Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines page. For other discussions about the Reference Desks, please go to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Suggestion

These rules should become an essay, that would be linked from the guidelines. Wikipedia already has an established tradition of linking essays about policies and guidelines from their pages. I expect there be no objection to that. However, for the sake of community work, consensus, cooperation, collaboration, etc, I am asking you here before I make the changes: is there any objection, not concerning the merit of the rules that StuRat supports, but to linking it from the page? A.Z. 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to linking to them because I object to the content of these rules. Maybe you're unfamiliar with the history but that set of rules has never enjoyed any kind of wide support that I ever noticed, and they're way more bureaucratic than the kinds of guidelines we use at Wikipedia. If I recall, they were created as content fork when guideline discussions didn't go the way the author wanted. Friday (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how objecting to the content is a legitimate reason to object to linking to it. All comments after your first sentence seem to be completely irrelevant to this matter. A.Z. 21:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If they were written in the format of an assay, then there might be precedent for this. However, as it is that page is lacking context or wider meaning for the general reader. If you, or anyone else wishes to write a well structured, meaningful essay on Ref Desk philosophy, then I don't think there would be much opposition. Rockpocket 21:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree, and I already did think like that before I read your post. I'm sorry that I didn't make it clearer when I first created this section. A.Z. 21:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem, come back when you have an essay and we can see what the consensus is. Rockpocket 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. That may take some time, though. A.Z. 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Those rules in question are not an essay but a {{rejected}} proposal. I would suggest marking them as such. >Radiant< 14:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Correction, there was never any consensus to reject that proposal. StuRat 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
They're not an essay. That's what we were talking about above, that it should become an essay. A.Z. 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If something is not an essay, then it cannot "become" an essay just by changing the tag either. Tags aren't a "status", they're a description of a page, and you can't change a page by changing a description. All this talk of "promoting" "changing" and "wanting to tag as" is misguided. >Radiant< 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analogy

"The Wikipedia reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to a library reference desk." (the proposal as of Saturday morning)

I brought this section back because I still think that the analogy should not be included in the guidelines. A.Z. 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This was already discussed; the statement has wide support as a useful analogy. Note that "comparable to" is not the same in meaning or intent as "identical to"; the phrasing already acknowledges implicitly that there is a difference between a bricks-and-mortar library reference desk and the Wikipedia Reference Desk.
Neither the Desk itself nor this talk page is meant to be a debating society or a court of infinite appeals—please don't copy & paste large discussions back in to reopen debates that have been settled. Please note, A.Z., that I don't want to start a large discussion about what I mean by "debate" – or any other word – and that I won't be responding further in this thread. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
1)You made the wrong decision, in my opinion.
2)No debate was ever "closed".
3)I don't think the "wide support" is relevant to whether you should archive the thread or not.
4)This is the talk page of the policy and here is where any user talks about the guideline/policy as much as they want to talk about the guideline/policy. If I decide to stay here 24 hours a day endlessly discussing what you think are minor details of the policy/guideline with other users, the most you can do is to tell me that it bothers you. You cannot just tell me to stop.
5)This is not a court of appeals because this was never a court in the first place. There's simply nothing to be "appealed", because there's no court ruling.
6)Take it back, please. A.Z. 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to attempt to revive the discussion by copying an old thread here in its entirety. If you think the discussion should be reopened, then make a cogent case, with arguments that do not just rehash the arguments you made before. "I still prefer my version" does not cut it as an argument, sorry. I'd much rather prefer, though, that you stopped behaving like a 12-yea someone trying to transform the Wikipedia Reference Desk into the Wikipedia Debating Club.  --LambiamTalk 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and I respect it. I just don't think it is a good reason to archive the thread. Ten could at least have made it clear whether it is OK for me to unarchive it or not, and he could just tell me that he thinks it is an inappropriate approach and suggest that I voluntarily archive it. His actions were extremely rude, and it's hard to believe that he is not questioning my intentions and my intelligence. A.Z. 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that putting the old discussion in an archive box is anything resembling rude. People who want to see it can click "show" and otherwise it prevents cluttering up the page. I don't see anything wrong with saying we provide services comparable to a reference desk- that does seem to be pretty much what we aim at. Friday (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment "The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it." makes it sound like the decision has been made and debate is now closed. Nobody has authority to close off debate here, so such actions aren't appropriate unless everyone agrees. StuRat 05:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If this were true no debate would ever finish. Holdouts do not get to filibuster indefinitely. David D. (Talk) 07:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a debate doesn't have to finish in order for action on its subject to be taken. There's no problem with merely discussing, without a deadline and without the intention of immediately changing things. As far as I know, there are a lot of open debates about the guidelines, and no debate is "closed" just because there's large support for the current state of affairs. A.Z. 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between a filibuster and bringing new ideas to the table. David D. (Talk) 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The only difference I can see is that the first has bad intentions and the second acts in good faith. A.Z. 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purposes of the Ref Desks

Does anyone have any idea what the actual purposes of the Reference Desks are and how they help Wikipedia?--MadBarker 00:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Much has been written on this. See the Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines (which you are of course already aware of) and also this version of an old document and I believe there's still also User:TenOfAllTrades/RD_thoughts. Friday (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I am very glad to see that User:Friday has seen fit to answer this question and I thank him/her for that. However, I feel that the real purpose(s) of the Rds has yet to be properly defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmellyMuffin (talk • contribs) on behalf of Mad Barker et al!
He is a man. [2] A.Z. 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're able to act like an adult and discuss things civilly, you could possibly even participate in some discussion of the purposes of the ref desks. If instead you act like a sulking child, your contributions are likely to be removed. Friday (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Judging from the recent entry here by his most recent sock User:RectumParalyser, that will be a tall order. I hope I'm wrong. David D. (Talk) 18:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I wish to apologise sincerely on behalf of my associate User:RectumParalyser. His comment regarding Friday was way OTT and he should not have posted it. I can only explain his actions by assuming that he was drunk. I shall have strict words with him to ensure that this sort of petty name calling only intended as insults is not repeated.--OrificePlate 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read and try to understand before deleting.
Yes I know that:
  • the RDs try to answer questions mainly from people who dont know how to (or cant be bothered to) look up the answer themselves.
  • some editors see the RDs as a playground and source of light relief from the arduous task of encyclopedia building.
  • RDs provides training for some of the newer admins in 'vandalism' fighting.
However, no one has as yet provided a solid explanation of how the RDs actually help to build WP. Unless this question is answered the policy cannot be established and the RDs might as well be disassociated from WP as, by definition the RDs serve no purpose to WP.
To my mind, the amount of Admin (largely wasted) effort that goes into policing the RDs is diverting them from their proper job of helping to BUILD an encyclopedia! BTW I like the RDs but Im not sure they have much to do with WP anymore.--OrificePlate 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. The Reference Desk builds – or can help to build – Wikipedia in a number of ways. Some are listed in the links that Friday provided earlier in this section.
  2. Admins—like all other editors on Wikipedia, are volunteers. We let them perform whatever tasks and contribute positively however they wish. In any case, the Ref Desks actually require relatively little in the way of admin maintenance and intervention.
  3. The Desks would require require even less attention if a particularly childish sockpuppeteer and vandal found something useful to do with his time rather than coming here, but it's not much of a bother even so.
  4. In general, we tend to ignore policy suggestions from vandals and trolls.
Incidentally, I've blocked OrificePlate because of his recent sockpuppeting and vandalism, as well as his typically disingenuous apology. Further contributions from Mr. Lloyd will be reverted on sight, and I will not be feeding this troll any further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

One intervention, and one only, though I doubt the person to whom my remark is directed is really interested in a meaningful answer. There is a lot of work on the Humanities Desk alone that is beginning to feed into the main body of the encyclopedia. Would it not have been best to put MadBarker down at the outset? Clio the Muse 22:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Friday decided to treat him like a responsible adult to see if he could respond in kind. I presume that Friday hoped Light current's six-month enforced break from Wikipedia might cool him down sufficiently to partipate meaningfully again. Given that he failed that test rather thoroughly, we can go back to ignoring Mr. Lloyd with a clear conscience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my take

I suppose it's pretty pointless to tack a serious answer onto a thread like this, but I'd been thinking about this question again anyway, so here's my answer:

The purposes of the Reference Desks are (in order):

  1. To improve the encyclopedia. They do this in two ways:
    • by discovering, via people's questions, which of our articles need work (or are missing entirely), and beginning the process of improving/adding them; and
    • by helping Wikipedia editors with their questions, as they work on articles.
  2. To help other people on the Internet by answering their questions.
  3. To have fun showing off our knowledge, expertise, and erudition.

Now, even if I were singlehandedly writing the guidelines, I would not necessarily state these purposes this way, because (as written) they're exceedingly easy to misinterpret. But I'll explain what I mean by them, and why I've listed them that way:

First of all, my list is a mixture of the way things are and the way they ought to be. (That is, I'm being both prescriptive and descriptive, thus maximizing my chances of pissing everyone off. :-) ).

I do believe that "helping the encyclopedia" has to be our first priority. Anything else, and it becomes impossible to answer the question, "then what are these desks doing as part of the Wikipedia project?" Saying that this is the top priority does not mean that it is the only priority, but it's important to list it that way so we're clear on what we're supposed to be doing here.

I also believe (in answer to a poll from a couple months ago, further up the page) that yes, ideally, we should answer every question by citing an existing Wikipedia article. In fact, I'll go further than that: for any question, if an existing Wikipedia article doesn't answer it adequately, such that an aspiring RD answerer is tempted to launch into a finely-wrought explanation, the right thing to do, theoretically, is to instead add that finely-wrought explanation to the appropriate article, and then link to it.

With that said, though, I do not actually believe or expect that any of the Reference Desks would ever actually meet this "ideal" in practice. In fact, I wouldn't want them to; a Reference Desk with nothing but clipped citations of articles, with no nice friendly explanations fine-tuned to a particular questioner's situation, would be deathly boring for all concerned, and I for one would have no interest in participating. (True confession: I love launching into finely-wrought explanations right here on the desks, existing Wikipedia articles be damned, and I know I'm not alone.) But I do think this ideal is worth keeping in mind, to (again) clarify our thinking about what our real purpose is here, even though I have negative expectations of achieving it. (But stating a primary goal or purpose that you do not ever expect to actually meet is a terribly risky proposition, which is why I say I wouldn't necessarily word these priorities this way in the actual guidelines.)

Number two is obvious. It's what the apparent purpose of these desks has always seemed to be and probably always will seem to be. But (selfish though it sounds), I think that helping the encyclopedia ought to be a higher priority than helping any one individual questioner. This does not, of course, mean that we're not interested in helping individual questioners, that we won't always try to do our best in helping them. But if there's ever a conflict between helping the project versus helping an individual questioner, the project has to come first.

Finally, number three. I'm sure I'll get scolded for putting that one in there at all. It's solely in the "way things are" camp, not necessarily "the way things ought to be". But I think it's just as important to acknowledge, because it explains why those of us who participate are actually here. It's all well and good to state highfalutin virtuous altruistic principles for these desks, but people aren't going to come here and volunteer their time and expertise to answer questions unless they enjoy doing it. So their enjoyment is important. In fact, to the extent that a certain amount of humor and friendly banter are enjoyable, those aspects are important, too. They certainly can't be denied and shouldn't be discouraged. But, again, they come at a lower priority: if (when) they come into conflict with the helping-the-project and helping-the-questioners goals, they've got to give way first.

—Steve Summit (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well put, Steve. The definitive statement, as far as I am concerned. Clio the Muse 22:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice post. You could create a page with that content and add the essay tag, with a title like "The purposes of the reference desk". I think your post is much better at explaining the reference desk to newcomers than, say, the current guidelines, and it's especially good that the parts that are your personal opinion are correctly labeled as such: this allows people to know that they are not an "imposed", "official" view of any superior entity such as "The Community". A.Z. 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a brillant post Steve, but you have forgotten to mention the flying monkeys, listen it's not easy keeping a hundred flying monkeys, fed, watered and happy and quite frankly i've had enough, either the monkeys get put into the guidelines or else! (empty threat!):) Perry-mankster 11:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice post - thanks!
To speak to (3) in your list of reasons, I treat answering ref desk questions less as 'showing off' and more like doing a crossword puzzle. People who do crosswords look forward to a fresh set of clues each day. Same here - I look forward to opening up the ref desk and seeing what questions there are today. Lots of times I can't answer them - and THAT'S where the value comes in. But the motive (certainly for me) is not showing off - it's improving myself. In researching (or even merely thinking about) a reply, I learn a lot. It forces you to go and look up facts - it makes you think. That means that we are improving our own breadth and depth of knowledge - and (almost as important in a modern world) exercising skills with search engines.
The benefits to Wikipedia are more tenuous. Most good paper encyclopedias have reference desks. Years ago when I bought a paper copy of Britannica, it came with about 100 little vouchers. You could clip one of them to a letter containing a question and post it off to their reference desk. I used most of them. The result was often a photocopy of an article that they'd already written for someone else (they obviously had a 'FAQ' list) - sometimes a set of references into the encyclopedia - and occasionally, a hand-written note providing exactly the kind of information we give out here. A good reference desk is a part of an encyclopedia - and I don't think further justification for our existance is required. A lesser benefit to Wikipedia is that I and many others here are WikiGnomes and it's common to need to fix small things in articles we read that we would never normally think of reading. This is a way to direct editors to fix articles that people actually need. The ref desk is never going to direct you to read an article that doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia - by definition, everything we need to refer to is needed in order to answer someone's question. This is a means to direct editor efforts to articles that are needed - and which need to be fixed.
In the end, Wikipedia should look at this on a cost/benefit basis. The cost to WP is negligable. The traffic here is less by far than many other talk pages out there that produce less results. The daily storage and bandwidth costs for the ref desk is negligable compared to one photograph elsewhere in the encyclopedia. The payback in terms of public good and encyclopeadic improvement can be correspondingly tiny and still be worthwhile. SteveBaker 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Wikiversity

The guidelines should have a link to the Wikiversity Help Desk, so people have a welcoming place to debate things that they can't debate here because the guidelines forbid it. I forgot to link, but I had added that information to the guidelines. Rockpocket reverted it. A.Z. 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have advertised this discussion on Wikiversity. A.Z. 03:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has already given her opinion about this matter on this page. A.Z. 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest an external link go under a section called "external links" Rockpocket 03:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Y Done It's fine by me. A.Z. 03:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of "legitimate" medical and legal questions removed from guidelines

User:Ilmari Karonen removed the sentence "However, general medical and legal questions ("What treatments are used for diabetes?", "Which countries recognize common law marriages?") are fine." and replaced it with "Questions that appear to be soliciting such advice should be removed and replaced with a message (such as {{RD-deleted}}) pointing to these guidelines."

I'm not opposed to the removal per se, though I have noticed that the distinction of asking for medical advice vs asking a question about medical sciences hasn't received a lot of direct attention recently, but instead has been blurred to use as a strawman in discussion and also as a suggestion on how to get around our refusal to give medical advice. (e.g.: "What diseases can have headache, blurred vision and a tingling sensation in the left pinky as symptoms?" instead of "I have ..... What could it be?"). Just wanted to point this out here. Given the number of misunderstandings, diverging understandings, as well as pointy behavior in the past, we might need this distinction at some point. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Practical example - take a look at [3] - is this a medical advice question in disguise ? It might be. How can we tell what the intentions of the questioner are ? My point is that we shouldn't be expected to guess what is in a questioner's mind. The "appear to be soliciting" phrasing is too vague. The template advocates should come up with a clear and unambiguous definition of "seeking medical advice" based solely on the contents of a question. Until such a definition is produced, I oppose the use of this template. Gandalf61 08:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the assumption of good faith won't lead us anywhere here. For instance, an unaware user could also be formulating the question in an abstract way, not in order to get around the guidelines, but to de-personalize the question and maybe even to make it more encyclopedic. (I have asked questions like this, though outside medicine and law). At the same time the user, in good faith (but dangerously, in my opinion), might intend to apply the answer to his own case. (I did so as well.) To be honest, I can't think of an operable assumption or distinction here, which doesn't mean no one else can, but applying common sense has its limits when real life interferes with the faceless world online. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the change, both because it was made without discussion here and because questions like "What treatments are used for diabetes?" and "Which countries recognize common law marriages?" are fine. If we stop providing resources or answers for such questions, Wikipedia stops becoming a useful resource for students or others looking to start their research here. And I do believe that Assume Good Faith applies here, as well as everywhere else in Wikipedia. StuRat 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I certainly had no intention of making any substantive change with that removal. The subpage linked from that paragraph still contains essentially the same definition and examples, and I simply felt that, given the existence of a whole subpage devoted to the topic, it would be better to keep the relevant paragraph on the main guidelines page as short and to the point as possible, leaving the more detailed aspects for the subpage. I'm certainly not opposed to the reintroduction of the content in question, if people feel that presenting it on the medical advice subpage is not sufficient. (I also wouldn't oppose removing much of the more detailed content I introduced in that edit from the general guideline page later, but I'd like to keep there for a while until people have had a chance to notice and become familiar with it.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking again at the subpage, I did note that this information had gotten somewhat buried among the instructions. I've now moved it to a more prominent place there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. No strong opinion where it's written either way, just thought I'd point out the problems of blurred distinction regarding what constitutes seeking medical advice. (What constitutes giving medical advice - diagnosis, prognosis, suggestions for treatment - is well defined, on the other hand). StuRat, I brought up WP:AGF because I saw someone suggest that people should have the "good sense" to rephrase their question in an abstract way, detached from a real life situation. In my opinion, this is just another example of trying to game the rules against their spirit, and I think this should be discouraged rather than encouraged. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I put the example back in. I also took out that part about deleting any question which appears to be asking for medical advice. There have been numerous examples of people treating questions as medical advice which were clearly not. If we were to add that line to the rules, any question on biology would be at risk for deletion. At the very least, it should be discussed and a consensus reached before that change is made. StuRat 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It has been discussed, right here. (The proposal was on the main refdesk talkpage before someone decided to split all the discussions about medical advice to a subpage.) If you wish to discuss that subject, I suggest it would be best done there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, now that I've found that discussion, I've participated there. StuRat 03:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desertification

I need to know which world regions or countries are effected by desertification and why? $$$$$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.13.33 (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. You may have more success if you ask your question at the Reference desk/Science page.  --Lambiam 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unanswered questions

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but why not create a guideline for relisting questions that no one even attempted to respond to, rather than archiving them?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this talk page is the best forum; Wikipedia talk:Reference desk seems a better spot. In any case, just making a guideline doesn't work unless it is clear who is supposed to enforce it. Conceivably, a bot could detect unanswered questions about to be disappear from the desks and do something special. Just relisting them, however, might create an ever-expanding collection of unanswerable questions. I could imagine foresaid bot depositing a daily list of links to standing unanswered questions on a new section of Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. In many cases we can't say much more than: "Sorry, but no-one here appears to have an answer to this question."  --Lambiam 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence about LIfe

who can satisfy a doubt for me please: who wrote: "if there was a fire, and i saw a cat and a picasso picture, I would take a cat, because I choose life over art."? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.35.159 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reference desk/guidelines. You may have more success if you ask your question at the Reference desk/Humanities page.  --Lambiam 09:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Answering Questions

Hello, I was just wondering if there is a place to sign up if i choose to volunteer, or do i just go in and answer questions. Also, is there a user box related to this? Yeltsinfan (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered on Yeltsinfan's talk page. --LarryMac | Talk 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OP removing his/her own question

Please see here. I think that consensus has been reached (the only poster who didn't object agreed that the OP doesn't own his/her question). Is there a case to be made for adding something to this effect to the guidelines? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the phenomenon is so rare that it is not worth the effort of formulating a rule. If a posting is offensive, then everyone and certainly the poster should be allowed to remove it, so formulating the rule simply as "don't remove your own postings" is unadvisable. This holds not only for questions but also for responses. Not removing but editing one's own postings can also be problematic, for example when it changes the interpretation of reactions. All this is not specific for the Reference desk; it also applies to many other pages such as the Village pump and Media copyright questions, so if rules need to be formulated, that should be done at a more central spot. I could imagine that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states that the rules listed under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments is stated to apply to all pages where users post comments, and not just article talk pages. But again, as far as I can see, this is not an urgent issue.  --Lambiam 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll let it go. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{resolved}} tag?

Should we use the {{resolved}} tag, like we do on the helpdesk, here? That way users can ignore questions that have received a sufficient answer...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to post this at WT:RD?
The usefulness of the tag is less clear for the RD. Responses to questions such as "How did English perceptions of the French evolve?" or "Will mechs ever be used on the battlefield?" may be satisfactory to the questioners, but that does not mean any issue has been "resolved". My impression is that the tag would be appropriate for only a minority of responses. A more pressing problem is what to do with questions that did not get any (possibly) satisfactory responses at all. See Unanswered questions above.  --Lambiam 10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)