Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] A bit of discussion

The #wikipedia-desk channel has, in my honest opinion, been successful in the past few weeks helping with enquiries. There have been plenty of people happy with the service it has provided. I therefore believe that we should extend this positive service to as many people as we can help and add it to the header, similar to the help desk. Per WP:CCC I will be bold and add this if there are no objections given in the next day or so here. GDonato (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly consensus can change, but in this case nothing has changed that would make that a good idea. The objections listed in the archive are as valid now as they were a couple months ago. I guess the bottom line is that we already have a reference desk on Wikipedia and we shouldn't be sending people off Wikipedia, IRC is just a collection of chat rooms without any official connection to Wikipedia. wikipedia-desk isn't Wikipedia etc...RxS 22:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

People should be able to see the full options available to them and just because IRC isn't Wikipedia doesn't mean Wikipedia can't link to it. GDonato (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, they should have a range of appropriate options and IRC isn't one of them. Like I said, nothing has changed in the last couple months that would make it a good idea, we covered all these issues recently. RxS 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

One very important thing has changed, the channel has been proven to work successfully. Countless queries have been answered, and I can't think of one person has recieved a response that is inaccurate or one they are unhappy with. GDonato (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no way to evaluate that claim because there's no oversight. But in any case, the objections went further then just the effectiveness of the channel. RxS 05:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Do what you want in your chat room, but please do not advertise it here. The Wikipedia reference desk is the Wikipedia reference desk, not the IRC reference desk. Friday (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Friday, the only thing I'd like to say to that is that this has only ever been intended as a supplement not a replacement (see above and archives). If it clear that the community as a whole does not want this I will drop it. GDonato (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However upon reading the old discussions again, it seems clear to me that this "supplement" does more harm than good- it fragments the reference desks, and provides little advantage to offset this disadvantage. It's a lot like suggesting we make Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science/2 to supplement the current Science desk. Calling it a supplement implies enhancement- I see no enhancement here, only fragmentation. Friday (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's different to that becuase it is a different medium of communication (and better in some cases thus a supplement/enhancement) - nobody has to use it, I would still expect the vast majority of people to use the wiki - it just gives people another option, especially good if they are looking for a quicker answer than the wiki, the successes so far have been feedback, for example, someone was asking the name of a film they saw, it took a few attempts to get the right one, feedback on the answers like that is much, much harder on-wiki. Imagine that question on-wiki, would the questioner have got the answer they wanted? Perhaps not. Real-time communication has its advantages. Finally, there is a link back to the wiki ref. desk in the topic and often in answers so the seem freedom of choice is gien back if they feel the users answering questions on-wiki would be more helpful. GDonato (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting it right is more important than getting it fast. But, I suspect we're just repeating the old discussion- I don't think either one of us has said anything new. Friday (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The important new thing I was wanting to say was that this channel has now been proven to work very well in certain situations and I do not believe that answers have been any less accurate than at WP:RD. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And we have nothing but your word for it, due to the inherent disadvantages of the medium. As pointed out above, there were objections to this that did not relate to effectiveness. Friday (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You can come and look if you want! :) GDonato (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and it's not that I doubt it. You say it works well in there; I believe you. I still just see it as balkanization, which I don't think is a good thing. Friday (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How does linking the off-wiki channel help the project? ---Sluzzelin talk 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a good idea. Friday what is this "inherent disadvantage" to IRC? That it's not logged so that we can go back and scrutinize everything someone says? I feel a lot more comfortable in an IRC medium than in a WT medium- the person asks and I have a conversation with the person about it rather than waiting for hours for them to reply and update the section. This does have a less "academic" feel but who cares? They can get their answers faster and topics can be better explored. The channel is on freenode along with WP:IRC, which is advertised across wikipedia as a support medium for the project. This isn't some ref desk fansite, it's an important part of the wikipedia community that's already being used. --froth^t 18:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The disadvantages of the medium have been discussed here and there, but briefly: IRC provides no way for me to review recent questions and try to answer them. It provides no way for me to see answers that were given when I wasn't in the chat room. Go set up a question/answer chat room all you want- I won't complain. But please do not advertise it here. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a terrible idea. Someone can give simply awful advice - and there is no means to correct that, provide an alternate viewpoint or even discover that it's happened. If someone wants to start a helpline independently of wikipedia, that's fine - there is nothing we can do about it. But the name 'Wikipedia' is copyrighted and you just can't start using it for something else without foundation approval...and trust me, you won't get it. SteveBaker 16:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)