Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Yahoo answers

Interesting article on yahoo answers from a librarian's perspective. Mentions Wikipedia a bit. [1]. Friday (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - it mentions Wikipedia - but it doesn't mention the reference desks WITHIN Wikipedia - so it's comparison is flawed. However, I don't think the reference desk could cope with 120 million users and 400 million answers per year!! SteveBaker (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The ref desks are obviously superior to Yahoo! Answers anyway. There's no age limit, no idiotic point/level system, we've been around longer, and you don't need to actually join. Besides, once you stay around, you can easily make friends. bibliomaniac15 05:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, how easy is it for a confused newbie to actually stumble across the reference desk? I don't even remember how I found my way here in the first place...Someguy1221 (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Main page/Questions/Reference Desks. I don't remember how I found this, either. I seem to remember stumbling upon it. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There is alo a direct link from the Main Page, in the section "Other areas of Wikipedia". The page Help:Contents linked to by the link "Help" above the search box also contains a link, as does, in a less conspicuous way, the page Wikipedia:About likewise linked to by "About Wikipedia". There are many other ways, but these are the shortest routes I know of.  --Lambiam 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The thing I thought was relevant to us was that in Yahoo they make little effort to ensure that answers provided are useful and accurate. And, apparently, it really shows in the quality of their answers. Maybe this is something to keep in mind the next time we get someone whining about their "right" to answer questions however they want. Friday (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The science answers on Yahoo Answers are a joke. I had a thread full of people telling me that it's very dark inside a black hole. --ffroth 23:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, isn't it?  ;-) hydnjo talk 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
So ideally, yahoo answers could serve as an anti-model of this reference desk, where most volunteers do seem to care about the quality of their responses, and also keep the fact in mind that all answers are chiseled in stone and will be archived forever. I've googled for external reviews of Wikipedia's reference desk before, but no one has noticed this service yet. :-) Omphaloskepsis is thus forced upon us, and, for froth's direct comparison, here's a selection of how much light we were able to shed into black holes throughout the past 45 months:
---Sluzzelin talk 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do the OP's come back?

I'm continually surprised at the number of times we'll ask the OP a clarifying question...perhaps even a very simple one...and never hear back from them. It bothers me that this might suggest that a lot of people are asking questions and then never coming back to check for answers. Taken together with the fact that relatively few OP's ever tell us whether our answer was what they were looking for or thank us for our efforts - this is rather disturbing.

I wonder whether we should consider setting up a survey sometime - ask people to reply somewhere after a few days - let them tell us whether the answer was good, bad, whatever. It would be nice to do this (say) once a year for each of the desks so we could track whether we're improving gradually or doing worse than we think.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the survey one way or another. However, I can note that I get at least one note (either on my talk page or via email) each week telling me thanks for answering a question. For me, that outweighs the frequent negative and usually curse-laden comments I receive. -- kainaw™ 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I honestly do not think it matters if people respond or not, though I have had lots and lots of nice feedback, both direct and indirect. I would like to think that a good answer is there not just for the benefit of the person who placed the question in the first place but any casual readers who may have an interest in the matter under consideration. Besides, I'm not at all sure that your proposed survey would necessarily elicit the kind of response you are looking for. Those who take this sort of thing seriously will; those who don't won't! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with being thanked...that's not necessary - and it's not the point of what I'm saying. I'm just concerned that perhaps a lot of questions are being asked - then the questioner never comes back to read the answer (which would be an awful waste of everone's time!). The REASON I suspect this is the very small probability of getting a "Thank you" - and the very common case where one asks for a clarification of the question - and the OP never does provide that. Kainaw's one thank-you followup PER WEEK (over perhaps 50 questions we've answered on each of half a dozen desks) is not enough to disprove this theory. I'm concerned that the problem (if indeed there is a problem) may be because by the time they come back, the question has been archived - or perhaps the thread has 'gone cold' and their follow-up is never actually read by us. It would be nice to have some idea what's going on with our questioners in order that we may consider some aspect of what we are doing here is in fact messing things up horribly. It would be awful to imagine that 90% of our answers went unread...yet we have no evidence that more than 10% of our OP's actually read the reply because only about 10% of them ever contribute back into the thread they started. (I sure hope it's more than 10% who actually read the replies! But even if it were 50%, I'd be very worried.) SteveBaker (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I dare say that it's impossible for 90% of our answers go unread—I'm sure I read nearly 100% of the answers that are posted on Science and Misc, and I'm sure Clio reads all the Humanities posts. Kurt keeps a close eye on any bird-related material. Do some answers go unread by the original posters? Oh, probably. Am I going to lose sleep over it? Nope. Short of actually paying someone to sit here and answer questions, there's no way I can see to get responses that are much faster and more thorough than the ones we already deliver.
Even in cases where the original poster might not read our response, it's not necessarily a total loss. I've lost track of the number of interesting things I've learned from both the answers and the discussions that have taken place here. And of course the questions that we have difficulty answering are the ones that point out to us the areas where we need to improve the encyclopedia&mndash;something I've done dozens (hundreds?) of times based on Ref Desk questions. What can I say? I'm an admin on Wikipedia—I'm used to the idea that much of the good we do will go unremarked and unacknowledged, that we'll get screamed at if we screw up, and that this project is worth contributing to anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
And it keeps me & TenOfAllTrades off the street. That's a public service ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's because the majority of people do not know how to add follow up information. There is a big link that says "Ask a new question", but no instructions on how to add feedback. The little edit button, "::" indenting, and all that is hardly accessible. Maybe a little bit of instruction, but at the end of the day, it's a wikipage not a discussion board and never will be (since this is asked often enough at VP and the answer is always no). Caffm8 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical advice double standard

This post was just put on the RD. Nobody has jumped on it as a request for medical advice. It is possible that the person has throat cancer. It is possible the person has been exposed to asbestos. It is possible that the person has pneumonia and is about to die. Yet, by answering this question, it is possible that someone could cause the person to either stop taking aspirin as prescribed by a doctor for heart disease or start taking massive amounts of aspirin and adversely affect some other medication he or she is taking. So, providing an answer here could be DISASTEROUS! How is it that this is a "safe" question and "What helps a person burp?" is a banned request for medical advice? All I see is a terrible double-standard. When someone wants to call it medical advice, they absolutely refuse to comprehend anything different. When they don't think it is medical advice, they absolutely refuse to comprehend anything different. -- kainaw™ 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree, I'm afraid. Assuming good faith, there is no reason to believe the question is anything other than a request for information to help improve the Aspirin article, or perhaps a student attempting to learn more about the mechanism of Aspirin action. Nowhere does the OP say he or she has personal symptoms, nowhere do the ask for advice on how to alleviate those. If you are suggesting we do not answer questions because of a possibility it might be inspired by a medical symptom then we may as well stop answering every question that is related to human biology. I, personally, didn't have an issue with the answers to the burping question, but there is a key difference: that question was phrased specifically: "Whenever I have a stomach full of gas, I have a hard time burping it out." Rockpocket 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I answered the aspirin question - by referring to the British National Formulary. I think we might consider, when a question is borderline medical advice, provoding links to eg the BNF (free access to anyone who registers) or NHSDirect, with a suggestion that these in conjunction with asking a pharmacist or GP would be better sources than Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I (the OP) wrote the question that did no more than ask for information. Indeed it essentially asked for clarification of articles in Wikipedia which contradicted each other (which I just happened to be reading for no reason). As has recently been discussed here if the main article can provide "medical information" the same type of information could be provided here. (Though I'm not sure if there was a conclusion reached), in any case providing cited reliable sources shouldn't ever really be a problem.

It seems like some sort reductio ad absurdum by citing this question as an example of policy, and I'm not sure whether or not your conclusion is that "there should be no rules" or "there can be no exceptions". I suppose I could look up the page a bit to see your opinions from the last time it was debated. Caffm8 (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested replacement wording for medical and legal advice warning

In the section Wikipedia talk:Reference Desk#Medical and legal advice policy based on a misconception, I suggest a change to the wording for the warning about medical and legal advice on top of the RD pages. My suggested wording reflects that this is an ethical rather than a legal issue. I am not personally suggesting that we OK medical and legal advice questions. But someone who does object to the policy could very easily make a case that since we don't claim to be doctors (or lawyers) and aren't charging people for our advice, there may be no legal reason why we can't answer those questions. After all, if you go into work with a cold and people recommend chicken soup, they aren't breaking the law.

Therefore, I suggest removing references to regulation from the warning. Instead, we should say the following:

  • Do not request medical or legal advice. People who respond to Reference Desk questions may not be qualified to answer such inquiries. To avoid the risk of harm coming to users from following uninformed advice on medical or legal issues, such questions may be removed.

I bring this up again because this discussion got lost in the shuffle up above. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been discussing this in many areas of Wikipedia recently because I am rather disgusted with the common interpretation of this rule. As it is currently interpreted by those who have responded to me, it should be:
  • Do not request anything related to medicine or biology if it, in any way, is something that you could possibly, even irrationally, use as a factor in making decisions about your health and well being.
What I believe it should be:
  • Do not request medical advice for diagnosis or treatment of any possible condition that is not being handled by a medical professional. The users here are not medical professionals and can only provide general information, not specific diagnosis or treatment plans.
The big issue is that I believe we should freely point people to qualified information that exists but we should not attempt to diagnose or treat any problems that they have. I haven't found anyone else here who believes we should provide qualified information. The rule is that we should block any and all attempts to get medical information out of the RD. -- kainaw™ 04:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Your disgust is misplaced and counter-productive. Your interpretation of the "common interpretation of this rule" is inaccurate, maybe because it is colored by that very disgust, and maybe because you are on a holy crusade and any excess is righteous in the service of your noble cause. Those who might wish to debate the matter with you will be put off by your disgust; they will naturally not want to interact with someone who feels disgust at their point of view before they've even expressed it. Also, it looks a lot like defensiveness, and when I see myself being defensive, I step back and take a hard look at my position to see if I'm being pigheaded. I'm not trying to be a dick, here; this is what I'm thinking in reply to your post.
On a more substantive note, I see the problem as one of personal judgement. I have been trying to apply the rules according to my lights, which is all any of us can do. I've been overruled every time, I believe. I also believe I was right every time. Your suggestion doesn't help in that regard. You are calling for everyone to apply that judgement you personally consider sound, that's all. For example, an OP (what the hell does that stand for?) brings up a problem with his eyes. We refer him to various articles that leave him believing that he's diagnosed his eye problem. It turns out he's got some rare disorder that has as one of its occasional symptoms the eye problem he asked us about, but none of us has heard of that. We'd have done him a disservice by lulling his fears and delaying his visit to a real doctor. We can do example-counterexample all day, but the point is that our judgement is a poor guide as to what does and does not constitute professional advice. But we are stuck applying our judgement when it comes to deciding what is and is not a request for advice. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
OP = original post or original poster. See list of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What I've been repeatedly trying to point out is that your example is a terrible rationalization used to back a weak argument. It can be used for anything - not just medical advice. Just scanning today's questions:
  • A guy asked about the weight of coal above and below the Earth's surface. It could be that he is planning to move large furniture around in an underground bunker and by telling him that things below the surface of the Earth are slightly lighter, he will throw out his back, be unable to work, get fired, and then get angry and return to his workplace and kill everyone in a murder suicide.
  • A guy asked about the capacity that a human can carry. It could be that his is planning a cross-country hike and is planning how much water and food to carry. By getting the figure wrong, we'll either have him pack too much and injure himself or too little and starve to death while lost in the wilderness.
  • A person asked about frogs disappearing. It could be that the person thinks that frogs stop evil spirits from causing cancer and, by giving him reasons why they are disappearing (human development), the person will go on a holy crusade and start burning down suburban neighborhoods.
This can go on and on and on. Making up ridiculous reasons not to answer a request for information is not a valid stance for not answering the request. It assumes bad faith, which is not what we are here to do. -- kainaw™ 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The difference between my example and your is that in my example there already is a problem. I'm not dreaming up a problem. The OP's problem is what he's come to the desk to get advice on. He needs help, and we can't help him because we are not there, for one thing, and we are not doctors, anyway, but a rag-tag collection of blowhards who need to be controlled so we don't make the problem worse.
I've toyed with the idea of volunteering to man a suicide hotline, but I'm afraid I'd do more harm than good. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Kainaw: The difference between giving the guy advice about shovelling coal and giving him advice on his health condition is that the latter is illegal in most places in the world where the former is not. This is why we also have a rule about legal advice. Practicing medicine without a licence is ILLEGAL nearly everywhere - and certainly where Wikimedia is headquartered. If Wikipedians set up the reference desk as a free medical advice center then sooner or later there will be a problem - the HMO's in the USA are very happy to sue anyone and everyone if they think it will save them a buck. They will sue both the respondant (which doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things) and the Wikimedia Foundation (which matters a great deal). We can argue that it's a matter of free speech or that each respondant can decide for her/himself whether they wish to take the risk - but it's not about the individual - it's about the whole of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Commons...the lot. This isn't a matter of what you, the individual want to do - it's a matter of protecting the Wikimedia foundation from legal problems. The practical upshot of repealing our long-standing rules on medical or legal advice would probably be to get the reference desks shut down (which is actually something that quite a lot of Wikipedians would love to happen - so let's not give them any excuse). Frankly, given the choice between an RD that gave out legal and medical advice and no RD at all - I'd vote for the latter because losing one serious multimillion dollar medical lawsuit could wipe Wikipedia off the face of the Internet. Compared to that, reducing the level of service we can provide to a few percent of OP's is a small price to pay. You can come up with messy corner cases and probe the boundaries of what is right and wrong all you like - but that doesn't change the core fact that we MUST NOT give out medical and legal advice or it's the end of the reference desks. SteveBaker (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It is apparent that you aren't understanding my argument in any way. It isn't an argument against giving medical advice. It is an argument about what the definition of "medical advice" is. As for the legal argument - that has been debunked time and time again and I have no interest in rehashing it. I only want to nail down the definition of "medical advice" as more than "If I think it is medical advice, then it doesn't matter what you think." -- kainaw™ 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? I answered your immediately previous comment. You wanted to know why the shovelling coal thing was any different than full-blown medical advice - and I told you. Also, I strongly disagree that the legal argument has been debunked. It's been argued against - but never remotely successfully IMHO.
Anyway - to answer your plea for a precise definition. I also wish we had one - but I think that's very difficult. When you're talking about individuals and written English, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solidly testable definition. I would say that we wish to avoid answering a question if the OP is seeking the answer in order to apply it to a recent, existing or soon-to-exist condition of a particular individual or group. But that's judging the intent of the OP - which is tough. Just as with the "Do your own homework" situation, it's often small, subtle cues that tell you whether it's a general question out of biological curiosity - or whether it's an attempt to find out whether they are sick or not.
The difference between this case and the DYOH case is that we must err on the side of caution - not on the side of politeness or the assumption that the person is asking in good faith - the consequences of getting it wrong are much more serious than accidentally giving a kid an A+ when he deserved a C-. If we even suspect that this might be someone asking whether they are sick or not, or what to do about it - then we have to be extremely circumspect about how we answer.
However, since many people pop up from nowhere to answer these questions (almost certainly without reading our guidelines) then it's safer to simply delete the question rather than letting each respondant choose their own course as I advocated (above) for the DYOH case.
Providing a diagnosis or a suggested treatment or an opinion about the future course of their illness - these are things that you can't do without a medical license in most places. If someone is seeking basic, background information out of general curiosity or because they need it to write a book or to understand something in the abstract - then I have no problem with that - providing we err on the side of caution. It's when there is any chance that they are going to act on the information to treat someone (or not) that we have to be most careful.
But turning that into a formal definition that people can wikilawyer about is dangerous IMHO.
Personally, I don't see why we need to debate this. Where is the pressing NEED to answer these kinds of borderline question? If it's borderline - chuck it out. We can be an everything-except-medical-and-legal Reference Desk and still provide an extremely valuable service. Sure it's an omission - but we won't come around to your house and mend your car for you either. Why would anyone expect us to do everything? SteveBaker (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am going to confine this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines/Medical_advice#Medical_advice_vs._medical_information since it is too confusing to have it appearing all over the place. -- kainaw™ 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the original question

Can we please all come back to the question posed by the OOTC (Originator Of This Thread), namely, whether we support a replacement text aimed at questioners (an issue to which the appropriateness of the – possibly overeager – behaviour of question responders and removers is not particularly germane)? I have repeated the proposed text below. For easy comparison, I also give the present text, all made festive by the application of the Season's colours  --Lambiam 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Present text:

  • Do not request regulated professional advice. If you want to ask advice that "offline" would only be given by a member of a licensed and regulated profession (medical, legal, veterinary, etc.), do not ask it here. Any such questions may be removed. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and/or Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian or lawyer instead.

Proposed replacement text:

  • Do not request medical or legal advice. People who respond to Reference Desk questions may not be qualified to answer such inquiries. To avoid the risk of harm coming to users from following uninformed advice on medical or legal issues, such questions may be removed.

Support:

  • I can live with this  --Lambiam 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems like that phrasing is better aligned with both our intent and current. practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • ...with reservations (I don't much like the original). It's not stiff enough. <sarcasm>How about "Thank you for not asking for medical or legal advice. Have a ♥ nice ♥ day:)."</sarcasm> It pussyfoots around the real reason we can't answer, and it therefore comes off coy. It should be stern, and if legality is the issue, it should cite some law or other. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Other/Comments:

  • The links to the disclaimers should be retained. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with this is that it does not define "medical advice." It leaves it up to the random users to make their own definition. It appears to me that everyone thinks the entire world population except me has the exact same definition in mind, but I disagree. There are many interpretations of this issue. Milkbreath just pointed out that medical conditions are existing problems, but anti-social conditions (such as hunting down rationalizations to burn houses) are not. Does everyone agree? No. In fact, Milkbreath certainly feels that I've just completely misrepresented his comment. That is why I keep harping about the definition. It cannot be based on a feeling. It must be defined. -- kainaw™ 15:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've BOLDly added a link to Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice for the benefit of anyone who seeks more detail. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Finding a precise definition is a separate matter. I'd like it to be something along the lines of banning diagnosing or suggesting treatment...but the resulting definition would be too complex to put in this simple statement. The more words you write here, the smaller the chance of anyone reading them. In this place, we need a simple, clear, one sentence thing that says "Don't ask medical or legal questions because they aren't allowed here." That's all we need to say here. Elsewhere, we can have a full length essay on the topic if we need to. But for the general public, it's got to be kept simple and straightforward. SteveBaker (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
      • We can ask all the medical and legal questions we want, such as "What the proper term for an ENT doctor?" or "I heard Nyquil changed their ingredients, is that true?" or "Do Kansas City, MO and Kansas City, KS have a legal agreement that traffic police can cross the state border to pull you over?" They are all medical/legal questions that do not request any form of advice. -- kainaw™ 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't really like either of them. The second is clearer and simpler - but the reasoning (that we're not qualified to answer) isn't really the point. It's that we're not legally allowed to answer. Even if a fully qualified doctor were to show up here, (which happens quite frequently) we still wouldn't want him/her to start answering medical questions on the RD because if there was a screwup then the Wikimedia Foundation could still get dragged into the courts. SteveBaker (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • ...Though it's more than just a question of whether or not we're legally allowed to answer. My lay understanding is that our policy is actually somewhat stricter than what we could 'get away with' in terms of not illegally engaging in the practice of medicine (or law, for that matter). We're concerned about legal risks certainly, but we're also trying to avoid risks to health (the OP's) and reputation (Wikipedia's). The court of public opinion tends to dispense justice that is a lot faster and sloppier than the stuff you get from real jurists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I seem to remember that a previous incarnation of this perennial debate established that the Foundation is completely legally protected by the medical disclaimer, legal disclaimer, risk disclaimer etc., and that the remaining arguments for having RD guidelines on this issue (which are, after all, unenforced and unenforceable) are (a) its an ethical issue, not just a legal issue; and (b) we should have something more proactive than a disclaimer to hide behind in case an inappropriate RD response generates negative publicity. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Wasn't it brought up that negative publicity goes both ways? A person comes here looking for medical information. It is refused. The person (in ignorance) doesn't go to the doctor and dies. Wikipedia is blamed for refusing to provide medical information. This repeatedly comes to defining the line between information and advice. -- kainaw™ 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Could we have the discussion about the policy in another section? Here we're (trying) to talk about the appropriate wording for the Ref Desk header. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
            • This is the "Comments" section - not the voting section. To answer Kainaw: Refusing to do what we say up-front that we can't do - and (always) replying to erroneously asked questions by saying "Perhaps you should see a doctor" should protect us from bad publicity. "We TOLD YOU "Go see a doctor" and you didn't!!". I don't see how we could get bad publicity from telling someone to see a doctor. However, if someone died of a heart attack after complaining about chest pains and it emerged that one of us had told him: "It's probably just indigestion, don't worry about it"...then we would rightly deserve some seriously bad publicity. To Gandalf61: As for the disclaimer...you can't put up a disclaimer saying that you give yourself the right to act illegally. Such disclaimers are worth NOTHING. I once successfully sued for damage from a supermarket cart slammed into the side of my car by a store employee - their defense was that there was a disclaimer clearly stating that they took no responsibility for such damage. However, it was worthless because they were liable under the law and putting up a sign that says that the law doesn't apply to you doesn't change the law! They ended up paying for the repairs. SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
          • (in response to kainaw) I find this an unconvincing argument. Patient: I have terrible headaches, do I have a brain tumour? Me: Sorry, I am not qualified to make diagnoses, let alone over the internet. Patient: Aargh! (dies). Others: Fi fi fi, Lambiam, by refusing to diagnose this patient's problem, you are guilty of his untimely demise. Woe upon Wikipedia, which functions as a free haven for such criminally unresponsive volunteers.  --Lambiam 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Agree with Lambiam more or less. If a guy comes to wikipedia and says "I have this problem, what do you think it is" and we say "sorry we can't help you, you should see a doctor" and this person choose not to, I think very few people are going to feel we did anything wrong, they will just think the guy's an idiot. People who told the guy to go see a doctor may feel a slight guilty for perhaps not pushing him harder but probably not much. On the other hand, if the same guy comes and people say "well I think you problem is probably XYZ. it's fairly harmless although you might want to see a doctor just in case" and the person doesn't see a doctor presuming that he's okay but he's not and dies, people are much more likely to feel the people who told this guy that he probably had XYZ were a bit dumb to not consider the fact that the guy might not bother to see a doctor because of it. Most people will think he's an idiot as well obviously but this doesn't mean they'll excuse the wikipedians involved. Perhaps the biggest problem is that there is a good chance the people who were foolish enough to give this advice are going to be seriously adversely affected by it and may have strong feelings of guilt. Note that even if this guy was never going to go to the doctor, no one will ever know that. The key thing is we are not a place required or expected to give medical advice. If you go to your GP and tell him/her your symptoms and he/she just tells to see another doctor (not a specialist or someone more experienced in dealing with whatever you may have, just another GP) because he/she doesn't want to take responsibility in case he/she is wrong then yes this doctor will probably get in trouble because he/she is expected to provided medical advice. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
      • (in response to Ten) If by "we" you mean Wikipedia, I believe you're right. If anyone is liable for malpractice because of a wrong diagnosis, it would be the respondent, who went against the guidelines in offering a diagnosis. The conditions for malpratice are, however, not easily fulfilled; I don't think it makes a big legal difference whether you give your uninformed diagnoses over the Internet or orally to someone sitting next to you in a bar.  --Lambiam 16:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (in response to SteveBaker) I think the issue is precisely that we are not qualified to handle medical complaints or legal problems. Perhaps the text should be rephrased as: "If you think you can get good medical or legal advice from random people without any verifiable qualifications or credentials, who may actually be attempting to give you the most detrimental advice their sick minds are capable of coming up with, you're even more stupid than we already thought." However, that is rather lengthy. It is also not very friendly.  --Lambiam 16:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (Response to SteveBaker)Your supermarket example does not apply here because the person who hit your car was an employee of the supermarket. As the disclaimers point out, Wikipedia editors are volunteers and the Foundation has no legal responsibility for their contributions to the site (this applies to articles as well as the RDs): "No consequential damages can be sought against Wikipedia, as it is a voluntary association of individuals developed freely to create various open source online educational, cultural and informational resources". As I recall, the opinion given to us at the time by, I believe, the Foundation's own legal advisor was that the Foundation was legally protected by the disclaimers, and that whatever anyone posted on the RDs or did as a result of reading information on the RDs was done at their own risk. There may be other arguments for having RD guidelines on medical and legal advice, but I am sure that nothing that we do here can put the Foundation at risk of legal action. If you have an authorative opinion that says otherwise, then perhaps you should be raising this with the Foundation itself. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to SteveBaker:

If we couch the policy in strictly legal terms, it's going to be violated and argued about. People know it's perfectly legal to recommend chicken soup to a guy at work who has a cold. They may think giving health or legal advice on Wikipedia is a similar kind of thing. Many people, myself included, doubt that Wikipedia would be violating U.S. law by allowing users to give other users legal or medical advice, since Wikipedia doesn't claim to be a group of doctors or lawyers and it's not charging anyone anything. I don't want to get into an argument over whether it is or is not illegal. I want a policy statement that avoids the whole argument.

Also, it seems the phrase "regulated professional advice" or "regulated advice" is completely meaningless in U.S. law, although common in the British financial-services industry. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar - Vote.

It looks like we're not getting any more suggestions for "The RefDesk Contributor's Barnstar" - so I suggest we vote between the options offered:

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

Please reply with "* '''Support''' (x) ~~~~" to support image (x) above or "* '''Reject''' ...reasons... ~~~~" if you don't like any of them or if you hate the idea of there even being a RefDesk barnstar (or if you are just having a bad day and are feeling generally curmudgeonly!)...if there is one you like but feel a small variation on it would be better, then please support and explain what you think would improve it rather than rejecting. Also, remember that this is an award to be given to worthy contributors - not the 'logo' of the ref-desk itself or anything like that. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support (A) SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (A) but rotate writing by 180° so it starts at the bottom. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (D). ((A) would look nicer with the colours of (E) – but I still prefer (D).)  --Lambiam 15:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (F)(A). I like those two. Of course, I'll never regain a positive reputation to get one - but if I had one, I would like F most. A is nice because of the phrase - which should start at the bottom, not the top. -- kainaw™ 16:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that the text should be rotated 180 - I'll undertake to do that if (A) wins. I think we probably don't need the word 'ac' ('and') either.
  • Reject (all). Who will give these? Ref Desk "regulars" who know about them? It's too clique-y for me. "I refuse to belong, etc etc etc" --LarryMac | Talk 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    They can be awarded by incidental questioners; I got a barnstar that way. Another was given for my RD work by someone who I did not recognize as a regular. There is a page with barnstars from which you can select one to bestow upon the lucky recipient of your choice, should you feel inclined to do so.  --Lambiam 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. You can stick your stupid barnstars up your.... Sorry, I'm trying to quit smoking. Make that support (A). --Milkbreath (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (F)(A). Both are nice. Rockpocket 18:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (D) obviously. In case you haven't noticed, it is no longer the 16th century and nobody speaks fricking latin --ffroth 02:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I kind of like (D), though it looks a bit like Patrick Star playing the accordion behind his back. (B) and (C) look too generic, but then I can't see what (B) represents. Aesthetically, I find (A) the most satisfying one (I'm not fond of the coloring in (E) and (F). The problem with (A) is the motto. It's a mangled version of a poetic reference suggested by Xn4. It lost its recognizability (which, I dare submit, was not that high to begin with :-)) while maintaining a certain self-aggrandizing quality, as perhaps implied by others here. I'd vote for (A) with a better, perhaps not that serious motto (if it's supposed to be read as self-irony, it doesn't quite cut it...). Otherwise, I vote for (D). (By the way, I just read the article on color of the bikeshed ... ---Sluzzelin talk 12:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject (all) - Now of them are really that great. Feels a bit like the lesser of six evils. For those that don't understand (B) see here. TBH I don't think we need a barnstar. (A) and (E) look fishy, (F) looks like a banknote, (B) has no relevence, (C) no, just no, (D) is getting there but would look cooler if you made the books look like a military ribbon and awarded that instead. You should maybe combine with Dwellers thread of the week or a similar idea and award the stars / ribbon internally within the desk, that's assuming we all need to pat one another on the back... Lanfear's Bane | t 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like (A) is winning hands-down - with (F) coming in second. I could try to get more consensus by putting the text of (A) around (F) but in order to fit it all into 100x100 pixels (which ain't much!) I'd have to shrink F down quite a bit - and since it's a much more complicated picture, there is a risk of it becoming a fuzzy blur. Hence I think that keeping with the simpler starfish works better. I could certainly put (E) into (A) (they are actually the same starfish - but with different colouration). As agreed I'll move the text around, juice up the colour a bit and stick up a revised image for comments and final tweaks before I put it up on the main barnstar page. SteveBaker (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion on my watchlist, and not that I'm a regular ref desk contributor anymore, but... F is hard on the eyes. Really. I think it has too many hard edges and to much noise. I feel like my eyes are going to explode. I think it'd be my favorite if the options were to have 400x400 barnstars or something, but as small as it is, its just too much I think, maybe it's not so much the edges, but the lack of white space and the "WTF IS THAT!?!" aspect of it. I don't know. (Should this be moved up with the other votes as a Reject(f)?? If so I give whomever permission, Thanks.) Root4(one) 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a certain "'WTF is that?" quality is rather appropriate for a ref-desk barnstar! DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's the WikiProject Supernovae barnstar obviously :/ --ffroth 02:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
New version - text rotated around, deleted the word 'ac', juiced up the colour a bit, made a transparent background. SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
New version - text rotated around, deleted the word 'ac', juiced up the colour a bit, made a transparent background. SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Actual size.
Actual size.

If there are no objections, I'll add this into the Wiki Barnstar list. SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Yep, go for it, looks good. DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Having trouble peeing?

It might be because you're playing silly bugggers on the Reference Desk. Please stop, and the situation should resolve on its own.

Most questions seeking medical advice are removed from the Desk without comment and without controversy. Occasionally we have a mess, and I think it might be worthwhile to look at what went wrong and what might be done differently in the future. This post mortem is on a question posted under the heading can't wait to pee . . . then can't pee. I have listed all of the edits to the thread here, save for typo corrections and SineBot edits.

  • First post was by an anon about a day and a half ago: [2].
This is something that I have happen a lot (no smart comments here! lol): I'm driving home and part way there, I gotta pee. Of course I have to hold it. The closer I get to home, the worse I have to pee. By the time I get inside and up to the toilet, I can barely hold it any longer. However, once I am in position to actually have a pee . . . it takes forever to begin! Any suggestions (physiologically) as to why this might be?
  • The first response (38 minutes later) [3] came from a fairly new editor, Saukkomies (talk · contribs), who asked a clarifying question ("Are you male or female") to aid in diagnosis. I have referred Saukkomies to the appropriate guidelines.
Second, we have to be careful not to offer any medical advice, if the questioner is a middle aged or older male, other than if it concerns him he should speak to his doctor. [5]
I assume that Edison is trying to rule out prostate cancer. It's a good thought, but young people who have difficulty urinating may also have medical problems requiring intervention.
  • Two hours after SteveBaker closed the thread, Jpgordon (talk · contribs) reopened it, rephrasing the original poster's question as a physiology question but describing identical symptoms: [9].
So physiology questions are now medical questions? OK, let's phrase it obviously as a physiology question. Multiple people have observed that if they refrain from urinating for too long, it is a bit difficult to start the flow going. These are healthy people with no relevant medical problems. What is the physiological basis for this delay?
  • JackofOz (talk · contribs) expressed incredulity at Milkbreath's response: [11]. Both Jack and I have warned Milkbreath not to do this sort of thing again.
  • Froth (talk · contribs) opined that "...it's obviously not a life-threatening illness of some type": [12].
  • Correction (added 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)). The original IP poster was 216.154.21.46, and the question was removed by 24.147.86.187. The OP has reposted his question, this time on the Science Ref Desk.
  • The original IP poster readded his question to the Science Desk, probably because he didn't know what happened to his original question: [13].
  • Kainaw (talk · contribs) responded rapidly (20 minutes) that the OP should seek the advice of a medical professional: [14].
  • Shantavira (talk · contribs) reiterated that advice, and explained to the OP – with reference to the page header instructions – why we couldn't answer his question: [15].
  • Saukkomies decided to offer an opinion on the severity of the problem anyway: [17]. I (TenOfAllTrades) removed it almost immediately ([18]), and offered a further explanation on his talk page of why we avoid giving these sorts of answers.

At no point in the process did any participant use this talk page.

Please add any comments in the next section.

[edit] Having trouble peeing? Have your say

So, this was an epic cock-up. We have

  • Two questions about the OP's basic medical history;
  • One wild guess about mechanism;
  • Three estimates that the symptom was harmless;
  • One admin who ought to know better trying to skirt the rule;
  • One POINTy diagnosis;
  • No attempts to violate the policy in a way that actually referred to useful on- or off-wiki sources;
  • An anonymous IP who's given up on us in frustation.

On the plus side of the ledger, we have

  • JackofOz, who had some sympathy for the OP; and
  • SteveBaker, who actually followed the guidelines.

They both deserve applause. (Heck, they also deserve recognition for using edit summaries.)

So, what caused the rest of the problems? How do we fix them? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the problems, I made a mistake. I didn't consider the OP when I made my pointy reply. Next time, I'll take it to talk. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to extend kudos to Kainaw and Shantavira who handled the OP's repost of the question rapidly, politely, and correctly.

The second time around, we got it just about right. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that deleting the question only causes the OP to post it again. That is why I do not delete the questions. I simply state that we do not answer those questions and tell him/her to see a professional. Deleting the question indicates that there was some weird database error which caused the question to get lost - it does not indicate that the we do not answer it. -- kainaw™ 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the removals can be confusing, especially when no boilerplate template is added. Even then, I think the question's title should remain the same, maybe with "(question removed)" added at the end of the title. I'd support kainaw's suggestion, provided it still would be acceptable to remove subsequent answers offering diagnoses and the lot despite that statement saying that we do not answer them. In any event, back and forth removals and reopenings constitute an edit war, which doesn't suit the desks well. If you disagree with a removal, I think it's preferable to discuss first (either here, or on the remover's talk page) before reinserting. Final point: I believe discussions or comments referring to whether the question is asking for medical advice, on guidelines, as well as on how and if to implement them, should not be held at the desks themselves, but here or on user talk pages. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Removing the title is wrong - it leaves the OP thinking that somehow their post "didn't work". Replying with jokes is dangerous - one man's joke is another man's serious advice to be followed immediately. Do we actually have an official template yet? SteveBaker (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There's Template:RD-deleted. (My current favorite anyway.) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there's generally agreement that the section header should remain; only the question itself should be removed (with an appropriate explanation left in its place). In this particular case, the entire thread was removed by an anonymous IP; I would have corrected the error myself, but I was working under the (mistaken) impression that the person who removed the thread was the original poster. TenOfAllTrades(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar now available for use!

The barnstar is now 'official' (well, I added it to WP:BARNSTARS). To award one, go to the victim's talk page (NOWHERE ELSE!!) and add the following:

 {{subst:The Reference Desk Barnstar|your message ~~~~}}

Replace 'your message' with a sentence or two of explanation and/or thanks.

The result looks like this:

The Reference Desk Barnstar
Awarded for your utter failure to answer any medical or legal questions today. SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question removal protocol?

(An earlier posting went apparently unnoticed over the hubbub about a removed question.)

There is no consensus when it is justified to remove a question, and there probably never will be. But can we at least agree to some protocol? As a first try, I suggest this:

  1. Next to questions for medical advice we only remove questions (including postings that are not really questions) if they are obvious vandalism, in some way harmful (offensive, trolling, meant to inflame), or egregious soapboxing.
  2. An editor who removes a question, removes the whole thread, but leaves the header intact, and adds a text like: "Question removed. See [[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Question on <topic> removed|talk page]]."
  3. On the talk page, they copy the removed thread in a new section and give their rationale for the removal.
  4. Discussion on whether the removal was appropriate takes place there, in that talk page section, with the usual squamosity, omniscience and benevolence that is the hallmark of discussions on this page.
  5. Everyone refrains from restoring the question unless the removal was clearly unreasonable, or it becomes clear that there is consensus that the question should not have been removed.

For clarity, where I write "we only remove questions if" I do not mean "we always remove questions if" or "we must remove questions if".  --Lambiam 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm only a new arrival, I find this a reasonable protocol, with the proviso that talk page discussion focus on (and clearly state the focus as being) the status of the question and try as best as possible to avoid "illustrative" hypothetical answers. It seems to go without saying, but assumptions can be dangerous.
With the direct link from the deleted section to the talk, I'd consider it more likely that readers might chime in on the talk page with the answers they would have given ("How is this bad? It's probably just indigestion!"), accidentally circumventing the point of the policy. --Narapoid (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an advantage to leaving the question in-tact with a response that we do not answer the question. Others will see what was asked and, hopefully, refrain from asking similar questions. If the header is something like "Question I had last night" and all that is left in the thread is "question deleted", it becomes necessary to click to the talk page to see why it was deleted. All in all, I find no problem with having medical questions visible. It is the answers that need to be controlled. At one time, it was believed that deleting the questions would keep bad advice from appearing. That has not worked. The questions are reposted and often answered before properly handled. So, I see no reason to keep with a system that doesn't work. Why not try keeping the question, removing improper answers, and putting notes on the answerer's talk page telling them that they should not provide medical advice on the reference desk. If they continue to do so, it is easy to consider it vandalism. -- kainaw™ 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Leave the title alone - remove the actual question and all of the answers.
  • We need to leave the title intact - unless it (by itself) is horribly offensive/vandalism/whatever. If we remove the entire thing, the OP will assume that they somehow didn't "Save page" and will simply re-ask it - which is definitely not what we want.
  • Leaving the text of the question intact INEVITABLY results in people continuing to try to answer it - you can see that happening many times if you care to wade through the archives. Removing the text of the question forces any potential answerers have to revert in order to provide the answer reasonably - and that's a step that most of us (I hope) would have the sense to question and therefore come here to the talk page.
The questioner ought to be able to find out what happened by finding their title and seeing our deletion notice. For the rest of us, we know to check the discussion page if we imagine that a question was removed inappropriately. Also, anyone who is sufficiently "wiki-savvy" to answer questions and understand our policies in this regard will be sure to know that they can still see the question and all of the answers that were given up to the point of deletion by simply checking the History section. SteveBaker (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If people want to continue breaking the rules and responding, that's their error. Removing the question makes it difficult to tell whether the deletion was justified (always link to a talk page section when removing anything) and anyway it's annoying and anti-wiki; you can always dig through the history (which I usually do since I'm curious) to bypass the removal, so really the only purpose of the removal is to discourage people from answering.. but it's none of our business. It's their problem if they want to continue answering and break the rules. --ffroth 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If the proposed protocol is followed, all a curious reader needs to do to see the removed question is to click the link left in its place. Would you also advocate not removing the various diagnoses, prognoses and recommended treatments that have been offered in the meantime? After all, even though the responders broke our rules, that was "their error".  --Lambiam 10:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The diagnoses, prognoses, and recommended treatments should be moved to the talk page as well. Those who are offering advice should be visible, not hidden. Then, others have the ability to know who they are and work with them on fixing the problem. I feel that hiding the problem doesn't help fix it. -- kainaw™ 13:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That seems like it wouldn't actually support our policy of not offering advice, though. "We're sorry, but we can't offer you medical advice, so your question and the subsequent answers have been removed. They've been copied to the talk page, where you really shouldn't read them, or the subsequent discussion about the nature, quality, and risks of those answers. You definitely shouldn't follow the convenient link that we've provided right here."
What is important is a link to WP:RD/G that explains why the material was deleted. Anyone following up on either their questions or their answers will see that and be able to read why their comment was deleted. Anyone still confused after that might be directed to ask for clarification on this talk page.
For what it's worth, when I remove responses along with a question, I will usually add a note of explanation on the responder's talk page. While I think this is a good practice, I hesitate to make it compulsory. Our imperative to protect (readers, responders, and Wikipedia) is more urgent than our need to lecture. An editor who sees a question seeking medical advice (or worse, answers offering such advice) should feel comfortable removing it from the Desk without being discouraged by a mountain of mandatory paperwork. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not mean to imply that the advice given needs to remain intact. Simply, the list of users who are providing advice should be known so the problem can be handled. It is well known that the history logs contain the advice given so, if necessary, it can be restored. I can see a person, with good intentions, answering medical questions one after another and never going back to see that they've been removed. I would like some method for easily identifying and discussing the issue with them. -- kainaw™ 15:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The currently common practice is that one editor will remove a question, then the next comes along, looks at the question, says: hey, that's not a question for medical advice, and restores it, together with any replies. (Several editors, many of which have been less active lately, have even vehemently insisted that removal required prior discussion and consensus, and have repeatedly restored questions solely because that protocol was not followed.) There is apparently a wild variety in the judgements here: I've seen people arguing that a question was for medical advice while (in my opinion) it clearly wasn't, and (other people) arguing that a question was not for medical advice while (in my opinion) it clearly was. This proposal is aimed at a change of practice that takes this variety of judgements as given. The proposed protocol is meant to strongly encourage editors to discuss before restoring.  --Lambiam 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This discuss before restoring idea always made sense to me; as opposed to the discuss before removing approach. It limits the time an flawed question is visible on the ref desk and still allows a legitimate question to be returned in a timely manner. David D. (Talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The time issue is the problem. OP asks a question. UserA removes it, claiming it asks medical advice. A while later, UserB says it isn't advice and it should be restored. UserA asks for a consensus. A while later, UserC agrees with UserB, but wants more consensus. A while later, UserD agrees that it should be restored. By this time, the day has gone to the archives and the question is restored where nobody sees it and it isn't answered.
I do not feel that the solution is to stop removing questions until they are discussed. I feel that, in this example, the question should have been restored when UserB contended the removal. At that point, there is no consensus either way. Also, there should be a note along with the restoration that medical advice should not be provided as an answer since at least one person sees the question as a request for medical advice. If discussion leads to a consensus to remove, the question can be removed again. Also, I am a proponent for removing medical advice answers and leaving questions intact. Just because someone gives unwarranted advice does not mean the question should be punished. -- kainaw™ 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why the time issue is so important. This is a free service, you really think the OP's will get pissed if their question is not answered immediately? The alternative of a fiasco of answers, which we have seen many times before, is far more of a problem in my opinion. Let's remember that a small fraction of question are actually being pulled. David D. (Talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The question hinges on whether you think that questions are typically removed inappropriately - or typically removed correctly. If there were great hordes of RD folks removing questions that are clearly OK - then I would be suggesting either "Talk before removing" or "If in doubt, restore after removal, then talk". However, that's not the case. Typically, removal is only happening when the case is pretty clear-cut - and a final decision to replace the question almost never happens. That being the case, it's better to "Remove promptly - and replace only after talking about it" because in the majority of cases it removes the question before damage is done. If we truly believe (as I do) that answering these questions is injurious to peoples health (and arguably illegal) - then the pressure must be to remove that risk as quickly as possible and to err on the side of caution.


If someone posts "==Chest pains== I'm having terrible chest pains - what should I do?" and someone replies "It's probably indigestion - don't worry about it! Lol!" - then I'm certainly going to remove both the question and the answer - leave the title so the OP can find it and add "No medical questions here. Please see a doctor" - without waiting for a debate. Truly, it would be unethical to do anything else. If we need to debate that decision, then fine - but "First Do No Harm". I suppose that if a debate about my removal does get started - then it would be OK to add to the "No medical questions here. Please see a doctor", a line that says "The Reference Desk staff are currently debating the validity of your question, if you'd like to join in the debate, please click on this link to the discussion, otherwise look back here in a day or two."...fine - whatever.
If the question ultimately turns out NOT to be about someone's immediate health then there is little harm done by not satisfying their question immediately. Obviously, if there is widespread or obvious abuse of this rule - then we should sanction the abusers and revisit this protocol in the light of that - but right now, we're trying to fix a non-problem. SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) It isn't an issue of "being answered immediately", it is an issue of "being answered at all." When a question is restored to the archives, it is very rare that anyone will see it and even rarer that anyone will answer it. I am only describing the reasoning that I saw for those that Lambiam mentioned to oppose removal of questions until a discussion took place. Discussions take a very long time - usually many days (if not weeks). By that time, the question's spot is in the archives, not on the main reference desk. So, it is terribly incorrect to assume this is a matter of answering the question now or a couple hours from now. -- kainaw™ 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That's actually an extremely easy problem to deal with. In the very rare cases where a question is removed, discussed, and then deemed appropriate for restoration, we restore it to the bottom of the page, as the newest entry. Include a link in the old location and under the old header, pointing to the restored question. Then the OP can find it, and the denizens of the Desk all see it and can answer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAQs

Hi folks. I've mentioned this a few times before, as have other people, but it never seemed to go anywhere. We get certain questions asked over and over again. Sometimes it's just a passing thing like "the three words that end in -gry" (for which we have an article), but others are hardy perennials, such as "what is the hardest language to learn" (for which we don't; and probably shouldn't). We've just had another one, which is what reminded me to say something about it.

What I'm proposing is a set of FAQs for such questions, so that we don't have to keep on reinventing the wheel. Every time it's asked, there's a different subset of respondents, and we get different perspectives - that's all great. Why not put all these views and facts and whatever else into a standard FAQ response? Over time we could refine the answer, and refer people to it immediately whenever they ask. Instead of waiting days for various editors to get the motivation/energy/interest to answer, they'd have a complete and comprehensive answer straight away; and if they have any further questions, they only have to ask. That can only be to the questioner's benefit, and would further enhance our reputation - a classic win-win. For those questions with a twist, we can get into it on the Ref Desk; and then use those responses to inform the FAQ for the future. There'd be nothing to prevent anyone from providing their own separate answer to a question, if they wanted.

These FAQs would nicely complement the encyclopedia articles. They wouldn't have the status or format of articles, and their contents wouldn't have the same constraints as articles do, but they would serve a similar sort of purpose. Just imagine if we had no article on "Charlie Chaplin", and every time someone came along and asked about him, we devoted lots of time and energy to answering the same questions over and over again. Dumb? Sure. That's why we have an article on him; it's all already there. Exactly the same principle with Ref Desk FAQs. I'm not sure where the FAQs would reside in the system, but I'm sure that can be sorted out.

On the other side of the ledger, I still shudder when I remember the argy-bargy about the Ref Desk Guidelines (about which I've heard nothing for months, which says something - but that's another story). The endless bickering that went on about them was horrific; I'm slightly afraid that an FAQ might bring out similar feelings in people about the perfect wording and the perfect content. And that was only one topic - the FAQs would be many different topics. But we could start out with one, then keep on expanding them as more commonly asked questions get asked.

Anyway, you'll never never know if you never never go - so I thought I'd just put this out there for comment. Over. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds at first sight (eh?) to be a very good idea - would as you say be useful both to new quesioners and to regulars. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I volunteer DuncanHill to write the first FAQ. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh bugger! DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
All that means is that you have to write the first frequently asked question. I'd pick one of the ones in Jack's initial post to this thread. --LarryMac | Talk 14:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that what Wikipedia is, a set of FAQs? Please see also Wikipedia:Reference desk/FAQ and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 15:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't wikipedia a set of answers to FAQ's, not a set of FAQ's? :) David D. (Talk) 16:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We have a FAQ (Wikipedia:Reference desk/FAQ) - but hardly anyone adds to it and (as far as I can tell) none of our OP's read it...which is not surprising because we don't exactly advertise its existance! The "Frequently Asked Questions" link at the top of the main Reference Desk page links to the main Wikipedia FAQ - and none of the specific ref desk pages link to any kind of FAQ. The problem is that the probability of a particular person's question being in the FAQ is a very small indeed - so directing them to read the FAQ before posting is not very helpful to them...and our job here is to be helpful. What the FAQ could do for us (if we decided to maintain it) would be as a way to point people to an existing answer quickly and easily. We could perhaps even have some kind of template: "Yours is a frequently asked question - please see WP:RD/FAQ#some section or other". But the problem is in getting people to maintain it. I think there would be merit in creating a "Not frequently asked but really interesting"-questions page where especially good questions and answers could be cleaned up and retained for posterity.
But then we should be asking whether these things are being asked frequently because the main encyclopedia is failing to address them adequately. There is definitely a case for saying that we should be working to put whatever answers we came up with into the relevant articles - or starting new articles as necessary. Then instead of pointing people at some FAQ, we would just point them to the relevant article. SteveBaker (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, blow me down. I was honestly unaware these FAQs existed. Here I am banging on about not recreating the wheel, when what I've been doing is ... recreating the wheel. (But at least it proves it's a good idea.) All honour and glory to anyone involved in whatever's been done so far, particularly Lambiam. In my defence, I almost never access the main Ref Desk page, and when I do, it's usually by accident. In any case, I certainly never read it.
I agree in principle that we should be sourcing our answers from the encyclopedia, and where questions reveal gaps in the encyclopedia, plug them. Also using certain answers provided on the Ref Desk for that purpose. I certainly wouldn’t support maintaining a duplicate answer in the FAQs if there’s already a perfectly good one in the encyclopedia. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and we do get certain questions that we don’t have articles on, and probably never will. The classic one is the one that got my brain going into overdrive today – “what is the hardest/easiest language to learn?”. That depends on so many different personal/social factors that there cannot be a definitive answer; and it's arguably unencyclopedic in any event. I see we already have no less than 10 links in the FAQs to previous answers to this very question, and they’re only from the past couple of years. Wouldn't it be great if some wonderful person sat down and synthesised the guts of those answers into a discrete "mini-article". The type of mini-articles in the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs - only, in this case, somewhat expanded - are exactly what I had in mind for such questions. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
dab has started an impressive hardest language article complete with references. I suspect that makes him officially a wonderful person and maybe deserving of the first Ref Desk Barnstar? SaundersW (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Fully support. dbachmann deserves more than just a star. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:BOLD. Done. SaundersW (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but he was the second (or third even)! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Then it is the unique third one. All is well! SaundersW (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I am slightly troubled by what might happen when we "refer people to (the FAQ list) immediately whenever they ask." That needs to be done with some tact and grace, so we don't end up with "shyeah, that's in the FAQ, dumbass." We can already see some evidence of this type of answer in the first reply here, or any of several examples where the gist of the response has been "it's the first Google hit." So yeah, a(n)* FAQ list is a good idea, but so is civility. I hope I am preaching to the choir here, but thought it was worth a brief mention. (* you may choose the appropriate article based upon your pronunciation of "fack" or "eff ay queue") --LarryMac | Talk 13:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It it precisely for this reason that I said: We could perhaps even have some kind of template: "Yours is a frequently asked question - please see WP:RD/FAQ#some section or other".
Templates like this are used throughout Wikipedia to say something that might come off as an insulting thing. They have the huge benefit that we can discuss what exact form of words we're going to use to say this - and with any luck, everyone will use that template and the language will be concise and (as agreed by consensus, here) non-insulting. SteveBaker (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly off-topic, yet related follow-up question on wikilinking other users' words

Going against better judgment and advice by others, I recently attempted to start an index for the language desk, only covered two months, and then aborted the experiment (high input quantity yielding medium output quality). I found one quick way of finding questions in the archives is by remembering a wikilink appearing in the question, hitting the corresponding article's "What links here", and setting the namespace filter to "Wikipedia". Since the keywords of questions (and answers) sometimes don't get wikilinked, I would like to know whether there is any objection to adding double brackets in other people's posts. It would help finding questions in the archives. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Our Reference desk guidelines state: "Don't add wikilinks to a question or the title; it may unduly suggest to others that the questioner was aware of the Wikipedia articles. Instead, if relevant, just include these links in your response."  --Lambiam 08:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's what I was afraid of. So, would it be okay to wikilink other volunteers' posts? Or what about tagging questions with keywords? (I'm actually thinking of going through the archives) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Since not wikilinking the question was in order not to give messages to people answering at the time, and since the time for answering is generally passed once the question is archived, it seems that that particular guideline could be ignored in your quest to be helpful, Sluzzelin. Likewise, since the archived responses are unlikely to get much traffic anyway, there should surely be no problem with your wikilinking them as well. SaundersW (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of people editing others signed words - in any context at any time. When I sign something, it means I said it. If you edit my reply later, you are putting words into my mouth. You might (for example) link to a different meaning of the word than I intended - and that's not good. I might have meant it humorously or sarcastically. What you could do (without objection from me) would be to add something like:
===Keywords===
[[Wikilink]], [[Language]], [[Reference Desk]] ~~~~
...at the bottom of each thread, sometime after the question had been archived. That would be a useful service I think. SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I like that approach, and I agree with the concern about altering signed statements. I might suggest that instead of creating a third-level header, it would be fine to just add a line that starts with Keywords: in bold. This avoids doing anything that will confuse bots, and halve the size of the table of contents. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, all. Alright, at some point I will do a trial with one archived day on one of the desks. I'll follow Ten's advice, perhaps even avoid the bolding or post the keywords in small font. I'll link the trial page here for comments on improvement before continuing, and I won't touch other users' posts. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I agree, a third level heading is a bad idea. However it would be nice to have some kind of recognisable string at the start of the keywords. Why don't we make a template for this? So you can do something like:
 {{RD_keywordlist|firstkeyword|secondkeyword|...}}
SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

Under which subdesk would geography fall? I think we should add this to the topic list under relevant desk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard to pinpoint it. A lot of geography questions, particularly physical geography and environmental geography belong at the science desk. Others, such as questions on cartography or regional geography, could arguably also be posted at other desks. Human geography questions often reach into the realm of the humanities desk. I'm not strictly against adding geography to the science desks's list of topics, as long as it doesn't mean that all geo questions asked elsewhere automatically get moved there. Psychology, for example, was added to the science desk a while ago too, despite the fact that some psychological questions might better suit the humanities or even miscellaneous desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
A point that I made at the time, if I remember correctly, Sluzzelin. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, how could anyone forget threads of the psychology desk saga! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Being the outsider, as I see it - since it's not alloted anywhere, it goes to the misc desk. Is it how it should work? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for any appearance of cliquishness, Piotrus. There are no outsiders. I merely pointed to psychology as an example of another field that permeates several desks. The cartography question you asked at the misc desk would have received good answers at the science or even math desk too, I'm certain. Currently the science desk only features "geology", but questions on hydrology, glaciology, oceanography, or palaeogeography belong there too. If you have a human geography question seeking hard statistical facts on population geography, you might choose the science desk as well, but if you're looking for more essayistic answers on Westernization or economic regionalization, the humanities might be a more adequate desk. Linguistic geography questions belong at the language desk. Finally, the miscellaneous desk is a catch-all when the querent doesn't know where to post a question. The desks were split because the sheer number and volume of questions would otherwise make them unwieldy or very short-lived. Even if we cover every single conceivable discipline and pigeonhole it to a certain desk, the split will still remain unsatisfactory, and some questions simultaneously reach into topics of several desks. You're not the first to point out that geography is missing as a topic, but can you think of an easy solution? Either we distribute all geographical sub-branches at the expense of simplicity, or we merely add "geography" to a particular desk, and risk that certain questions won't be posted at the optimal desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No need to aplogize, I appreciate prompt reply by experts, and I see your point. My original point was that it is unclear where to ask geography, and we may want to make it clear. Indeed, the misc desk worked out well, and if we are ok with that that's great - but I wanted to make sure it was not an accidental or easily rectifiable omission.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the misc desk is supposed to work for any type of question. Some specialized volunteers frequent the miscellaneous desk as well as "their" desk, and it would be fantastic if even more looked in once in a while, in order to give the "lost" questions the best possible answers they deserve! ---Sluzzelin talk 08:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk userbox

Is there a userbox like "This user is a Reference desk dweller."? --Taraborn (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found one - it is {{User:Patricknoddy/Userboxes/User Wikipedia reference desk}} . DuncanHill (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You can see it on my page here User:DuncanHill#Some_boxes. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You can never have too many userboxes so I made some more:

Code Result Users
{{User:SteveBaker/Userboxes/RefDeskDenizen}}
This user is proud to be a frequent respondent on the Wikipedia Reference Desks.
Transclusions
{{User:SteveBaker/Userboxes/RefDeskDenizen2}}
This WP:RD denizen is:
  • [x] Scaly
  • [  ] Omniscient
  • [  ] Benevolent
Transclusions
{{User:Patricknoddy/Userboxes/User Wikipedia reference desk}}
This user constantly uses the Reference desk.
Transclusions

SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel like we, "RefDeskDenizens", are very much like a subspecies of the genus Wikipedian. --Taraborn (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a cat Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk, which Steve may wish to make his boxes put people into. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh - cool! I was looking for a Category like that! I've added it as an 'includeonly' into the template. So - for those who don't understand this stuff - if you add any of the above userboxes to your User: page, you'll automatically be added into the Category: of "Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk". SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the first one. But can "respondant" please be changed to "respondent" - that way, it won't look too odd when juxtaposed with the userbox below.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
LE-0 This individual still maintains a shred of dignity in this insane world by adhering to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalisation.

.

So sorry! All better now! (Of course you could have fixed it yourself...Be Bold and all!) SteveBaker (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Second one is all niced up so it has parameter options and suchnot wot eh, see page noinclude docs for a the how to --ffroth 04:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Where do you ask questions about PC games? Do you ask them here or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.178.129 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment would be the best place - there are usually several questions about PC games, as well as people who can answer them. DuncanHill (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It's gotta depend on the nature of your question. If it's "How do I install this patch for this game to run on my Intel 740 graphics chip?" - then the computing desk is the place. If it's "How does the story arc of Mario and Princess Peach compare to Shakespeare vision of idealised love in Romeo and Juliet?" then we REALLY need that to be on the humanities desk (or at least SOMEWHERE where I don't have to answer it!). If it's "What easter eggs are there in Halo3?" then ask the entertainment desk. SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's something like is Halo 3 better or BioShock the best thing would probably be to ask somewhere else not on the WP:RD Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Oh god, yes! There are places that are MUCH better to ask that one...Yahoo Answers sounds like the perfect place to me! SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules on Given Advice for Comission of a Crime.

Do we have rules against giving advice to someone in order that they can commit a crime? This has come up several times in the past few days - and I think we should have a firm policy to NOT do that. We've been asked where to go in Canada to buy pirate copies of various movies - and someone asked how to hack into a game server. Both things are illegal - and in both cases, we did the right thing ("No! We're not going to answer that!") - but I think we need a formal addition to our guidelines - along the lines of the Legal/Medical thing so that we can actually legitimately remove the question and leave a "No, we won't help you commit a crime" template behind. All of the same procedures that we've thrashed out for medical/legal can apply here - no need to re-think all of that. SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Define "crime". Which criminal code are you going to use ? In the case of the pirated movies question, the context of the question suggested that the questioner wanted to purchase a pirated movie for their own personal use - it did not suggest that they would reproduce or distribute or profit from the pirated movie. Is possession of a single copy of a pirated movie for personal use actually a crime in Canada ? I am fairly sure it isn't a crime in British law - see Copyright_Infringement#Criminal_offences. We may regard the purchase of a pirated movie or a fake Rolex as immoral, but is it actually illegal ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If someone asked for ways to circumvent the Chinese government's censorship of the web, would we help? DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would define a crime as being "A crime according to the criminal code that would apply if the OP followed through with what he or she asked about." - so in the case from yesterday: If purchasing or owning pirated DVD's is illegal in Canada - then we should not give advice about purchasing or owning pirated DVD's in Canada. The Chinese government censorship issue is indeed a tricky one - according to my rule (above), we should not advise on how to do this from within China where the person might get arrested because of our advice - but it would be OK to explain how to do it from outside of China - where it's not an offense. You can always find a corner-case where our guidelines are difficult...but that's why they are only guidelines and Wikipedia encourages us to "Break all rules". We shouldn't allow one difficult case to drive out the major benefit here. SteveBaker (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Steve - exactly what "major benefit" do you have in mind here ? So far I don't see anything that justifies yet more guidelines and templates. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
But then telling someone how to download stuff from P2P or how to crack some software would be okay provided we make it clear the person doesn't break the law doing so. And there are numerous cases when this would apply even if they will by far be the minority. For example, people who simply download which while difficult with most P2P apps is not impossible would not be breaking the law if the laws of their country didn't penalise retrieving and/or posession of copyright violating material (if they do upload as with most P2P users they would be far more likely to be doing something illegal something illegal although again this probably isn't the case in all countries). Indeed with most things there are cases when it may not be illegal even if possesion of copyright violating material is illegal. For example, if I own the DVD and can't be bothered format shifting it to XviD myself. And with cracks, if they're used to circumvent the copyright protection measures they probably violate the DMCA in the US and in countries with similar laws. But if you're say legally own a game and simply want a crack because you're sick of searching for the DVD it won't be illegal in countries without such laws. And even if you don't have the legal right to use the software it may not be illegal to crack it without the DMCA and laws criminalising possession or the use of copyright violating software. In most cases you'll open yourself up to civil lawsuits but in a number of countries probably not criminal law. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it ironic that we are prohibited from giving legal advice but not from giving illegal advice. And to the poster above under British law owning a pirated movie is illegal, as is seeking to posses one. The fact that companies can take legal action against you if you download something illegal from P2P should show you this (not legal advice). TheGreatZorko (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
<Response to TheGreatZorko>Do you have a source for your assertion that simply owning a pirated movie is illegal under British law ? Section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says:
"A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner—
(a) makes for sale or hire, or
(b) imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or
(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or
(d) in the course of a business —
(i) sells or lets for hire, or
(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or
(iii) exhibits in public, or
(iv) distributes, or
(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work."
I see nothing there that says possession for personal use (i.e. possession not in the course of a business) is an offence. The seller of a pirated movie commits an offense, but the purchaser is not necessarily doing anything illegal. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That's funny I looked into this once and I thought it was in fact illegal in the UK. I know it's often not against the law to simply own or use software in violation of copyright for your personal use (although you'd could obviously still be sued) but I thought UK was one of those places where it was but I guess I'm wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In my fantasy world, editors would just ignore such questions. However, I've been around this crazy ol' internet for a long long time and know that some people can't resist responding to trolls. I don't understand why, I imagine the thought process goes like this - "this person is clearly a troll, but surely if I respond he or she will see the light of day and never darken our door with such trollery again!". Answer the questions that you can, preferably with good links within Wikipedia, and skip over the ones you can't. Or don't. Whatever. --LarryMac | Talk 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Tip of the hat to our article on Hotwiring, en passant --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I like Google's official stance on this one. When questioned about them complying with the Chinese government on censorship, they basically say "we have to put up with stupid laws in America too, it's no different". I vote for the obvious answer: don't say anything that will have your local law enforcement batting down your door, don't say anything that will get Floridan law enforcement in a scuffle with Wikimedia, and it's none of our business where the people are asking from so don't worry about that. We help people bypass china's firewall because we have no interests in china: no servers there, no ref desk volunteers there (and if we did, it would fall under the common-sense don't say anything that will have your local law enforcement batting down your door). Like google says, American law is just as dumb but we certainly fall under American jurisdiction so we have to obey American law. It's very much like wikipedia's copyright policy: just check the laws in a few places: in this case, Florida and your own state/country. If what you're about to say checks out with both places, fine. We can't help canadians find pirated movies no matter what their law is because it's against OUR law. If we were on the moon or something, then we could help Canadians pirate movies all we want. --ffroth 23:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
But that approach would be too complicated to be practical. It would mean that only an expert in international law could determine whether an RD question was legitimate. We can't apply a common sense benchmark because common sense is not a good guide to criminal law (otherwise lawyers would not need to be as highly trained as they are). Plus it would mean making bad-faith assumptions about the questioner's intentions. Hot-wiring a car, picking a lock or cracking a safe are all completely legitimate activities in certain circumstances, so we could only outlaw a question such as "how do I hot-wire a car" if we assumed that the questioner had a criminal intent. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly the opposite of what I said. I said you only need to know the law in your local jurisdiction (so YOU don't get in trouble) and in Florida (so wikimedia doesn't get in trouble). It's none of our business to keep questioners out of trouble. --ffroth 03:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "How to answer a question"

I think this should be somewhat expanded. Perhaps making the statements "no guesswork", "factual accuracy" and so a little more visible could improve the overall quality of the Reference Desk. --Taraborn (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

whereas you can lead a horse to water, increasing the size of the trough may not be any more efficacious in making it drink. And, actually, come to think of it, it is as likely that most of us rush past the header, never giving it a thought. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Header? DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thing at the top of the page. C'mon, Duncan. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean we're meant to read it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It's easier to read then this shit... ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to start a new fad then --ffroth 23:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Much of the text of the RD header is in a font that is so small that it is an effort to read it. As an experiment, I've turned it all into normal size. What do you think?  --Lambiam 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
My god, it's so much better. Actually readable now. Amazing how going back to default makes things look so much cleaner. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 13:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Blame the people from 5 years ago, we've been using small text in the header for ages. Also, warning will robinson, lambiam is taking the first steps that I took when moving the header to a beautifully-templatized monstrosity --ffroth 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning wording

This is the third time I've brought this up; the previous two times, my suggestion got buried under a load of arguments over medical advice.

Can we please change the wording of the warning on medical and legal advice to eliminate the references to "regulated professional advice?" This appears to be a meaningless phrase under American law and leaves open the possibility of people asking troublesome medical or legal questions under the premise that it's not illegal to answer those in the person's jurisdiction.

This is more than just a legal issue; it's an ethical issue, and the warning should be phrased that way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done – I already made that change some time ago.[19]  --Lambiam 08:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
... however, the change did not come through. Since some time each section of the Desk has been transcluding a different header, which comes from user space (User:Froth/speedyX for X one of C, H, E, L, M, MA, and S). I had not noticed that the text of How to ask/answer had been copied to each separate header instead of being transcluded there.  --Lambiam 16:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, since something changed on the servers and the RD (among other pages) became unusable due to its very deep header demplate, we've been transcluding in content from my userspace to serve up the header. I used one of the special pages that allows you to flatten pages that contain templates.. of course they also flattened the how to ask and answer section --ffroth 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, Lambiam. My apologies to Mwalcoff that his – reasonable and legitimate – concern kept getting lost in other stuff. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

When I try to post a question on the Language Desk, it gets put on the Computing Desk instead. Is there a problem with the new question button? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Looks like a cut & paste error when making templates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed on all templates :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This was an interesting experiment. In each header on the separate section pages, there is a button labelled "After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here." For about 8.4 hours, you could tell whether questions intended for other RD sections than Computing were posted by means of that button in the header, or by generic wiki editing methods such as the "edit this page" and "+" tabs. Out of 16 new questions posted in that period, only 3 4 used the header button.  --Lambiam 08:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you see what happened to the article A the last time there was a glitch?? :) --ffroth 03:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Cough. --ffroth 03:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the use of {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} expensive?  --Lambiam 08:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how it possibly could be --ffroth 03:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)