instead. -- SCZenz 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the person had asked "Why do people working in the scientific field have a weird sense of humor?", would it have been acceptable to leave this at the science desk? I think it would have, since this would be a behavioral question on scientists. I know this wasn't the question, and all I'm saying is that not every question can be clearly assigned to a particular desk. So, if one of the fuzzier ones gets "misplaced" in the strict sense of our desk titles, then it wouldn't hurt to leave it there. But maybe I'm wrong. ---Sluzzelin 21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your example might make more sense to keep, yes. The real trouble with "how come this reference deks is the only one with a sense of humour?" is that it is not a factual question to which reliable sources can possibly be applied—questions about Wikipedia belong properly on the help desk, whereas the reference desks (like articles) are for information about the real world. Thus there's no better reference desk than science—the issue is that the question isn't answerable factually from sources or Wikipedia articles, not that it was on the wrong desk. -- SCZenz 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, to tell the truth, because of the question's tone, I didn't really mind your move that much. (Implying that all the other desks lack any sense of humor isn't nice). If, however, the question had been something like "Why does the science reference desk have such a wonderful sense of humor", I hope the question would have remained unmoved and invited people to give references on geek humor, the ebullience of scientific geniuses, and perhaps some Garylarsonesque speculation demonstrating the self-referential question at hand in a self-referential way. I'd always advocate getting the most out of a question in a sense and spirit on which, I speculate, you and I are in complete agreement. So no opposition to the move per se, but an appeal to always seeing the answerable part in a question, no matter how awkward or exceptional the latter might be. ---Sluzzelin 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's about the reference desk, there can't possibly be any references. Getting the most out of a question is one thing; stretching it to mean something completely different is another. -- SCZenz 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of questions asked here are anecdotal and get answered with references to generalizations, be they more essayistic (but notable) or in the form of collected emprical data. But I guess you're right, there's no point in speculating. Case by case, questionable questions will be discussed on their own merit, and since my only disagreement here is speculative, I'd best leave it at that. :) ---Sluzzelin 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed

I removed a bit of pro/anti-Abraham Lincoln soapboxing from the entertainment desk. Friday (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal but appreciate you noting it here and will not reverse it. t h b 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

While on the subject: this is arguably in answer the question, but do you think this and this were good responses? Take a look at this thread on ANI if you think it's not likely to cause us problems.—eric 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with THB- it's kind of a weird thing to soapbox about and it's utterly irrelevant to anything so there's really no harm. I wouldn't have deleted it but it's fine. --froth^T 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see this as "zomg 100% removal" but it's not that big of deal one way or the other. --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed this piece of unhelpful not-advice, as it would refelect poorly on the professionalism of the reference desks if read. Please keep meta-discussions on the talk page - don't attempt to prove a WP:POINT through disruption. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Textbook violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If someone disagrees with existing/proposed policies, they should be discussed somewhere appropriate, not converted into snide remarks on a high-traffic public page. -- SCZenz 15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment was promptly restored. No action was taken to stop the restorer from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, dangerously innacurate medical advice was given - [2] - from the msds "Skin absorption is a significant route of potential over-exposure to Mercury." Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the reference desk to remove soapboxing, dangerous inacurate medical advice and arguing with someone providing such. My removal was here. Why is nothing done to stop this dangerous disruption of what is supposed to be an informative resource? Are the reference desks more valuable deleted than kept? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The solution to these problems at this time is continued vigilance, and removal of genuinely dangerous threads on sight. Your vigilance is greatly appreciated. If particular users repeatedly restore comments that are dangerous, let me know and you'll have my assistance in bringing the problem to the community at large for appropriate action. -- SCZenz 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed if people are putting back removed content- I thought we were past that now. But, it's true, all we can do is keep our eyes open and do our best. I (and, I suspect, several others) will not look kindly upon disruptive editing, including stubborn re-insertion of removed material. I suggest anyone who sees this leave a note here on the talk page, including diffs of the removal and the restorations. If particular editors prove irredeemably disruptive at the ref desk, we can, if necessary, invite them to not edit those pages anymore. Friday (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Imagemap

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/RD header

I changed the Click image links to Imagemap ones, as has been done on the main page. In doing so I noticed that we don't have nice full-sized svg icons for Literature or Music (Mona Lisa and Musical note icons), only the much smaller png icons. If anyone knows where to find the large icons, that'd be great. Rawling4851 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, whenever someone links to one of the header subpages, people make dozens of little edits all over them >_< See my response at the actual WT page --froth^T 06:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

January 9 Science RD not archived

On WP:RD/S, Days before and after Jan 9 are archived, but that day is still on the live page. What happened? DMacks 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that too. That table of contents is becoming cumbersomely large! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of dangerous incorrect information and argument

StuRat has restored comments that were removed because they contained dangerously-inaccurate information and arguments about whether the information was accurate or not. Tolerating unverifiable statements is one thing; tolerating false and dangerous statements here is quite another. If there is disagreement about whether the edits removed/readded (and removed again, by me) are dangerous, there should be talk page discussion—otherwise, potential danger to our readers seems a very adequate reason to remove comments without first garnering a consensus specific to those comments. -- SCZenz 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends how the mercury is used. I had some put in my mouth the other day! Its still there and will hopefully be there for a long time!--Light current 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) He restored it again. I have reverted, using my administrator's rollback button quite deliberately. I will continue to do so unless there is a community discussion that concludes the information he's restoring is not dangerous to our readers. I've left a note on his talk page asking him to participate rather than further reverting. -- SCZenz 00:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"That MSDS is off the deep end on being overly cautious, IMO"

StuRat - why should anyone care about your opinion on this? This is the reference desk, the clue is in the name. If the MSDS says it's dangerous to touch it, then it's dangerous to touch it, end of story. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't come off sounding very polite. Please, let's try to be civil. Vranak

It sounds exasperated to me. I wonder why...? -- SCZenz 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if you think someone is behaving idiotically, it's good practice never to imply such, let alone say it. Vranak

Enough tangent already.. ;-) I'll reply on your talk page. -- SCZenz 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vrank is taking my comment in a way I never intended. Since StuRat hasn't commented I hope I can clarify my point before he does and save him from taking it the wrong way too. What I meant was - StuRats opinion on the safety of something is not important, nor is mine, nor is is SCZenz, or Vranak or anyone's. We must defer to references here.If the MSDS says it's dangerous to touch it, who are any of we to think we can dismiss that? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. But... let's not accord the MSDS reverential status. The FDA says it's fine to eat trans fats, but that doesn't make it so. The MSDS says it's not OK to handle liquid mercury, but that doesn't make it so. For our purposes here at the desk, sure, the MSDS's word can and should be taken for granted... but it's good to remember it was written by people, just like you and I. :) Vranak

Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability. The information Wikipedia produces is based on reliable sources, not on the opinions of editors; we have no better way to judge what's true than sources, and so we use them. Neither you nor I can change that. -- SCZenz 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vranak, the recommendations and guidelines issued by organizations you mentioned do get reviewed and criticized, by scientists, doctors, and institutions in the field of science, as well as by notable individuals and organizations outside the scientific realm. In my view, it would be perfectly appropriate to also mention a referenced criticism or opposing view with regards to the scientific and/or governmental mainstream, even if it's from a site on the esoteric fringe. ---Sluzzelin 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute either of the above posts. Vranak

Quite apart from whether mercury is safe to handle, I have to raise an issue that's been bothering me over the past few days: loaded language. When a person opens (or continues) a discussion with a string of words like 'dangerous', 'incorrect', 'wrong' and the like, with strong associations with badness, it is not so much an appeal to your audience's faculty of reason, it's practically telling them how to feel. It's stacking the deck, language-wise. To take a position contrary to a person using such terms is not really possible, otherwise you come off sounding like an advocate of reckless, irresponsible behaviour. If you question the original phrasing, you sound confrontational and contrarian. It's a no-win situation. If the argument is really so strong as to justify using such words, just state the facts and let the audience decide for themselves.

SCZenz this comment is not directed specifically at you; I just wanted to get this off my chest. I am not accusing anyone of intentional wrong-doing. I know everyone here means well. Loaded language is a very, very widespread phenomenon, and not just on Wikipedia.

Of course I can hear the outcry already: but Vranak, his advice was dangerous and incorrect! I'm not so certain of that. StuRat has made a good case at his talk page, at least, a good enough case that use of these terms is perhaps a little premature. Vranak

Loaded words are bad if overused, but appropriate if they are descriptive. This situation is quite simple, and simple clear language is appropriate. Theresa has it right: if the Material Safety Data Sheet says it dangerous [3], the Wikipedia Reference Desk simply will not say otherwise. I promise you that. -- SCZenz 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The MSDS is pretty much the standard reference of safety of substances. You would pretty much need the Royal Society of Chemists, in conjunction with doctors who were expert in heavy metal poisoning, to testify otherwise before we could say "Go ahead and touch that mercury". Nobody is saying "One touch and your dead", but it is dangerous, and the MSDS tells us it is absorbed through the skin in significant quantities. You wouldn't tell someone it's okay to put it in their mouth, although it wouldn't kill them immediately. You wouldn't tell them it's okay to eat lead paint, although that wouldn't kill them immediately. Skittle 01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. For what it's worth – next to nothing – my high school physics teacher rolled around a globule of liquid mercury in his hand in a demonstration for our physics class. It's probably best to classify it as something you shouldn't handle needlessly... but don't expect to carry out a successful suicide with it, either. Vranak

And my chemistry teacher used to encourage us to sniff from his bottle of benzene since "how else would you know what it smells like?"... Skittle 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact, I'd be equally wary of dozens of common food additives (e.g. trans fats, sodium benzoate, BHT, EDTA) as benzene fumes or slight mercury absorption, simply because they are so ubiquitious. They may not be as lethal per unit volume, but if you eat a lot of processed foods, it can really add up. Plus, this stuff has been sanctioned by the FDA (though perhaps not for much longer), which gives an air of legitmacy. Vranak

While I am pleased that StuRat has taken a more moderate stance on his talk page, he has been edit warring on the Desk to reinsert the bald statement of his that "Touching mercury in it's[sic] liquid state isn't dangerous, but ingesting it, or inhaling it in it's vapor state, are dangerous."[4].

That advice is dangerous and incorrect; it's an excellent example of setting someone up for a case of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. Except in particularly sensitive individuals, a single skin exposure to a few drops of mercury is indeed likely to cause no lasting harm. However, someone working from StuRat's advice alone is apt to believe that they can wallow in the liquid for hours at a time without deleterious effects.

For that matter, individuals can be exposed to the vapour without realizing it ('I don't smell anything, there must not be any mercury in the air over this puddle of liquid metal...') and again have a false sense of security based on StuRat's statement. The toxic effects of mercury can also take a long time to appear; sometimes weeks or months can elapse between exposure and symptoms. A person can receive a dangerous, even deadly, dose and perceive absolutely nothing out of the ordinary at the time.

One of my colleagues calls it 'Old German Chemist Syndrome' (OGCS). It comes from her observation that nearly every university's science department will have at least one Old German Chemist (OGC) whose favourite response to the question "Is this substance harmful?" is a smiling "Of course not! You could drink that!". One receives this answer for virtually every liquid, from distilled water, to cell culture medium, to ether, to 1 molar sulfuric acid, to copper sulfate solutions, to tincture of iodine, to the goo in the bottom of the coffeemaker.

Those afflicted with OGCS will tend to reserve any expression of caution or concern for only the most highly toxic or unstable substances: concentrated potassium cyanide solutions, fuming nitric acid, diethyl ether peroxide, or molten cesium. The OGC obviously doesn't mean literally that the former liquids are harmless or that the latter are the only dangerous substances in the lab. The OGC simply assumes that the person asking the question is reasonably familiar with some chemistry, maybe has read the MSDS, and just knows what they're doing in general. The OGC saves the dire warnings for the stuff that a regular, novice chemist might want to be particularly careful of.

So, in this case, we're talking about handling liquid mercury. The OGC says, "Bah! It's harmless!" and his specialized, highly-trained audience understands. The Reference Desk responder, speaking to a lay audience, needs to be more careful: "Short periods of contact with small amounts of liquid mercury probably won't do lasting harm. Long term exposure to liquid mercury or its vapours is potentially risky, and may result in neurotoxic effects. Try to minimize your exposure, and reduce it to zero if at all possible." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bah, vimps! I used to consume gallons of mercury veeth my muesli every morning. -- Old German Chemist 02:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Prettification on the RD front page

The ugly white background behind the desk icons is now light grey and has a nice border. Also I revised basically all of the "supplemental" desks' descriptions because they were way too long. And I moved the "Help" metalink up a couple pixels, and changed various margins. --froth^T 08:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Something nifty

Also I found something nifty that our sister desk came up with last year.. it's a convenient and attractive way to link into the encyclopedia from time-to-time on the desks. Check it out. --froth^T 08:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Soon to be deleted?

It's about time someone deleted the extremely outdated Association of Ref-Desk Volunteers page. Anyone know a meta admin? --froth^T 08:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MFD Anchoress 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't work, since the meta page is not on English Wikipedia. Since it's easier than finding a meta-admin, I just replaced the page with a note saying it's outdated. It's a wiki wiki world! -- SCZenz 23:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Misc Desk

There are so many questions in the Misc Desk which could be moved to the more appropriate desks. We have been very displined in moving questions to the Entertainment Desk from Humanities desk. I suggest we use the same strategy for the misc desk and move questions into Humanities, Science, etc. --Parker007 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions concerning cinema

For questions concerning movies, actors, directors, etc., perhaps we should add http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000001/threads/ as an external link? It's a forum board called "I Need To Know" on imdb.com. Faustus Tacitus 07:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to register in order to file a question or participate. ---Sluzzelin 12:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's awfully prohibitive to the average OP. Feel free to make a template out of it though and use it in your responses --froth^T 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Searching copyvio

(Question moved to computing desk)

Im back!!!

So did anyone honestly notice any improvement in the Rd pages and RD talk whilst I was away. Be completely honest now!!--Light current 02:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that I had a significantly increased burden of keeping it light and lively. ;-) V-Man737 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah well done!--Light current 02:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do admit to trying to answer 1 Q on RF loads, but I believe that was my only ineraction in about 10 days (tho I could be wrong)--Light current 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Back from where? L c, you are in danger of having more final final appearances than the late Princess Diana! Clio the Muse 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From my abscence from here. Did you not notice I wasnt here?--Light current 08:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes; but you come and go with astonishing regularity! You begin to remind me of Sir Percy Blakeney-They seek him here, they seek him there, those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven? Is he in hell? That damned, elusive Pimpernel. Clio the Muse 08:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this was a test to see if people thought RD talk was less dsrupted without me. WDYT?--Light current 09:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never found you particularly disruptive, but we tend not to tread the same paths; so I suppose I am not really in a position to comment. I do confess, though, that some of the threads you have initiated in the past have annoyed the hell out of me, though I do my best to ignore provocation! Clio the Muse 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for annoying you. Not my intention to annoy people--Light current 09:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did notice, and yes, imo the misc ref desk was improved by diminished banter, fewer obsessive answers to questions better left alone &c. --Tagishsimon (talk)

OK Would you care to add your name under the 'better hdg' below? Thanks.--Light current 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Polling is evil. --Tagishsimon (talk)

"The late?" Didn't you hear? She's back! *fumbles for tabloid articles* uh... give me a minute... V-Man737 06:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Saaaaaaaaaaaaauce! V-Man737 06:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trapped in the computing desk (top drawer), so I didn't really notice much of a difference. Sorry :( --froth^T 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to answer, but a thread to which I contributed (see "Humanities Desk Mess" below) has been removed in its entirety as being irrelevant to what this page is about. I fear that for the same reason this one is due for the same treatment before long, and I wouldn't want to waste my vote. :) JackofOz 03:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is RD talk better, worse, or just as bad without Light current?

--Light current 09:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Removed to my talk to counter the attack of 'attention seeking'. Please put your comments on my talk page. Thanks--Light current 10:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS

No one is answering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Dopamine_reuptake_inhibitor_.28Want_References.29 --Parker007 07:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

dun did. ^_^ V-Man737 07:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

hey thnx for replying. I have asked a clarification below. I hope you won't mind answering. Thnx again. --Parker007 07:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Humanities desk mess

(Beleeted per consensus; apologies if opposition didn't get a chance to make itself known.)

Beleeted? That's a new one. JackofOz 05:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It is a vague Homestar Runner reference. I can't help meself!!!1 V-Man737 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)