Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines

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.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. Old discussion is available at this revision.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Guidelines for asking questions.

Shouldnt there be some gidelines for asking the questions as well?--HappyEater 12:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

See above, #What about question guidelines?.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Archived

I've archived the page up to around the beginning of May; see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines/Archive 2.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Change of status

Jack partying like it's 1999. This person is far too handsome (or ugly, I can't quite tell which) to be JackofOz; will the real Jack please identify himself?

I see that, as of yesterday, the formerly "proposed guidelines" are now "guidelines", courtesy of Friday. I have no problem with that per se, and I'm glad that they're now out there.

But I have a question about the process, for my own illumination for future reference. Who has the authority to say that that which was once proposed has now become accepted, and why? (I'm not disputing Friday's action here, just enquiring). Was it a case of there being general agreement about the main bulk of the text, with discussion continuing only about relatively minor matters, and Friday recognised that that was the case and acted accordingly? Would it have been inappropriate for any one of us to have come to same viewpoint and do what Friday did?

In any case, it slipped under my radar until just now. I just think we need to acknowledge that an important milestone occurred yesterday, because otherwise it would have gone unheralded. A lot of people have put a lot of time and effort into getting these guidelines to the stage they're now at. I think that congratulations all around are in order. And thanks particularly to Friday for spotting the elephant in the room. So, where's the party?

Finally, I know that this is a a wiki and anyone can change anything. But maybe we ought to think about a slightly different approach to future amendments to the guidelines. What I'm suggesting is that any future changes (other than obvious typos, of which there don't seem to be any at the moment) be discussed at the talk page first, not just made unilaterally. I'm just thinking aloud here. Maybe this wouldn't work, because we can't physically prevent people from just editing the guidelines. On the other hand, changes sometime get made and then get reverted by the next editor who doesn't agree with them. So, if we agreed to flag proposed changes first, and then make them only with consensus, it might help avoid some of the hostility that has occurred during the recent past. Maybe a message on the guidelines page telling people not to change them without prior discussion would be useful. JackofOz 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been some debate up there ^^ for a week or so about who has serious issues about the guide lines as they stand, what needs to be done to make them acceptable to those people and whether there is objections to it going live. Anyone could have made the change at any time, but it would simply have been reverted if there was no consensus. I, personally, think they are stable enough to be proper guidelines now and I get the feeling that is shared by the majority of contributors. I would also support discussion rather than unilateral changes from now on. However, I there there are enough people watching that a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle would also work (this is what seems to have been happening over the last few days anyway). Rockpocket 06:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There is no defined process; guideline proposals become guidelines when they have reached the consensus stage, and there is no "canonical" method for detecting when a consensus is reached. At some point in the past they were guidelines, until someone noticed that some regular contributors were completely ignoring them, and boldly replaced the box by something like "failed proposal – kept for historical reasons". Hereupon a protracted and tiring process started of trying to renegotiate towards consensus. For quite some time now we had been inviting editors who saw dealbreakers to speak up, as in this request:

"StuRat, you've twice removed the guideline tag, reverting two different editors in the process. Your objections that we know of have been answered. You're saying there are remaining dealbreaker by your reversion, but you have not said what they are. If you're going to say it's not a guideline yet, you have to explain why."[1]

No answer has been forthcoming; moreover, based on the discussions, I must say that we may perhaps not all agree on all details of all points, but I see broad consensus among almost all contributors that these are workable as guidelines (assuming they are applied in good faith with a modicum of common sense, as opposed to wikilawyering with absurd interpretations). So I'm glad someone was bold enough to take the step.

I occasionally edit other guidelines, and even policy pages, to tweak the text to something clearer, or simpler, or better expressing what I feel the intention to be (for example, this edit). If I think the change is not controversial, I just go ahead and do it. Most of the time I am not reverted. If I think the change may be controversial, then, depending on the case, I will either apply it but flag the action on the talk page, or only propose the change there. If only everyone behaved sensibly, that would also be fine here.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered and discussed many of the "dealbreakers", as have others, only to be ignored in the discussions and have their changes reverted. The page has now been fully protected in a form that fully favors one POV, denying any further possibility of us reaching a compromise version. StuRat 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

People are more likely to cooperate with what they perceive as a good faith effort to improve the guidelines than what they see as unreasonable objections and wikilawyering. If you find that people are ignoring you, it may be that they've simply given up. Friday (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has any special privilege in calling a thing a guideline. I was bolder than I'd normally be because I thought this situation needed it. Friday (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Admins do, as you changed it to a guideline, and another Admin later locked it down, preventing anyone else from reverting you. Perhaps this should be called the BOLD, lockdown to prevent a revert, pretend to discuss while really ignoring any arguments from other POVs cycle. StuRat 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideally

Ideally, one has inexhaustible patience in dealing with other editors. Clearly, I am not ideal.

On page Wikipedia talk:External links/workshop, one of many examples, I find the text

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, in which case the link would remain as a reference. However, in some cases this is not possible because of a site's copyright issues, unencyclopedic level of detail, or other reasons.

If I understand one of our esteemed editors, they would maintain that – since integration is clearly not always ideal (for copyright reasons) – the word ideally is misplaced here and should be removed. I, on the other hand, think it is used quite aptly here and removing it makes the text less clear. Likewise, in our guidelines, I think that

Ideally, answers will refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources

is better than the weaselly

In many cases, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources

Am I mistaken?  --Lambiam^Talk 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken, "ideally" implies that this should be done in all cases, if possible, while this is not true for any of the examples I gave previously. StuRat 06:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, could you repeat the examples in which there are relevant Wikipedia articles to which, however, the response should preferentially not link? I must have missed something.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ideally" implies it should be done if it can be done. How on earth can linking to a relevant article or reliable source not be an ideal we should be strongly encouraging in all possible cases? Rockpocket 07:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "ideally" means that answers which don't refer to an article are somehow second-rate, when, in fact, for many questions there is no relevant article. This does not make answers to such questions second-rate, and we should not imply that it does. StuRat 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Who mentioned second rate, this appraers to be your interpretation not what anyone has said or meant. I believe your interpretation is incorrect, and the word 'ideally' does not imply "'this should be done in all cases" but "'where possible". Clearly it is not always possible. David D. (Talk) 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The two relevant defs under Wiktionary:Ideal are:

1) being optimal or relating to the best option for something.

2) being perfect, having no flaws or defects.

Neither of these apply here. Providing sources is not always the "best option" for all questions. And, an answer without sources is not always "flawed" or containing "defects". StuRat 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Being optimal" (def one) is not incompatible with "Clearly it is not always possible". This has become tedious. David D. (Talk) 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You do at least see that def two implies that answers without sources are flawed, don't you ? StuRat 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone claiming the usage of def two in this case? David D. (Talk) 19:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless it is clarified, many will interpret it that way, as I did. StuRat 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, you were thinking it meant def two, or at least, might be interpreted as such. Remind me, what is your preferred wording again? David D. (Talk) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I changed "Ideally" to "In many cases": [2]. To me that made it clear that sources are useful in many cases, but not all, something "ideally" doesn't make clear at all. This seemed like such an obvious and minor change to me, I had no idea I would get so much flack for it. StuRat 03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine a style guide that advises its reader: Ideally, your prose will be clear and pithy. This clear and pithy recommendation will not ban transparent but long-winded prose; in fact, it recognizes that the ideals of clarity and concision are not always easily combined. If you change this counsel to In many cases, your prose should be clear and pithy, you take away its power, and trigger the reader's expectation that a list of exceptions is to follow. In the absence of further elucidation when your prose should not be clear and pithy, the altered instruction is pointless as a guide.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a correct usage of the term, since the goal is for all writing to be clear. The goal is not for all Ref Desk responses to contain refs, however, so this is not the correct term to use here. StuRat 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:

i·de·al·ly – adverb

1. in accordance with an ideal; perfectly.
2. in theory or principle.
3. in idea, thought, or imagination.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

i·de·al·ly, adv.

1. In conformity with an ideal; perfectly.
2. In theory or imagination; theoretically.

Some more examples of real-world use:

• The astrometric grid is a model of the positions and motions of a carefully selected collection of astronomical objects. ... Ideally the grid will consist of objects with no companions and of constant magnitude that are uniformly distributed over the entire celestial sphere.[3] Meaning: although, for obvious reasons, we can't reach this ideal situation, we try to approximate it.

• Ideally, the compost pile should be at least three feet wide by three feet deep by three feet tall (one cubic yard). ... However, piles can be larger or smaller and work just fine if managed well.[4]

• Ideally, such a workshop is held at district level because this is the level that is closest and most relevant to local people in terms of stakeholder participation and knowledge on the local situation.[5] Meaning: but there may of course be other concerns and issues making this infeasible.

• Ideally, we are looking for someone with a natural resources background who can program in C, Fortran, Basic, and/or Visual Basic and who knows Oracle.[6] Meaning: but we will seriously consider other qualified and strong candidates, for example who don't know C but know Java well.

The examples could be extended endlessly.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree with Stu's reasoning, I'm against using the word "ideally" for a couple of other reasons as well. Some answers are just so obvious, that to require that answerers "ideally" cite links to support them is to impose an incredibly unnecessary burden. I'll take one of hipocrite's examples noted above (correcting its intentional error) to illustrate:

Who was the President of the United States in 2003? - Questioner

George W. Bush - Answerer

Is it really "ideal" in such a situation to require the answerer to go hunting for a cite to back up this obvious fact?

That's why I support the "many cases" wording rather than the word "ideally". The above is an example of just one of those "other cases" where it is completely unnecessary, and by no means "ideal" to provide a source.

The same holds true for "survey" type questions such as the recent one entitled "How do Brits Refer to Americans". I don't see anything at all wrong with such questions, as they're legitimate questions requesting information. This is yet another of those "other cases" where providing a link by no means "ideal". On the contrary, in this case, it's practically impossible. Lewis 11:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

Is it OK for respondents to offer answers based on guesswork or speculation? I feel that that should be strongly discouraged. Obviously, not everyone agrees.[7] What do others think?  --Lambiam^Talk 07:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Lambian. It should be strongly discouraged in the guidelines. Rockpocket 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise the whole thing is a nonsense. Clio the Muse 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree, but I freely admit to this. However, I quite clearly labelled my response as speculation, and I don't think the questioner gave us a lot to work with. As in all cases, common sense should prevail, but more and more I think these guidelines are being designed to beat every last lick of common sense from all of us. --LarryMac 11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiLawyering.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously an answer that points to reliable sources is best. But an answer that is speculation or a guess or opinion is better than no answer at all - as long as it is clearly labelled as such, as in LarryMac's example. Which is more or less what the Provide source information section says at the moment, so that is fine. I wouldn't want to see the guidelines used as a mandate for deleting unsourced answers - that really would be WikiLawyering. Gandalf61 13:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Off topic discussion #3
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree, it's OK if it is labelled as such. People should make it more clear when they are speculating. Clio the Muse should have done so, but she didn't even recognize that she was speculating when she said: "Pyongyang perceives America as the greatest threat to its security, a fear made all the worse by the invasion of Iraq, the first link in Bush's Axis of Evil. The best guarantee of North Korean integrity is not Kim Jong-Il's weapons programme, but China, which would never tolerate either serious military or economic actions against the regime." A.Z. 15:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC) A.Z. these adversarial posts have to stop. Ask for a source or look for a source but stop attacking the user. It's not like these types of opinions are not all over the editorial pages of major newspapers in all countries. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC) The point is that it was speculation, since it wasn't written in the form "so-and-so believes X, and here's a source that proves that's what they believe", and the Ref Desk is absolutely full of such speculation. I'm not saying that speculation is bad, per se, but rather agree with A.Z. that it ought to continue to be allowed, so long as it is properly identified as such. Many questions can't be answered without speculation. Our guidelines should reflect this. StuRat 17:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Please, then, return to this section of the Computing desk and mark your entries as speculation, as they were completely incorrect for the macro language in question. --LarryMac 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) OK, I've now done so. StuRat 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I understand the point but there is absolutely no need to personalise the point. Trying to score points against others to make a point dilutes anything of worth in the comment. We know where this is leading and it needs to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible, especially given the productive discussion that has been ocurring recently. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Having one editor say they are opposed to speculation, when they engage in such speculation themselves, IMHO, was something that needed to be clarified, which is what A.Z. did. StuRat 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC) When does this tit for tat stop? David D. (Talk) 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC) What "tit for tat" are you talking about ? If I claimed I was opposed to something and engaged in it myself, I'd expect to have that brought to my attention, wouldn't you ? StuRat 18:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Discuss the issue not the people. Continually pointing fingers is a way to prolong arguments not resolve them. David D. (Talk) 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) We are discussing the issue. StuRat 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC) My response was a polemical retort to a groundless assertion. If you are incapable of even understanding that simple point it is time you considered taking your 'talents' elsewhere. Clio the Muse 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I have no idea what you mean, and I saw no convincing reason for me to take my talents elsewhere. A.Z. 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Do not worry about this, David: everyone can see exactly how twisted, perverted and personalised this whole thing is becoming, a la the very funny Wikiversity. It's time for us to agree guidelines by majority, not consensus, because the offensive against Clio has clearly become the chief strategy for some. Clio the Muse 18:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC) When Clio says "some", she means Lewis, StuRat and A.Z., just so everyone knows. When she says "everyone", well, that's a mistery. A.Z. 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) That old black magic has me in it's spell. Clio the Muse 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have archived this because, I feel, it reached its natural conclusion and, further continuation is not constructive in establishing guidelines. David D. (Talk) 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

The unarchival of the discussion above has been requested by the first user signed below. There is no evidence that further continuation is not constructive in establishing guidelines. The users involved were discussing pertinent issues. If consensus is not gained opposing the request, the discussion will be unarchived.

• Support A.Z. 15:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Discussing editors instead of issues is not helpful in improving the guidelines. We've had enough brushfires as it is.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• We are not discussing the editors. A.Z. 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you have something personal to say, take it to a talkpage. Its not constructive for these guidelines. Rockpocket 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have nothing personal to say right now, and the discussion was focused on the topic "speculation". A.Z. 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Re-read it, speculation was only part of the discussion. Everyone is happy to talk about speculation on the ref desk. You can start a new section below. David D. (Talk) 17:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This issue must be resolved once and for all rather than swept under the rug yet again. If discussing editors is verboten, LarryMac is just as guilty as A.Z. for his discussing of Stu's post on the the computer RefDesk. In fact, Friday's entire post here [8] was essentially a personal attack upon Stu. I can just imagine the hell I'd get if I had made a virtually identical statement about a certain editor! I therefore ask Friday to cease with his relentless feud with Stu. Lewis 11:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As you very clearly stated, I mentioned Sturat's post. I made no comment at all on the editor. Please clarify your statement. --LarryMac | Talk 13:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. Alright, let's rephrase A.Z.'s post: "I agree, it's OK if it is labelled as such. People should make it more clear when they are speculating. The following post is an example where its pure speculative nature is not at all made clear: "Pyongyang perceives America as the greatest threat to its security, a fear made all the worse by the invasion of Iraq, the first link in Bush's Axis of Evil. The best guarantee of North Korean integrity is not Kim Jong-Il's weapons programme, but China, which would never tolerate either serious military or economic actions against the regime." Voila! The comment is now all about the post, and nothing at all about the editor. Unlike your statement, this one didn't even mention the editor by name at all!

Now it's you're turn to play the semantics game and rephrase your post! Lewis 00:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in playing games with you. --LarryMac | Talk 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines locked down to favor one POV

The guidelines page can now only be edited by Admins. This change was made, of course, after it was reverted to favor the POV of the Admins here. Any attempt to get a change made so it no longer favors the Admin POV, will now require an approval from those same Admins, which obviously isn't going to happen. I therefore consider these guidelines to be invalid, as there is no mechanism to ensure that they reflect the consensus. StuRat 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no admin POV here. There are opinons from many users some of whom are not admins. Admins are users too, they do not always wear their admin hat. The fact the guideline cannot be edited at this moment in time does not prevent further discussion on the talk page, although it sounds as if it might prevent you from participating. That would be a shame but your choice. Why do you consider that the current guideline does not reflect the current consensus? David D. (Talk) 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to look at speculation, most people here engage in it, although some deny it. To have a guideline which bans this current practice is absurd. Yet, we can't fix the guideline. Changing a page to favor one POV and then locking it down is also not allowed. StuRat 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider that the current guideline does not reflect the current consensus? David D. (Talk) 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you an example. I suppose it's a bit like Prohibition, where many politicians claimed that they didn't drink alcohol, and voted to ban it, much to the detriment of the US. I fear the hypocrisy of those who claim to oppose speculation, when they really support it (at least when they engage in it themselves or somebody they agree with does), has now led to the same Prohibition era here, much to the detriment of the Ref Desk. StuRat 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If the evil guideline eats some of your speculation, let us know and we'll take it out back and flog it. Friday (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you start tossing around unfounded allegations, StuRat, you should remember WP:AGF. Both the request for protection and the protection itself was made independent of "the admins here." Therefore these allegations of conspiracy are to suggest Majorly, in particular, abused his position. Secondly, you should note that you appear to be alone in countering the edits of, at my estimation, 4 other people. If you are unhappy the page was protected, perhaps you should have thought of that before edit-warring. Finally, when was the last time anyone removed anything from the desk just because it was speculative? Yes, speculation is inevitable sometimes due to the nature or phrasing of the questions asked. Is that a problem? Not particularly. Is it something we should be encouraging? No. In other words its tolarable for the questions where its unavoidable, but not when it is avoidable. Thats were common sense comes in. Rockpocket 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The current guidelines say that speculation is not allowed. This is simply incorrect, as you seem to recognize above. Where is this request for a lockdown, anyway ? User:Majorly hardly seems independent, as he recently tangled with A.Z., I believe. And there likely would have been more balance in the reverts had the lockdown not been timed to take effect while the balance favored one POV. StuRat 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines only say that we expect respondents to provide answers that are factually correct, and not just based on guesswork or speculation. It does not say verboten. If you try to understand what the intention of this sentence is – I know this is difficult, but if you try really hard, who knows, you might succeed – then perhaps it will dawn on you that this simply means that if a questioner asks what the capital of Nigeria is, you do not blurt off "Lagos" as if you know it just because you know it is a big city in Nigeria and most capitals are larger cities, or similar ill-informed and incorrect responses. Too many responses that are given are plain wrong, most of which could easily have been checked by the respondent before responding. The text you have a problem with is in the lead paragraph, which – as is usual in articles – aims to give a concise overview of these guidelines, establishing context, and summarizing the most important points of what is handled in more detail later. Do not read this as if you are a lawyer, please. It is just a corollary of the overarching aim that we strive to give the answer that best provides the information sought by the questioner. We keep the Wikitrout at hand, to be promptly used in emergencies.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not being "concise" to say something that is simply wrong, in this case that speculation is not allowed, when it clearly is. StuRat 20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is only "simply" wrong if you insist on interpreting it in an unreasonable way. Do you really not understand the intention? Do you really want to change this into: "No speculation is allowed except for the cases listed in §§1213–1225, 1460a and 1462"? Or are you trying to show that the new tag near the top of the page is "simply" right?  --Lambiam^Talk 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone read "refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork or speculation" and not see this as banning speculation ? StuRat 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We may understand one another, now. I suggest and I will accept that the guidelines say: "If a questioner asks what the capital of Nigeria is, you do not blurt off "Lagos" as if you know it just because you know it is a big city in Nigeria and most capitals are larger cities, or similar ill-informed and incorrect responses." This should be written instead of the current sentence. I will not interpret this to mean that it would be, for instance, OK to say that the capital of Brazil is Rio de Janeiro, only because it wasn't the capital of Nigeria that people asked for. I think this is a really good opportunity to achieve real consensus. I think everyone can abide to that phrasing and everyone will be happy. A.Z. 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you the same person who wrote:I think it's rude to say "this is not a chatroom". It looks as if people needed someone to be telling them what to do, because they would start talking about their mom's and cat's if no one told them "hey, this is not a chatroom!"? I think A.Z. forgot to change his easily guessable password, and now some rude person has hijacked his account.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that what you wrote now is rude. A.Z. 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines should not be protected, and this talk page should not be semi-protected. (IMO.) --Steve Summit (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. StuRat 15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and it looks like they're set to expire in a couple hours anyway. Friday (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag

For the users here to be able to decide whether the "trolling" tag is necessary, I request that the diffs of the alleged trolling cases be presented. A.Z. 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately

Unfortunately it looks like we have to follow the procedure JackofOz gave above:

What I'm suggesting is that any future changes (other than obvious typos, of which there don't seem to be any at the moment) be discussed at the talk page first, not just made unilaterally. I'm just thinking aloud here. Maybe this wouldn't work, because we can't physically prevent people from just editing the guidelines. On the other hand, changes sometime get made and then get reverted by the next editor who doesn't agree with them. So, if we agreed to flag proposed changes first, and then make them only with consensus, it might help avoid some of the hostility that has occurred during the recent past. Maybe a message on the guidelines page telling people not to change them without prior discussion would be useful.

But, as we all have seen, again and again each discussion point gets bogged down in a mist of pettyfoggery mixed with (sometimes thinly) veiled personal attacks, which is exhausting and irritating to the participants. I'm not participating here because I like it, but because I want to see guidelines established that allow us to move on and not run indefinitely in the same rut. Unless we come up with some discussion protocol, discussion on proposed changes will not make the hostility any less, I fear. Perhaps each proposal for change should follow a format similar to AfD debates: (1) a header ==PfC : Some Label==; (2) a description of the proposed change with a succint rationale; to be followed by (3) a succession of argued Support or Reject statements. Someone non-partisan should close after say 5 days. (Just trying.)  --Lambiam^Talk 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I vote for Jack as the "non-partisan". StuRat 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Having been out of town for a day and a half, I've just seen this. I disagree that any one editor should have the power to have the final say about these matters. I certainly don't want to be in that position. I want to have the freedom to make own, at times highly partisan, comments on whatever the issue is. Prior to the early 1960s, whenever the British Conservative Party needed a new leader, there was no formal process involving anything so tawdry as canvassing support for candidates or actually voting - the new leader would simply "emerge" and, if they were in government, present himself (it was always a him back then) to the monarch, who would then choose him as the new Prime Minister (although he/she had the discretion to choose another person). How the party could tell exactly who that person was, I have no idea. And neither did they in the end, which is why there was a debacle when Harold MacMillan resigned (see Alec Douglas-Home#Appointment as Prime Minister), and they changed their system. However, consensus on Wikipedia seems to operate on much the same lines as the Conservatives did back then. Sorry for this digression, but it seemed strangely relevant. JackofOz 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an unreasonable approach, but I'm not convinced it solves the problem we have. If people write on the talk page with the intention of arguing endlessly rather than with the intention of reaching a workable solution, no amount of different formatting will make their contributions constructive. Friday (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We would have a cut-off for each debate of 5 days. Now the average discussion period required for each change is about 18262 days.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I can see the benefit there. Not sure where we'll get the steady stream of volunteer discussion closers, but it could be worth trying. Friday (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Off topic discussion #4
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's not surprising you would favor this, Friday, after having reverted to your version (in violation of your RFA promise to follow the one revert rule), prior to the lockdown. You must have felt this revert was quite important to violate your promise, knowing that it would be locked down soon and thus you had to ensure that your version was current when this occurred StuRat 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. If I really controlled some vast conspiracy, do you think I'd bother usnig it on Wikipedia? Friday (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC) It's not a "vast conspiracy", it only takes one Admin, who cares more about "winning" than about their RFA promises. StuRat 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC) If you must pick a fight with me about my RFA, please keep it at User_talk:Friday#I_thought_you_promised_to_follow_the_WP:1RR_rule_in_your_RFA. This page is for constructive discussion of the ref desk guidelines. Friday (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) It's hardly "picking a fight" (reverting to your version before the page is locked down is "picking a fight"), but I will keep the discussion there, as it may distract from setting up a process to discuss changes to the guidelines. StuRat 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I am confused about your comment, StuRat. Unless you're seriously arguing that Friday, Radiant!, and Majorly all colluded and conspired to modify the page, request page protection, and actually protect the page just to stymie you, your parenthetical remark above has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. I'd like to add my support to Friday's request that you keep such off-topic, unrelated comments off this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have archived this because, I feel, it reached its natural conclusion and, further continuation is not constructive in establishing guidelines. David D. (Talk) 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there some procedure for reaching consensus in cases in which a small but active minority keeps raising objections based on the demand that every sentence in the text can only be interpreted in one way and can withstand even the most malicious interpretation violating all common sense, and that each sentence on its own has to tell the full story to boot, instead of being interpreted in context, and rejects all explanations by coming up with more such petty objections? I am not here to be part of a high-school debating club. There has to be some way for getting this to some form of closure.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting that the guidelines not say something untrue, like that speculation is banned on the Ref Desk, is hardly a "petty objection". StuRat 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggested something constructive above, and no-one did even comment. A.Z. 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ban?

What is this repeated talk of "ban" here? There seems to be a disconnect in the mind of some participants between the purpose of these guidelines and their interpretation. They are here for the benefit of respondents who want to see what is expected of them. Wikipedia has many guidelines that are formulated in a prescriptive way. An example are the Talk page guidelines page, which states: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. It is hard to maintain that a contribution like this one is conducive to that purpose. In fact, the Talk page guidelines state emphatically: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views, as well as Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Does that mean that expressions of personal opinions as above are "banned"? No, but they should be discouraged, the point being that they become a problem when they start interfering with the purpose of the talk page – as they sometimes do.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's just a vocal minority of editors who tend to interpret things in the most extreme way they can, so that "such-and-such is discouraged" comes out sounding to them like "such-and-such is completely forbidden and you will be banned if you ever do it." This bizarre extremism has gotten in the way quite a bit, but there's nothing for it. I think all we can do is let it disrupt our work as little as possible. Friday (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the word "discouraged" here (although it still wouldn't be correct to say that unsourced answers are discouraged in all cases), we are talking about the word "no" as in "no speculation". That doesn't mean some speculation, or occasional speculation, it means none whatsoever. This is just plain wrong, as just about all of us engage in speculation and many questions can't be answered without it. StuRat 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And nowhere can I find the phrase "no speculation." The word "speculation" appears in the current guidelines exactly once, in the following - "refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork or speculation." This does not say "if you speculate you will be shunned, ostracized, and held up as a figure of ridicule for all to see." It's a simple line in the introductory paragraph of the guideline. When will we stop with these Through The Looking Glass semantic games? --LarryMac | Talk 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please define "semantic games" and link to the policy which says they are forbidden. Sorry, couldn't resist. Friday (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think "refrain" means if it doesn't mean "don't do it" ? StuRat 05:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In this context, I think the phrase "refrain from" means "avoid," "eschew," "resist the temptation to". Yes, I cherry-picked those synonyms from dictionary.com. Because I'm trying for a common-sense interpretation. We are not working on a legal document; again, it's a guideline: "By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory." So you know what? Do what you want. Insert whatever language you want. "The reference desk is like a library ref desk, but it's bigger, better, faster, and there are chocolate fountains and the walls are made of sponge cake and nobody grows old and nobody ever has to die." I give up. --LarryMac | Talk 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I like that text. I'm sorely tempted to replace the entire guideline with that quote – along with external links to WP:DICK and WP:SENSE – and be done with it. It's pretty much how the Desk has always been run, and it's prone to a lot less of the silly semantic bickering going on now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fairly and without bias - reprise

On 3rd May I suggested "accurately" as a more precise altermative to "fairly and without bias" - see lengthy discussion above for why. The change was part of a compromise suggested by Ten which had broad agreement. At the time Friday said "I don't think it's needed but I don't object to that either". Now Friday and EricR team up to change it back to "fairly and without bias", and Friday says "agree with Eric. "fairly and without bias" is much closer to what we're aiming at". I see it is waste of time trying to get any sort of balance into these guidelines against such unreasoning and unreasonable fanaticism and petty point scoring. I just wanted to highlight that particular switcheroo, and say that my patience with this farce is exhausted. Gandalf61 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith, wizardly one. With all of the discussion that has happened in the past week, maybe that particular item was forgotten. I see no evidence of "teaming up," but even so, to come out of the gate kicking and fighting like you have is not going to help us move forward at all. --LarryMac | Talk 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The objection that this somehow requires complete answers never held water. I don't see where the earlier discussion indicates that there was a general preference for "accurately" over "fairly and without bias". But, as I said before, "accurately and without bias" would be ok with me too. Friday (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In a fit of unreasonable fanaticism, I have replaced "fairly" with "accurately". We now return you to your farce, already in progress. Friday (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a quote from meta's NPOV page would help:

While NPOV is an ultimate goal in writing an article, it's difficult to achieve immediately as a single writer. It is thus sometimes regarded as an iterative process (as is wiki writing in general), by which opposing viewpoints compromise on language and presentation to produce a neutral description acceptable to all.

This might be viewed as an adversarial system, but hopefully a polite one. One is expected to approximate NPOV to the best of one's ability and welcome improvements brought by others in good faith...

No one is saying that a single response must represent all possible views, as the balance of the paragraph clearly states. Accurately is meaningless in this context, and i expect that an editor with some experience in article space would be confused as to why that term is wikilinked to NPOV. I didn't make this particular change because i disagree with anything you've said, but because accurately is a pretty confusing way to describe NPOV. Do you intend that we shouldn't misrepresent our sources or that we should be precise and meticulous in our responses? Is it not O.K. to just quickly summarize a viewpoint? Accurately seems to almost imply the opposite of what you intend, fairly and without bias is often wikilinked to NPOV thoughout the project and doesn't seem to cause any problems. We already have a sentence which states that partial answers are fine, why not just add in some extra explanation if you think it's required?

What we can and should expect is that editors will make some reasonable attempt in their response. Don't try and exclude other significant views or jump on the soapbox to present yours. Leave room for "improvements brought by others in good faith" instead of turning the thread into an argument. Even though we may only be providing a partial answer, we should try to do so "fairly and without bias". I'm also enough of a fanatic to think that there are some questions where we should try just a little bit harder to cover all the bases in that first response. Some of the half-troll or argumentative questions seem to cause less conflict when there is a good response right off the bat pointing to Wikipedia's coverage.—eric 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Gandalf's version. The main problem with the old version is the "without bias", which implies that all views must be presented, so as not to show bias towards any one view. This is both impossible and undesirable, as people should feel free to only respond with answers from their field of expertise, if they wish. A biologist is only expected to give the biological POV, for example, not the psychological perspective. StuRat 05:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page due to edit warring. Come on guys, you all know that discussion is better than edit warring especially when the page has already been previously protected, please get consensus on this page before you act when the protection expires. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need this. The problem right now is a single disruptive editor, not a general edit war. Friday (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, did we learn nothing from the last time it was protected? I strongly suggest everyone refrain from editing this guideline at all until the content you wish to add or remove is discussed here first, and at least some support is garnered. Rockpocket 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So now we vote on changes to this page? If there's behavior here which prevents reasonable consensus-building, we should address it instead of enabling it.—eric 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see voting. Voting would be if someone were going to make the changes over objections. What I see is everyone who commented saying "sounds good" or "don't care." If someone has a concern in one of the below sections, I suggest they state such concern. Discussions without structure have demonstrated that they do not work with this group of folks. It has also been demonstrated via actions that WP:BRD fails here, as "discuss" becomes "revert more." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I too have reservations about this "suggest everything first and get feedback" approach. But, maybe it's the best thing to do for a little while. At some point we may have to decide that we should not let a single stubborn editor render our normal editing practices unusable. Friday (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PfC: guesswork & speculation

Proposal: to add to the sentence in the lead

"In a nutshell, we expect respondents to provide answers that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct"

the clause

", and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork or speculation".

Rationale: The tendency to give responses based on guesswork or speculation often leads to incorrect answers and should be discouraged. Indeed, the main text of these guidelines does so, and it is fitting to include this aspect in the lead paragraphs.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. --LarryMac | Talk 13:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely. Friday (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. While guesswork and speculation are necessary elements for some questions – I have on occasion answered questions that were best treated as Fermi problems or even science fiction 'what-if' scenarios – they shouldn't be anywhere near the most-used tools in our toolbox. (Even then, we should be explicit about the assumptions we make, and provide sources and reasoning to support those assumptions wherever possible.) Our stock in trade is factual, well-referenced responses; it's just what we do. To people who suggest that this clause would be used to do something absurd like remove comments or punish responders solely for giving a speculative response, I can only offer the principles in WP:SENSE, WP:IAR, WP:DICK, and WP:LAWYER. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support because unsupported guesswork and speculation are worthless. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support per ToaT. Rockpocket 17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Many questions require speculation, and most editors engage in speculation (including many who deny they do so). To say that we should refrain from such responses would harm the Ref Desk. "A reasonable amount of speculation is sometimes necessary to answer a question". One recent question which qualified was (paraphrased) "What is the probability that there is life on other planets ?". The answer including the Drake equation and link, along with some speculation on the possible range of values for each variable. This was entirely appropriate for the question. StuRat 20:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• The point is that this question is best answered by referring to answers given by qualified people. What value does the uneducated opinions of random internet people have? Very little, compared to the opinions of people who are qualified in that field. That said, nobody's suggesting we stamp out all speculation with an iron fist. Friday (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not true. Bush's opinion about whether WMD existed in Iraq in 2003 was no better than that of a non-expert. It was, in fact, considerably worse. The opinions of so-called "experts" are no better than the opinions of others. If, on the other hand, they have hard evidence, then that's another matter. StuRat 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support a common sense reading of this makes it clear what is expected of those answering question on the ref desk. When i read this i do not get the impression that speculation is outright banned, it is clearly written from the perspective that not all question are the same and good judgement should be used. I seriously doubt that this could be used as an excuse to delete a speculative answer (i believe this is StuRats worry, not explicit here, but previously articulated). Unfortunately, i can imagine the alternative wording being used as a justification for speculating on all answers. Ref desk does not need to be handicapped by the latter usage and so I support this more moderate usage. David D. (Talk) 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is my concern, yes. Perhaps we could add "Responses should not be deleted because they contain speculation" to clarify this. StuRat 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The desk is filled with speculation, and I like it, and the readers like it, and the respondants like it, and the askers like it. We should encourage speculation, instead, but not with imposed guidelines: essays could do it. One thing we should do is to strive to learn more about how to speculate without being fallacious: this would matter and would help the desk a lot. No-one made any attempt to prove the very disputable rationale above that claims that "the tendency to give responses based on guesswork or speculation often leads to incorrect answers." In fact, I really don't know what is that "tendency" supposed to mean. A.Z. 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: I suggest we split "reasoned speculation", which is allowed, from "wild guesses", which aren't, by adding the following:

", and, while reasoned speculation is allowed, please refrain from responding with answers that are based solely on wild guesses". StuRat 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support compromise. StuRat 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support compromise. The truth is that we're always going to get some editors making wild, uneducated guesses, but this may serve to cause some of them to think twice. Even if it doesn't, it's better to have it in the guidelines than not. JackofOz 04:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: create a template to clearly label wild guesses as such. Add to the compromise version above "unlabelled wild guesses". A.Z. 04:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support template. StuRat 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does the wild guess of an anonymous 12yr old from Iowa with too much internet time on their hands, equate with the provision of reliable and verifiable information at a Reference Desk? It doesn't. Strong oppose. Rockpocket 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose judging the value of people's guesses based on their age! A.Z. 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are no age limits on contributors here. Furthermore, most 12 year olds may be better qualified to respond to questions about recent pop culture than adults. Exceptional 12 year olds may also be well qualified to comment on other topics, as well. StuRat 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unfair and not intelligent to reduce the contribution potential of 12 year olds to topics on recent pop culture. It seems to reveal a rather bad (in my opinion) and untruthful bias towards 12 year olds: many of them like to do things unrelated with pop culture, and many of them dislike pop culture altogether. The mere fact of one being an adult tells nothing about the contribution potential of that person, just like the mere fact of one being 12 years old also doesn't.

I would like to see a lot of 12 year olds on the reference desk. A lot of people of all ages, countries, sexes, etc. I read this essay the other day about young Wikipedians. A.Z. 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see editors address the points made by other editors, rather than make irrelevent, distracting straw man arguments. We don't always get what we want, unfortunately. C'est la vie Rockpocket 02:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent seeing that old stereotype of our fellow thatched beings depicted as walking logical fallacies. They too have a right to be here and should feel welcome. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought your point was that the young boy (or girl) was young and therefore his (or her) guesses were wrong. Ergo, we should not allow wild guesses. Did you mean that all wild guesses are... I don't know, "bad"? Or always unuseful? I don't see anything wrong with them. They may be wrong 90% of the time, and find out 10% of the time something that could not be found out any other way.

Plus, if people are allowed to make wild guesses, they will practice and will start becoming good at it, and their rate of success will increase. If you just forbid them, a lot of people will never get their answers.

Guesses may also be a tip or provide a new insight on the topic or just give an idea for someone to find out a more proper and reliable response. That happens all the time. Recently, StuRat suggested that humans could not make soup until the iron age because they didn't have the right material for the recipients. Then eric found out a book about potter and the temperatures that it can take — something about which he would not have thought if StuRat had not guessed before and brought up the subject. A.Z. 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not suggesting that being 12 years old makes one's wild guess wrong, nor was I suggesting that Iowans are crap at making wild guesses, nor was I suggesting that ones guesses get more wrong the longer ones spends on the internet. My point is that a wild guess is not helpful because the person that makes it could have an IQ of 3 and have no clue what they are talking about, or they could be a MENSA-card carrying genius and the world expert on the subject. The OP doesn't know who is making those guesses therefore they need reliable sources to be sure that information is reliable. That was the point. I hope that is now clear (and please try and resist the urge to oppose my discrimination against the wild guesses of those with IQs of single figures). Rockpocket 03:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If the questioner is not someone with a single figure IQ, they should be able to know the difference between responses with sources and wild guesses, and should be able to evaluate how that information can help them with what they need. See also this thread that has been archived. A.Z. 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, A.Z. A response such as "The answer is xxxx" might look authoritative, but it may in fact be just as much a wild guess as anything else, and an unacknowledged one at that. The OP has been given nothing to be able to judge the quality of the answer. JackofOz 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The OP has been given nothing to be able to judge the quality of the answer, so they will not assume that it is wrong nor will they assume that it is right. A.Z. 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, people can judge an answer in many ways, such as the logic of the argument made, the professionalism of the answer, spelling, grammar, etc. While it is possible that a highly illogical, poorly written answer full of spelling and grammar errors might be right, it is unlikely. Similarly, a logical, soundly written answer may also be wrong, although this is less likely. If the question is "Do people ever have extra teeth ?" and the answer is "Yeashur whynotz cuz peeps has lik eggstra towsnstuuf sometimes", then I would be skeptical. If the answer was "I would speculate yes, since normal variation in such traits is essential in order for evolution to occur", then I would tend to be more accepting of the answer. StuRat 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that just mean that you have been given something to be able to judge the quality of the answer? A.Z. 03:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A.Z., I think that that conclusion is an assumption in itself, and not one that I share. We have no way of knowing, other than them telling us (which most of them don't do), how the OPs regard our answers. The point I'm making is that a response is not automatically wrong just because it doesn't contain sources, or just because it's a wild guess. Neither is one that contains sources automatically correct. It would be very helpful (not just for the OP, but mainly for the OP) if wild guesses (or even tame ones) were acknowledged as such by the guesser, because it shouldn't come down to "the OP should be able to work out which answers are of value and which aren't" (my interpretation of your comments 3 posts above). JackofOz 03:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

At the end, it comes to "the OP should be able to work out which answers are of value and which aren't". The volunteers can try to give the most complete, well-reference, meaningful answers, but that's all they can do. The OP will decide what to do with the answers, and will judge whether they are helpful.

I am also in favor of the guesser labelling their wild guesses as such, although in a lot of cases this fact is obvious. If the guesser doesn't label it, another editor can do that just by typing a few words right below the guess. I see no reason to forbid or disencourage guesses. A.Z. 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I. But how is another editor any more equipped to know that a previous answer is a guess than the OP is? It's up to the editor themself to say "This is just a guess, but I think xxxx", or words to that effect. That way, everyone knows what's going on, and nobody has to make any assumptions. JackofOz 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to agree. I think that many editors working together will eventually find out which answer is more correct and which answer the OP needs. A vounteer may guess something and not even realize that they are just guessing, and that their answer is not verifiable. Other volunteers may point the mistakes and misunderstandings. If the volunteers don't agree, it's up to the OP to decide what to do, based on the information that they have. Even if all volunteers do agree, the OP should still not just take the answers for granted, but rather judge for themself whether they make some sense.

It all works better if people explain that their guesses are guesses, that their speculations are speculations, and which sources they have. A.Z. 04:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the last sentence. But I don't quite see how someone could not be aware they were guessing. Without being Rumsfeldian about it, there are (a) things we know we know, and (b) things we think we know, and (c) things that seem plausible; we don't know whether they're right or wrong, but we think it's worthwhile reporting such thoughts because they might just be right. It's category (c) that I regard as guesses. JackofOz 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Per your definition, everyone knows when they're guessing. Perhaps I was adding a bit of the "b" definition to what I considered guesses. A.Z. 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PfC: Ideally

Proposal: to replace the sentence in the lead

"In many cases, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources."

by

"Ideally, answers will refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources."

(differences indicated by bold).

Rationale: "In many cases" is weak and does not express the intention; see further my contributions earlier on this talk page at #Ideally.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support.  --Lambiam^Talk 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. --LarryMac | Talk 13:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. Friday (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. 'Ideally' just indicates that the principle described is something to which we aspire. If a reliable source exists, we want to provide it. Sometimes that's impossible; this isn't a perfect (dare I say ideal?) world. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not far enough "Answers should link to relevent Wikipedia articles or cite reliable sources." Because they should. Answers that don't like to relevent articles or cite reliable sources are some guys chatting on the internet about stuff they think - ignorable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• To me, "Ideally, answers will link to.." means the same as "Answers should link to..." Friday (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, fine. The change improves the guideline. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support as above. Rockpocket 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not all questions would be improved with a link. If somebody posts a calculus test question they got wrong and we spot a basic math error, it would be insulting to provide a link to basic mathematics. Thus, it is simply wrong to say that answers lacking sources are "not ideal". StuRat 20:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support i agree not all questions would be improved with a link, however, the way it is worded StuRats math example would not be expected to link to basic mathematics. Again a common sense approach will make it obvious if a link is required. There is no doubt that links do improve most answers so ideally seems to be a very appropriate word to use here. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, because it says "Ideally", which means "Ideally, in all cases". To make it clear, you could say "Ideally, in some cases". StuRat 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. This is your selective interpretation; ideally does not mean in all cases. This has been discussed above and most poeple disagree with your interpretation, which is why most people here, after consideration, are supporting this wording. David D. (Talk) 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• If this can be interpreted in different ways, why not make it clear with "Ideally, in some cases" ? StuRat 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Surely the intention is to allow wiggle room. With your suggested wording your are opening up enough room for abuse. We don't want that much room. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• How can clarifying what we both agree is the meaning possibly lead to abuse ? It's leaving the possible misinterpretation (that it means "Ideally, in all cases") which will lead to abuse. StuRat 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Ideally" adds no value, and can be interpreted many ways. Same for "In many cases" - which cases? Not all answers will require a link, even where such a link exists. Sometimes a short plain English explanation is a much more appropriate answer than a link containing many pages of text. Not all answers will be able to point to a link; sometimes, no such link exists. Please see my suggested alternative compromise below. It refers to "trivial cases", which I hope is self-explanatory. If the questioner reads the answer but still wants to see an alternative source, we can then provide one. -- JackofOz 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• How about if we just delete the line completely, would you support that, Jack ? StuRat 07:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see the very point of the sentence. What is it trying to achieve? What is it trying to prevent? Why should we wish those goals (whatever they are) and how is that sentence supposed to help us getting there? A.Z. 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise:

"In many cases, answers should ideally refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources." StuRat 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support compromise. StuRat 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested alternative compromise:

"Except for trivial cases, answers should wherever possible link to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources." JackofOz 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I wouldn't call all those cases which don't benefit from sources "trivial". StuRat 07:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose both. As per your concerns above, which cases ae trivial? Anything could be considered trivial. "Ideally" does add value because it suggests is is something we should always strive to achieve. The reason for this is because, even if it the response is trivial in your opinion, it may not be in a readers' eyes so it certainly adds potential value if you can provide verification whenever possible. If verification is impossible to provide, the phrasing doesn't suggest the answer is banned or should be reverted, it simply means we have not achieved our ideal - to provide a reliable and accurate reference for every question. Rockpocket 05:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This again contains the logic that any answer lacking a source is inferior. I reject this, as in the many examples I've given previously. StuRat 07:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And I believe that the addition of a suitable source to any answer can only enhance the value to the OP, it can't reduce it. However the absence of a suitable source for many answers can severely reduce the value and can't enhance it. Therefore from the OP's perspective, the ideal situation is for us to provide a source whenever possible, since its the only no-loss situation. If you can give me an example of an answer where the addition of a suitable reliable source actually reduces the value to the OP, then I may consider changing my opinion. Rockpocket 07:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already given that example. If a student posts their solution to a calculus test question which they had marked wrong, and it contains a simple math error (say they forgot to carry when adding two numbers), it would be insulting to provide a link to addition and pointless to provide a link to calculus. StuRat 16:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, those are quite clearly not "a suitable source". If there is no suitable source, one would not be able to provide one. Moreover, you haven't explained to me how, even those unsuitable sources, reduce the value of the answer to the OP. Rockpocket 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But the sentence doesn't say "suitable sources", meaning "sources suitable to the question", but rather says "reliable sources". There are many questions where "reliable sources" are not suitable, and we should not be encouraging people to provide reliable sources in cases such as those provided in my examples. Another example is where people just go overboard on links, linking every other word for no apparent reason, since they seem to think "the more links the better". StuRat 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. A source that may be suitable for an answer to one question may be completely unsuitable for an answer to a different question on the same subject. Some questioners may like to read a long piece of text, others may prefer a short one-line answer. The suitability of any link will depend on what it is the questioner wants to know and how complex or brief they want the answer to be. -- JackofOz 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jack. And this is where common sense once again is required. We can't actually know how complex or brief, general or detailed they want the answer to be, unless they are extremely explicit in their question. So we should always attempt to verify our answers, but using a modicum of common sense. In cases where a source may not add any real practical value (i.e. what does 1+1 equal?), if my answer was 2, common sense tells me that adding a source is pointless. However, if I wished to answer 2 then expand and describe the theory behind numeric addition, then a source would be extremely useful. I still maintain that the ideal is to provide appropriate reliable sources, because they can only assist the OP (as long as they are not misrepresented and given appropriate weight, as per Lewis' concern below). Allowing for vague exceptions - "in most cases" - simply muddies the water unnecessarily, when we all know that ideals are never absolute in the real world. Guidelines set out what we aim to achieve in general, then we work within those using our common sense. The tactic of recounting, frankly unlikely, examples to illustrate exceptions is viewing the guidelines from a ruleslawyer mentality. This isn't a legal document, so we don't need to cover our backs for every eventuality. Its more of a mission statement, so we should set out what we aim to achieve. Rockpocket 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I completely disagree with Rockpocket's assertion that "the addition of a suitable source to any answer can only enhance the value to the OP, it can't reduce it." On the contrary. The addition of sources, especially secondary sources can and does very often give a specious response a false air of authority, as it's virtually impossible to determine how "suitable" a source is. I'm opposed to the requirement that secondary sources are at all preferable, as they can do as much harm as good. Primary sources, on the other hand, are quite a bit more certain to be reliable, and I have no problem with them. Backing up one's argument with secondary sources, are often no more than attempts to transform one's subjective opinion into an objective one through the back door. (By the way, the foregoing argument is not my own, rather it was pretty much entirely inspired, or shall I say "sourced", from an article by James Heartfield which can be found here [9] ;--) Lewis 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You are basically saying that sometimes suitable sources are unsuitable sources. I agree that if a suitable source happens to be an unsuitable source, it may be the case that it does not enhance value. In my experience, however, in more than 99.9% of the cases, suitable sources are not unsuitable. Do we really need to make an exception here for unsuitable suitable sources?  --Lambiam^Talk 12:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather bizarre interpretation of my words: "sometimes suitable sources are unsuitable sources"? huh? "in more than 99.9% of the cases, suitable sources are not unsuitable"? A suitable source is by definition a suitable source. That much is a tautology. Your statement is, if I may be so bold, patently illogical. It's like saying "99.9% of the time, A=A." Huh? Lewis 11:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is, therefore, not so much illogical as tautological – and thereby true. Apart from that, your logic is impeccable. If you apply it equally deftly to your own contribution, perhaps you will see that my interpretation of it is not as bizarre as you think.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand. Your statement is illogical because it challenges the logical validity of a tautology, which is by definition a logical statement. A=A is a tautology. You interpreted my statements as saying that A sometimes doesn't equal A, which makes no logical sense. Lewis 09:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some sources can do more harm than good, but omitting those sources is censorship, and, by doing this, you are imposing your view about which sources are good or bad. The best way to deal with the problem is to properly educate the OPs about the logical fallacy that argument from authority is. We should strive to make it clear that secondary sources should be critically analyzed and their assertions should not be taken for granted. A.Z. 14:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should verify first that the questioners wish to be "properly educated" based on such bizarre and idiosyncratic views on censorship and logical fallacies, before you set yourself to this noble yet daunting educational mission.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should. Maybe the questioners do wish to be ignorant, after all...

You are calling my views on censorship and logical fallacies bizarre and idiosyncratic, without explaining why you say that. You just call my views names and you go away. If I start to debate with you now, if I ask you what are your views on censorship and logical fallacies, if I ask you just what is wrong with my views, you will say that this discussion is distractive, you will say that I have no common sense, you will say that I am trolling, you will say that I am disruptive, you will say that I am spitting in your soup and trying to argue that there's nothing wrong about it, you will say that I am trying to write a dictionary, you will say that I am preventing the guidelines from being implemented, you may even give me a doughnut at the end. Well, if you're gonna do all of that again, at least choose another adjective: "bizarre" is getting tireing already. A.Z. 01:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In responding to a questioner, we try to provide the best possible information corresponding to their question. Now, for almost any topic, there is no lack of nutcases and crackpots who have some outlandish theory, ranging from relatively lucid pseudoscientific theories and conspiracy theories to the unspeakably weird. In addition, there are writers who are in the business of popularizing subjects, trading in accuracy for juiciness, there are publications that do not reflect current knowledge, and then there are authors who can't keep their facts straight. Should we include all of these as sources? Is making some selection, to provide only sources that serve the questioner's need for information, censorship? If you truly think that, then know that all of Wikipedia's content is subject to such censorship, and irreparably so. Of course respondents need to exercise their judgement in determining which sources are suitable for referring the questioner to. If you are unable – or decline – to use such judgement, then you have no business responding on our Reference desk. Providing sources that support your response is not a form of the logical fallacy called "argument from authority". It is not a logical fallacy at all. If the term "bizarre" is getting overworked here, ascribe it to the abundance of bizarre ideas expressed on this page.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But, but, but.....that's elitist! What ever happened to ref desk free speech :eyes rolling: ? David D. (Talk) 17:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Providing sources that support a response is not a form of argument from authority. Saying "historian John wrote something. You can check that he did at page 560 of his book" is not an argument from authority. Saying "historian John wrote something, therefore something is right" is an argument from authority.

Volunteers argue about the correctness of what historian John wrote. To do that, they can use logical arguments, other secondary sources and primary sources. The OP must know that the interpretation of primary sources is original research, and the OP should understand that secondary sources are not always right and are not always wrong, and don't always agree with one another. That's what I meant when I said that they should be educated. I meant that the volunteers should struggle to make sure that the OP be able to analyze the answers by themself.

Not mentioning the phantom time hypothesis when answering a question about the middle ages does not qualify, in my view, as a deliberate and dishonest omission and therefore is not censorship. It simply has nothing to do with the subject, it's a weird hypothesis that no-one believes. The article on phantom time hypothesis matters to this topic (the middle ages) as much as the article on "dog". Thought we'll never know for sure whether the hypothesis is actually right or wrong, the reason why someone didn't mention the hypothesis was a honest reason.

Now, if you are discussing some history topic, and a known author disagrees with your response, and you know that, and you choose to omit that author, that is dishonest and deliberate omission, and therefore censorship. If you don't agree with the guy, you should let the OP know about him and know about his book, and then show that he is wrong, using arguments and other sources.

The choice between "suitable" and "unsuitable" sources is subjective, therefore there will be volunteers that will mention authors that other volunteers think are not worth mentioning. The mere fact that, say, 80% of the volunteers don't think a source is worth mentioning doesn't entitle them to censor it. A.Z. 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion to which you added the comment I criticized was about omitting unsuitable sources, which to me includes not only books by fruitcakes like Velikovsky, Illig, and Fomenko or frauds like von Däniken, but also, for example, the publications of Nazi apologist David Irving. Indeed, I agree that some sources can do more harm than good. What I did and do not agree with, is your statement that omitting such sources from one's response is censorship. Now you appear to agree that it isn't (although your next sentence may be interpreted as a retraction: Velikovsky is a known author whose writings I know to disagree with some of my responses, but I still see no reason to refer to his nonsense theories), so I don't know why you wrote that statement before. Maybe you had lost the thread of the discussion.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am confused right now. I thought Rockpocket had said something like "the more sources, the better" and that's what we were talking about. Lewis said that he thought that some sources would do more harm than good, and therefore the proposed sentence (which says that ideal answers should cite reliable sources) was not good. You answered that 00,01% of the cases was not enough to change the guidelines. Then I said that I disagreed with Lewis that we should tell people to refrain from citing some secondary sources, because doing this would be like censorship.

But Rockpocket actually said "I believe that the addition of a suitable source to any answer can only enhance the value to the OP, it can't reduce it." The way I see it, "suitable source" is merely a "source that enhances the value to the OP". So Rockpocket actually meant "the addition of a source that enhances the value to the OP to any answer can only enhance the value to the OP, it can't reduce it".

The proposed sentence says that "ideally, answers will refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources." But StuRat simply never said that he disagreed with Rockpocket's assertion that "sources that are good are good". He just said that "it is wrong to say that answers lacking sources are not ideal". David D. said that he agrees with StuRat on that one, but wouldn't change the sentence because the sentence simply didn't mean that "an ideal answer has reliable sources." I think like StuRat: I always thought that the sentence meant that all ideal answers have sources, and answers with no sources are not ideal. But David D. said to StuRat: "Surely the intention is to allow wiggle room." This is totally offensive to me, as I feel that David D, instead of respecting my interpretation (which happens to be the same that StuRat has), says that "surely" I have some other hidden bad reasons to say that I would like the sentence to change.

JackofOz stated his opinion, namely that "not all answers will require a link, even where such a link exists." Then he suggested that answers that are not "trivial" should require reliable sources. He actually wrote: "Except for trivial cases, answers should wherever possible link to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources", which just means: "Answers that do not require reliable sources don't require reliable sources, but the addition of a source that enhances the value to the OP to answers that do require reliable sources will enhance the value to the OP."

It was precisely then that Rockpocket said "oppose", because, as he put it, "the addition of suitable sources always enhance the value to the OP", which, as I already said 3 times, means nothing.

There seems to be two real issues here for us to deal with. The first is what the word ideally means:

1)Ideally means "in all cases", it means that an answer that does not provide reliable sources is not an ideal answer.

2)"Common sense" should be used to interpret the word to apply only to answers that require reliable sources, meaning basically that all answers are better off with reliable sources, as long as the answer can't be complete and ideal without reliable sources. Therefore, the sentence is not necessary, because it has no real meaning.

The other issue is what David D. said: "Surely the intention is to allow wiggle room. With your suggested wording your are opening up enough room for abuse. We don't want that much room." A.Z. 02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. However, ideally actually means "conformity with an ideal" and, call me a sentimental old fool, but mightn't the ideal of a Reference Desk be to provide references? Rockpocket 02:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that ideals are rarely if ever achieved. They're targets at which we can aim. An ideal does not equal a mandatory requirement. JackofOz 03:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And who is suggesting that it does equal a mandatory requirement? Rockpocket 17:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one, I think. A.Z. 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think the reference desk is a real reference desk any more than the village pump is a real village pump. But, if you believe that the reference desk is like a real reference desk and it should ideally be for providing references, and you want to say that on the guidelines, the correct sentence would be "ideally, questions will require references." A.Z. 03:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How does that differ in any significant way from what is being proposed? Rockpocket 17:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A.Z. you've lost me. I'm offending you because I said the use of ideally allows wiggle room? From a section above it is clear what I mean (and I referred to it here too). Before I had written:

"I believe your [StuRat] interpretation is incorrect, and the word 'ideally' does not imply "'this should be done in all cases" but "'where possible". Clearly it is not always possible."

A.Z., are you saying this interpretation offends you? Where are the hidden reasons that you mention above? The reality is that my interpretation has nothing to do with you or StuRat. For the full context see the section above, appropriately titled Ideally David D. (Talk) 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right! Sorry! It was actually the language barrier at work. I thought you meant that StuRat intentionally wished to "open up enough room for abuse", as if he had "invented" a different interpretation just as an excuse to change the sentence and allow the abuse. A.Z. 03:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis wrote: I completely disagree with Rockpocket's assertion that "the addition of a suitable source to any answer can only enhance the value to the OP, it can't reduce it." That is not the same as StuRat's "just" saying that it is wrong to say that answers lacking sources are not ideal. I criticized Lewis's pronouncement about complete disagreement with an assertion that, after all, as you (A.Z.) said yourself, boils down to "sources that are good are good". What StuRat said or did not say had nothing to do with my criticism. Rockpocket's Oppose both was not in response to Jack's statement that not all answers will require a link, but to Jack's "suggested alternative compromise", and quite specifically to the vagueness of the criterium of cases being trivial.

As to the meaning of "ideally", I had already given a good reference to the meaning, supplemented by real-world examples, much earlier.[10] Most contributors were basing their reactions on this commonly understood meaning of this adverb. I hope this clears away any remaining confusion.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lambiam, does the Mathematics Ref Desk ever provide sources? A.Z. 20:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. If linking to a Wikipedia article counts, here are some diffs of responses of mine that included such links: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. If you look a bit around on the maths section of the Ref Desk, you'll also see external links, of course, but I prefer to give links to relevant Wikipedia articles whenever possible. As you are probably aware, with questions about mathematics it is often not possible to find ready-made information that answers the question directly. (That is in fact already true for completely elementary arithmetic facts, such as the answer to: how much is 83998573637 + 2?) Fortunately, if you supply a proof with your answer, as I usually do when relevant, any able mathematician can verify the answer, so verifiability through sources is often less of an issue here than it is in some other areas.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. There's a lot of words up there. Is it fair to say there's no remaining disagreement about the guidelines here? Nobody is trying to say sources are mandatory. We're saying that using sources is ideal. I think the only disagreement here is coming from people forgetting that a guideline is a guideline, it's not meant to be exhaustive instructions for every circumstance, and it's not meant to be set in stone. Friday (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We are yet to establish whether using sources is ideal. I think it is not. I think that using sources is good only when using sources is good and using sources is not good when using sources is not good, and I think the Ref Desk has room for questions that need sources and for questions that don't, and it's not that we tolerate questions that have nothing to do with sources: these questions are welcome just as much as those that need sources, and these are part of the ideal Ref Desk just as much as the other ones. A.Z. 20:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No where is your vision of the ref desk disputed in the guidelines, with respect to "whether using sources is ideal", as far as I can tell. On top of that, most people are fine with the current usage of ideally. Now whether it is a consensus is another matter but your interpretation of ideally is definitely in the minority. David D. (Talk) 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with A.Z. that it may be ideal for some answers to have sources, while it is also ideal for others not to have sources. It all depends on the question. StuRat 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That crystallises a niggle I've had in my head all along but couldn't put into words. Providing sources is sometimes ideal, and sometimes not - but even that applies only to ideal questions. Not all questions are in this category, though. I'm really now wondering whether inclusion of the word "ideally" in the guidelines has any value at all. The word "should" (rather than "must") covers the same ground. "Ideally" seems to have caused more debate than I think it's worth, and nothing would change if it were left out. -- JackofOz 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now imagine a journalist had written: "But that is not all. Wikipedia also has a reference desk, where users can ask questions. Ideally, the volunteers staffing the reference desk will research the question and provide the requested information." Now someone writes a letter. "Dear Editor: In your interesting special issue on Wikipedia, an egregious error slipped through in the description of the reference desk. It used the adverb Ideally in a way to make the sentence false. While it is true that it may be ideal for some questions to be answered, it is also ideal for others not to be answered. It all depends. For example, some questions are trollish and must not be answered." Well, this is what the Editor replies. "I put this in disguised form as a question at the Wikipedia desk, and they replied that in this sentence Ideally is a so-called disjunct or sentence adverb, and that it does not mean that it is ideal for a question to be answered, but that it modifies the whole sentence: the ideal situation is that in which the volunteers research and answer the question. As you wrote, not all situations are ideal. Indeed, if they were, there would have been no point in having this disjunct in the first place, but your example confirms it is needed here, and that the sentence actually becomes incorrect if it is omitted."  --Lambiam^Talk 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now imagine a Wikipedia editor had written on the guidelines: "This is Wikipedia's reference desk, where users can ask questions. Ideally, the volunteers staffing the reference desk will provide sources." Now some editor writes on the talk page. "Dear editor: In your interesting guidelines, an egregious error slipped through in the description of the reference desk. It used the adverb Ideally in a way to make the sentence false. While it is true that it may be ideal for some questions to be answered with answers that provide sources, it is also ideal for others to be answered without any source. It all depends. There are questions that can be properly answered without providing sources." Well, this is what the editor replies. "I put this in disguised form as a question at the Wikipedia desk, and they replied that in this sentence Ideally is a so-called disjunct or sentence adverb, and that it does not mean that it is ideal for a question to be answered with sources, but that it modifies the whole sentence: the ideal situation is that in which the volunteers provide sources. As you wrote, not all situations are ideal. Indeed, if they were, there would have been no point in having this disjunct in the first place, but your example confirms it is needed here, and that the sentence actually becomes incorrect if it is omitted."

I disagree with the highlighted sentence, and therefore I disagree with the proposal, because the proposal implies that the highlighted sentence is right. A.Z. 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If this situation is not ideal, could you reveal what, according to you, is the ideal situation?  --Lambiam^Talk 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The one where questions and answers that have nothing to do with sources are welcome just as much as those that involve sources, and are part of the Ref Desk just as much as the other ones. A.Z. 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case ... I think. JackofOz 06:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So shall we replace the sentence then by:

Ideally, questions and answers that have nothing to do with sources are welcome just as much as those that involve sources, and are part of the reference desk just as much as the other ones

? The earlier sentence with Ideally (before its meaning was turned upside down by StuRat) does not imply in any way that questions are unwelcome if the most appropriate answers cannot be sourced. That is not a normal, common sense interpretation of the sentence. The sentence I wrote above here, reflecting A.Z.'s ideal situation, on the contrary, does imply in its common sense interpretation that such questions are actually unwelcome. Almost all of us seem to agree on what the RD is meant to be; what we disagree on is the meaning of this adverbial construction. As the example I just gave shows, not only is interpreting the disjunct Ideally in the non-common sensical way wrong, but it also ascribes to it the opposite of what it means.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That propensity for differing interpretations of a word that, at the end of the day, doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the overall scheme of things, is a very good reason to exclude the word. I really do think this discussion has gone beyond its elastic limit. -- JackofOz 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between Hopefully, he won't notice it and He won't notice it. Likewise, Ideally, answers will refer to relevant Wikipedia articles and Answers will refer to relevant Wikipedia articles mean quite different things. The last sentence states something that is just not true. Simply excluding the word does not solve the problem. For that, we need a formulation that conveys essentially the same message in a straightforward and understandable way (and not the kind of convoluted pseudo-legalese that makes me feel I just want to curl up and cease to be sentient). Do you, honestly, honestly not understand the meaning of Ideally here? Some editors may be suffering from a language barrier that is an impediment to understanding, others may be suffering from an agenda impeding understanding, but neither applies to you.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Would you care to explain how the sentence that you wrote above, reflecting my ideal situation, implies in its common sense interpretation that questions whose appropriate answers cannot be sourced are not welcome?

2) An attempt to understand what you mean after all: is it possible that your intended meaning is "Ideally, Wikipedia articles and reliable sources will have the answers to the questions"? A.Z. 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As to (1), if someone says: Ideally, the student will answer all questions correctly, it implies: In this less-than-ideal world, however, sometimes students make errors. In general, the disjunct Ideally, is used as an admission that the situation described in the sentence following it is not universally attainable, for whatever reason. In that respect it is like Theoretically, X, which implies: In practice, however, X is not always possible/applicable/effective/.... As to (2), that is implied by the original sentence, but it is considerably weaker. Your (2) does not imply that, assuming the information sought can be found in Wikipedia articles and reliable sources, the response will refer to this. If you add that aspect, then – as far as I see now – the meaning becomes the same, but it makes the whole thing rather verbose and ugly (Ideally, the information sought can be found in Wikipedia articles or reliable sources, in which case the responses should refer (link) to such articles, or otherwise cite the sources), and there is no guarantee that those who claim not to understand the first version will suddenly see the light and understand this.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what the sentence says, I just don't know what it means, and I really don't know what an editor should do to act accordingly to it, and what an editor shouldn't do, which is what matters. I think you could try to explain better what are the implications of your sentence, and try to write something with your intended meaning using a lot more words, so people can grasp what you are thinking when you say that. Also, after you explain how editors should act (I mean, in many different cases, not only when it's obvious that there's an answer in Wikipedia), explain how this can improve the reference desk. An explanation of why the guidelines suggested something would be really good to persuade people to act accordingly to the suggestions.

Also, I think your verbose and ugly version looks better, as it gave me some insight on what you mean. Trying to pass a lot of information using just a couple of words can sometimes produce vague, unmeaningful sentences. A.Z. 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

PFC: NPOV

Proposal after: An individual editor is not required to provide a fully comprehensive answer - a partial answer may be improved on by subsequent answers.

ADD Responses must not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute.

This seems obvious, but it has been made clear that NPOV requres additional emphasis. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good. We're not trying to suggest that everyone cover every answer from every angle, but in cases about questions where there is a material dispute, we should take care to be neutral. Friday (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it is absolutely necessary, but neither am I adverse to its inclusion. Rockpocket 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect that this is redundant with the 'not a soapbox' provision, but its inclusion isn't harmful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support; useful clarification.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "Responses must not intentionally skew answers" part is OK, but the "Responses must not ... reflect only one side of a material dispute" part is wrong. It is entirely acceptable for a biologist to give the biological POV on an answer, even if that only supports one side of a "material dispute". StuRat 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Err. If we pretend certain words aren't there, we can pretty much change the meaning of anything. Do you have a problem with the entire sentence as written, or only your edited version of it? Friday (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have a problem with it as written, as I've stated quite clearly. I propose a compromise version: "While each response is not required to present every POV, try not to intentionally skew answers toward one POV." StuRat 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• So the only difference is "try not" versus "must not"? If we're talking about intentionally skewing answers, "must not" is much better than "try not". Friday (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, "must not" sound like if anybody says something that may be misinterpreted by others as "intentionally skewed" they will be "punished", this isn't the impression we want to give at all. StuRat 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise:

"While each response is not required to present every POV, you must not try to intentionally skew answers toward one POV." ? StuRat 21:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support compromise. StuRat 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose compromise. This fails my inner logic test. If a response is not required to present every POV, then it's OK to present only one POV. That's fine, because each editor generally has only one POV. But in providing that one POV, how is the editor not opening him/herself up to the charge that they skewed the answer towards that one POV? Is each of us required to know all the possible POVs in existence about the question, and provide a balanced selection of them? How would that work if I only know my own POV? JackofOz 03:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I meant that they shouldn't select data to only support one POV. For example, if they knew about a set of poll results, they shouldn't just select those which favor their POV. StuRat 07:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• What about: ", in many cases you must not intentionally try to intentionally skew answers..."?  --Lambiam^Talk 22:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• • How about ", in many cases you must not intentionally try to speculate about some answers unless your reliable source is a skewed soapbox..."? You're right, Lambiam, it's getting silly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm dusting off a comment of mine from a week ago. It's waaay up the page somewhere; I've tidied a bit of the wording, but its essence is unchanged. The bold text is new.

I think it is accepted that people will from time to time omit significant views from their responses. While not an ideal state of affairs, this is unavoidable. Sometimes this will be out of malice or zealotry (hence the soapbox provision) but usually it will be because someone didn't have time to write a full treatise on the Desk, or because they weren't familiar with all points of view, or because they didn't feel comfortable discussion some topics. Like an article on Wikipedia, an answer on the Desk can (and often does) evolve and expand with time, as new individuals with different knowledge and expertise contribute wherever their particular strengths might lie. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think just about everyone here can agree with the statement above. We've been chasing the same damn words around for more than a week, and wasted thousands of kilobytes and hours of time that could have been better spent on something useful.

All the pettifogging comes down to people trying to codify a few common sense ideas:

1. Editors should try to give complete, balanced answers;
2. Any given individual may not be able to give a complete answer, but can still contribute from his expertise; and
3. Editors should not use the Desk as an opportunity to soapbox.

I give up. The guideline is in good shape. It says reasonable things, when read in a reasonable way. I'm tired of the wikilawyerly, paranoid, quibbling, semantics-diddling reading and rereading and rewriting.

Unless and until someone has something to add that is either novel or obviously destructive, I'm staying out of the way of this process. I never really had a taste for loophole-hunting and playing 'what's the most twisted interpretation'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[20]? You can't really blame your headache on the brick wall if you go out of your way to beat your head against it.—eric 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Come over to my version of the desk, Ten, we have chocolate. --LarryMac | Talk 17:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make the word "intentionally" bold (as in intentionally) and I will accept it. I am really compromising myself, since I would prefer that there were no sentence like that at all. But I believe that there's already a general consensus not to delete the reference desk, and not to forbid speculation, and not to forbid POVs. Let's move on for the time being. When the desk becomes more mature, the guidelines will be naturally changed to exclude the whole sentence. A.Z. 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note the box at the top

Please read the box at the top of the guideline page- particularly the part which reads "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page." A consistent failure to do this is an example of disruptive editing, which we do not appreciate. Friday (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, this means you too. Friday (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it means you, too, Friday. StuRat 06:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If we seem unable to reach consensus, it may be because some editors do not want consensus to be reached, and prefer edit warring, so that when the page gets locked again in another than their preferred version, they can start whining about admin abuse. While we may not have consensus (I don't know how to establish this), there definitely is a comfortable majority for the version subverted by StuRat's recent edits, which I see as a declaration of war, as they quite definitely move things away from the majority's position to something farther removed from any potential consensual compromise.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Declaration of war" may be a bit much, but it sure looks to me like StuRat is more interested in fighting than in collaborating. This attitude is not helpful to the project. Maybe "declaration of petulance" is more accurate. StuRat, if you're not interested in collaborating, we can't make you, but please stop getting in the way. This sulky child routine wore thin months ago. Friday (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your abusive, insulting Admin routine ran thin soon after I met you. StuRat 07:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculation is NOT "often required"

I just reverted the following compromise.[21]

"In a nutshell, we expect respondents to provide answers that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork, although speculation, so long as it is clearly labeled as such, is often required. In many cases, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources."

Back to:

"In a nutshell, we expect respondents to provide answers that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork. Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources."

Differences are shown in bold. I don't see how this is a compromise based on all the discussion above? The whole point is that speculation is NOT "often required". Personally, I will not support a guideline that has a statement that says speculation is often required. David D. (Talk) 11:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. When speculation is "required", it's because someone asked a question that wasn't a reference desk question, and people answered it. While often not harmful in any way, I agree that we don't need to encourage this either. Friday (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree, speculation is often required, and numerous examples of this have already been provided. StuRat 15:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If we cannot agree, let's not mention speculation at all. Friday (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the Consensus about not editing the Guidelines without a discussion on the Talk page?

My understanding is that there was a consensus not to edit the guidelines in a major way without a consensus on the talk page. However since that consensus was reached, the number of edits has gone up exponentially.

So far today (18 May) there have been 24 edits. Yesterday there were 26. There have been over 100 edits since 8 May.

The consensus has clearly been abandoned. Does anybody want to say anything about this? JackofOz 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of those edits are from LC and the associated reverts. David D. (Talk) 12:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(Wearing my admin hat; I don't have anything to add to the discussions above which are still about semantics and legalese, and have nothing to do with the substance or common-sense interpretation of this guideline.)

I can't be bothered to count back to May 8, but looking at the last fifty edits, 17 were from a banned editor, 18 were reverts of that banned editor followed by the resumption of semiprotection. (This is a regrettable but not particularly uncommon effect of banning a troll.)

The actual change to the guideline over the last fifty edits is minimal. It's normal and accepted for there to be minor changes in wording (not substance) of policies and guidelines with time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan on trying to answer every "What if it's misinterpreted in this or that bizarre way?" question anymore- there's a neverending stream of them and answering them provides little useful value. A few of the actual changes were mine- I tweaked things in a way that I was confident wouldn't be controversial. Friday (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jack, to address your actual concern- Yeah, seems like we changed our minds pretty quickly, but I think is is normal and generally unavoidable. There's an automatic tendency here toward not having pages be uneditable. Even when we use technical means to prevent editing, we almost always try to remove the protection as soon as possible. I think as long as everyone is being reasonable (and not intentionally making changes that probably don't reflect consensus) we'll be fine. Friday (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, really, who is we? A.Z. 05:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent at this point on whether we should look for approval before making changes. Most of us seem mature enough to handle this approach, but I notice StuRat has been edit warring again. StuRat, please seek consensus before making changes from now on. Friday (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It takes two side to "edit war", and you yourself have made changes not agreed to by consensus. Friday, please seek consensus before making changes from now on. StuRat 07:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciated the responses up till and including 15:02 on 18 May. After that .... (raises eyebrows, sighs) -- JackofOz 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Please. The lead section is intended as a concise overview of the guidelines, establishing context and summarizing the most important points. It should not be used as a dumping ground for casuistic clauses. I understand that the temptation may be strong for people who have been trained to be a lawyer, but nevertheless, it should be resisted. Here is a test that additions to the introduction should meet. (1) The material that is added must summarize a point that is made in more elaborate form in the body of the text (following the TOC). (2) It must be of greater value in giving an idea what the guidelines are about, than all other issues that are treated in the main text but not summarized in the lead. But please do not "summarize" every last point; the introduction should consist of no more than two or three short and easy-to-read paragraphs; otherwise it is better to just scrap it.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What is this bollocks?

Why do we even need a guideline on a reference desk? If someone asks a question and you have a constructive contribution to make, make it. If not, don't. That's it, the whole of it, and all the rest is explained in my polite summary at the head of this section. Complete and utter bureaucratic insanity. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's about what I said, oh, 6 months or so ago. Since then I've decided that while they're probably not necessary, as long as they say sensible things, having a guideline doesn't hurt anything either. Because the reference desk appears to attract a lot of editors who are otherwise very unfamiliar with what goes on at Wikipedia, a newbie-friendly explanation of how core Wikipedia standards apply here may be useful. Of course, like all guidelines, the people who are capable of understanding the guideline are probably not the ones who need it, so, yes, it's a bit of a catch-22. Friday (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support

"If someone asks a question and you have a constructive contribution to make, make it. If not, don't."

as either the nutshell for the guideline, or the guideline in its entirety. I don't recommend making that change, however, as it would be stirring up the anthill for no useful reason.

Tony, I agree that in principle WP:5P and WP:TRIFECTA should be sufficient to keep things ticking over. Nevertheless, some people prefer a bit more explicit, situation-specific guidance. The guideline as written says some reasonable, common-sense things, and provides a bit of a refresher on some important principles that might be useful to editors who are not fully...acculturated...to Wikipedia.

My participation here is pretty much limited now to preventing the introduction – inadvertent, of course – of anything harmful during all the pointless wiki-nomic, wikilawyering, semantic games. I imagine that several other editors are in a similar boat. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The same succinct summary, one could argue, is all the instruction we require to contribute anywhere on Wikipedia. And that would be fine for those who, as ToaT puts it, are alreadly "acculturated" to the project. The problems arise when the it isn't clear what a "constructive contribution" is. Instruction creep and wikilawyering is something we are battling - see the debate above on ideally for example - but I believe but there is a place for a guideline, in the true sense of the word. Rockpocket 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What is "common sense" shouldn't need to be written at all, I guess. A.Z. 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We need it to make sure that people won't delete our posts, among other things. A.Z. 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I should explain my background to this. I'm answered a few (a very few) reference desk queries. I responded to a query on how to pronounce "10.10" in English, and one about how hard it is to learn Esperanto. I added a note about the teutonic "r" sound in Northumbrian English, I answered a query concerning the language in which some text was written (it was beautiful and ended with "sayanara" so that was easy enough) and I made a comment about copyright. None of these responses required me to understand anything about Wikipedia except perhaps how to sign a post.

Now I look at the guideline and it's absolutely impossible: "we expect respondents to provide answers that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct". Well bollocks to that. I'm not omniscient and from my experience of Wikipedia I'm pretty sure that neither is anybody else who edits it. If someone asks a question I'll answer it to the best of my ability, and the person who asked it will just have to settle for that.

And then the assumption that Wikipedia has all the answers:

Responses to posts should always attempt to answer the question and should almost always fall into one of three categories:

• direct answers or referrals to Wikipedia articles, web pages, or other sources,
• clarifications of other answers, or
• requests for clarification.

Bollocks to that, too. I know about the experience of learning Esperanto because mi parolas esperanton malbona. I know about the Northumbrian r because I was raised in a neighboring county and I spent enough years in Northumberland for my son to have the makings of that "r" in his speech by the time we moved away. I know the language is probably Japanese because Sayanara is a Japanese valediction, and the quoted text looks like Japanese on the page. Those are useful but not definitive replies, and any intelligent person should be able to evaluate their reliability by comparing them to the replies of others. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you! I agree that people's personal experiences can be of great value when answering questions, I agree that no familiarity with Wikipedia is needed to do a great work at the reference desk (and I wonder what, after all, is that "familiarity" that they talk about, since I have been here for one year and apparently I don't have it) and I agree with that last sentence of yours: intelligent people don't need censorship. If someone thinks an answer is not good enough, if someone doesn't like an answer that someone gave, don't frown upon it, don't delete it (there are people here who like to delete posts of others), just write a post with a better answer. A.Z. 01:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is there are too many people who don't know when not to answer. Its not a race and certainly if a question has already been answered the toilet humour follow up is hardly useful. No one has ever had a problem with "useful but not definitive replies". David D. (Talk) 01:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that there have been a lot of disputes as to whether a reply was "useful but not definitive" or just wrong because it didn't provide references and the information wasn't in any Wikipedia article. A.Z. 01:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots? I can't think of any off the top of my head. David D. (Talk) 03:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was that mercury thing with StuRat. I know there are lots of them, I'm just a little tired to look for examples right now. A.Z. 05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) So when you provided those earlier answers on the desk did you happen to make any sexist jokes that were likely to offend a large number of readers? Did you add lengthy diatribes promoting you own opinions? Were you making wild-ass guesses just to get a response in on the desk? If you had, and a number of other editors pointed out the five pillars and asked for a little moderation in your responses, would you have listened to them? That is the origin of this guideline document, editors adding worthless crap to the desks and absolutely refusing to accept any criticism of their responses. There was never really any great enthusiasm for writing this document, and i think just about everyone has at one time or another expressed a similar opinion to yours above, but time and again we are faced with the idea that the ref desk is some kind of free speech zone where anything goes and damn the rest of Wikipedia. Is writing a guideline document the best way to solve that problem? Probably not, but that's how things worked out.—eric 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the diatribes weren't lenghty, but he did "promote his own opinions" about learning Esperanto.

I don't see how the guidelines will prevent sexist jokes. A.Z. 05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet they have been reduced dramatically in the last six months. A coincidence? David D. (Talk) 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So, your argument for the implementation of guidelines is that sexist jokes have been reduced in the last six months because of that proposal page (which was changed into a "guideline" just recently)?

OK, then. I can accept that the guideline can somehow reduce the amount of sexist jokes, though I have no idea how it does that... A.Z. 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The process of writing it (by the regular contributors to the ref desk) probably highlighted the boundaries that are generally regarded as unacceptable. Such a guideline will not help much with new users who arrive though. On the other hand, if a new culture has been established among the ref desk regulars the guideline may well have already served its purpose. David D. (Talk) 06:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tony Sidaway provided the fresh view of someone unburdened by truckloads of archived debates. Attempts to characterize an ideal type of the reference desk may fail while taking a lot of valuable time and effort, but attempts to improve the desks directly will continue. This can include asking for sources and removing inappropriate comments. Attempts to characterize an ideal type of appropriateness will fail too. Case by case may be the only way forward. Quoting guidelines won't be necessary, and when done diligently, removals will meet support. I won't elaborate on this, it's obvious to me. If I'm mistaken, so be it. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Tony Sidaway's arguments boil down to eliminating the "no original research" rule for the Ref Desk and not worrying about if people occasionally give wrong answers, since others will soon provide the correct answer when this happens. I completely support both arguments. StuRat 07:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I see an unfortunate tendency to read these guidelines, meant to be helpful to people who want to be respondents, as if they are a regulatory device. As things are, would-be respondents might from time to time get the impression, from the responses at the Reference desk, that "anything goes", like in a discussion forum. These guidelines may then help to set this mistaken impression straight. At least in my opinion, it is not OK to answer a question by presenting a wild guess or random speculation as if you know the answer and this is how it is. Sometimes this may get challenged or even corrected, but certainly not always, because it may happen that the answer already given is not obviously wrong and no-one on the desk knows the correct answer. But even if it is corrected, the questioner may have read the earlier response and never come back, satisfied by what they assume to be correct information answering the question. Off-colour jokes, as well as responses that do not aim to supply information (including responses offered as a supplement or correction to other responses), but are given just for the sake of babbling discussion, should be discouraged. I completely fail to see why expressing that in the form of guidelines is considered "bollocks". If it is, then so are WP:EQ, WP:AGF, and WP:NOOB.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree, though I think that the word bollocks was used to provocatively draw attention just re-read WP:AGF, speaking of which. But how to proceed in this tangled situation, where the fractal possibilities of zooming into microscopic debates seem to know no bounds? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN??  --Lambiam^Talk 13:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If the guidelines are supposed to be helpful tips, basically suggestions, I suggest that they be made into a few essays. Lambiam would have his essay, I would have mine, David D. would have his. Everyone would write their own impressions and opinions and ourselves, the other regulars, and newcomers would be able to get to know all of them. Having one "official" page with the guidelines does make it look like it is a regulatory device, at least the way the guidelines are being made so far. Instead of showing different views and opinions, the guidelines display only one view right now. A.Z. 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection of guidelines

I have removed the inflammatory section head on this section and archived the discussion because it was generating more heat than light.

If anyone has any concerns about the protection status of this – or any – page, requests for (un)protection belong at WP:RFPP. The guideline and this talk page are likely to experience periods of (semi)protection as long as they are being trolled by sockpuppets of a banned editor.

If anyone feels that the protection policy has been maliciously misapplied or that there has been any other misuse of an admin's privileges, open a discussion at WP:AN/I. This page is for the discussion of the Reference Desk guidelines, not for offtopic bickering. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no particular reason I chose a 1 week protection. If anyone wants to unprotect, go ahead. Friday (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think, with tempers somewhat frayed at the moment, it might be a good time to leave the page protected. The pattern will simply repeat itself within that period, so there is little to be gained by protecting. As ToaT notes, if anyone diagrees there is WP:RFPP. Rockpocket 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Saying "leave the page protected...there is little to be gained by protecting" doesn't seem to make sense. Do you mean "leave it unprotected" or "there is little to be gained by unprotecting" ? StuRat 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He must have meant "unprotecting". Friday (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, sorry about the confusion. Rockpocket 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Closed discussion about use of admin privileges
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Friday was one of the first participants in an edit war over the use of the term "Ideally" (saying that any answer lacking sources is "not ideal"): [22]. The edit war then continued with many other participants. He then waited until "Ideally" was back in, then, 7 minutes later, locked down the guidelines for a week: [23]. Doesn't anybody else see this as an abuse of Admin authority, to use the Admin tools to win an edit war ? StuRat 17:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Light Current is a banned user. Stop encouraging him. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC) I see it as immature and abusive. I have a hard time understanding why administrators so often refrain from changing other administrator's actions. Anyway, we have better things to discuss other than Friday's immaturity. I think we should focus on the reference desk, and not on the actual page with the guidelines, whose content is subject to arbitrary changes and abuse. We should focus on this talk page instead. Here we are a little more free to discuss the reference desk and the guidelines, and no-one can revert our edits. A.Z. 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC) I think you'll find the the protection was in response to the editing by a banned troll (one, incidently, that StuRat chose to encourage by reverting the deletion of his posts). I protected tha article the previous day for the same reason, since it has become patently clear that the only way to combat this troll is to protect the guideline. The reason admins rarely refrain from changing other actions is because thet generally prefer to discuss differences of opinion than edit or wheel war over them. Incidently, StuRat's principles in his crusade against opinion in section headers seems to have gone awol again... or does that principle only apply to Friday's section headers? Rockpocket 18:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Friday protected the page when "Ideally" was in. A.Z. 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Let me get this straight - are you actually suggesting that Friday protected The Wrong Version? Rockpocket 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC) By no means. I am merely saying that, if Friday intentionally protected the version that he likes, then he is immature. I am also saying that the fact that Friday protected the version that he likes shows immaturity in his decision, since a mature person, in my opinion, would intentionally protect the version that they don't like. I would do that, if I were an administrator, so no-one would feel that I am being unfair. I would protect the current version, and Friday should have protected the version that StuRat likes. A.Z. 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC) WP:AGF. WP:NPA. --LarryMac | Talk 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC) What is that supposed to mean? A.Z. 21:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Reading the links might have helped you figure it out. It means you should Assume Good Faith in the action of the person who locked the page. It also means the alleging that somebody is "immature" for taking the actions that you disagree with is a Personal Attack. --LarryMac | Talk 02:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC) As in this example: [24] ? StuRat 03:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC) If you like WP:AGF so much, then you must accept its consequences and WP:AAGF! A.Z. 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Let me explain how it works, A.Z. When protecting a page from trolling by a banned user, what one should do is ensure the page is reverted to the version immediately previous to the troll's edits and then protect it. See for example this very page a few days ago. a banned user edits the page. Sluzzelin reverts the trolling to the version immediately prior. I protect the page. Now, if you look at the edits leading up to Friday's protection you will see the exact same pattern. Banned troll edits. Eric R reverts to the immediately previous version. Friday protects. I'm not entirely sure quite what else Friday was supposed to do, as if he didn't protect when he did we would simply have gone through the usual cycle of trolling. If Friday had searched the history for an alternative version to protect, even one he specifically didn't like, then he would have been abusing the tools and someone else would have complained. You really can't win with protection, hence my link to The Wrong Version. Rockpocket 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC) I would have expected anyone participating in an edit war on a page to recuse themself from locking that page at any time. StuRat 02:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Friday hadn't edited the page for 3 days prior to the protection. There was 42 intermediate edits between his last edit and the protection. Its hardly as if he protected it in the middle of an edit-war he was involved in. Seeing as every single admin that watches this page has reverted one of your unsupported changes at some point in the past, who exactly would you suggest protect the page from the troll while we all recuse ourselves? Rockpocket 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC) How about somebody who isn't involved as a partisan in the dispute ? There are several thousand Admins not involved, after all, is it too much to ask that we get one who wouldn't have a conflict of interest when we want the page locked ? StuRat 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC) No-one is stopping you asking one of those several thousand admins. There is no conflict of interest when the protection is made on the version immediately prior to that before the trolling. Since there is no subjectivity involved, any admin can make the protect since they would all protect the same version. The process has already been explained, If you don't accept that and think there is admin abuse going on here, make a request for review at WP:AN. Rockpocket 03:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC) And yet on this occasion: [25], pretty much the same exact thing had happened (the "troll" had been reverted), except that my version was current at the time. So, did Friday then choose to lock the page down for a week due to trolling ? Of course not, he just reverted me, instead. This is the crux of the problem, whenever a "troll" is reverted to a version he likes, he locks the page down, while, if a "troll" is reverted to a version he doesn't like, he does just the opposite. This is the problem with having a highly partisan Admin making these type of decisions in cases where a clear conflict of interest exists. StuRat 04:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Bollocks, StuRat. You're letting your personal issues with Friday get in the way of the evidence. In the last three weeks, the page has been protected five times, because Light current can't get it through his head that his childish antics are unwelcome here. Four different admins attempted to deal with the issue through semiprotection; now that Light current has decided to start employing sleeper sockpuppet accounts, we've had to resort to full protection of the page to take his toys away. If, even once, Light current had instead been able to create a new account, use it in a responsible, adult manner to contribute positively to Wikipedia, and only then return to this page to participate in mature discussion, there would be no reason and no need for protection (full or semi-) on the guideline page or these talk pages. It's disappointing that you're helping him to troll by ranting about Friday and a conspiracy of evil admins abusing their custodial tools. If you believe that Friday has erred in protecting this page, file an incident report at WP:AN/I or an unprotection request at WP:RFPP and quit ranting about it here. Your continued assumption of bad faith is tiresome, a waste of our time, poisonous to the discussion here, and probably gives Light current a little tingle of glee that you're still dancing to his tune. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict) There are twelve other occasions since your example when Friday had the opportunity to protect a favoured version after an edit by a banned user, but didn't. Yet you kept searching to find the one occasion you were the previous editor then hold that up as an example. The oldest trick in the book. You have clearly already made up your mind, so either ask another of those several thousand admins for an independent opinion or give it a rest. Constant complaining here is not going to change things and giving LC the oxygen of publicity he craves is only going to prolong the situation. Rockpocket 04:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Analogy

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

Archived discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think this is rather silly. I think that the reference desk should be the Wikipedia Reference Desk, and we should forget about real world reference desks altogether. It's like the village pump: it's not a real village pump, as we know, but it can still have this name! The thing is that no-one complains by saying: "hey, we are a village pump, so stop doing things that are not usually done around real-world village pumps!" I respect the good intentions of the people who still insist that this is some sort of real world reference desk, but I think it's just... silly, as I said. A.Z. 04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, where we get upset at the village pump is when people do treat it exactly like a real village pump. One day a few years ago, someone drew water there, and it royally messed up the servers. Friday (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I think its fine, as it gives those not familiar with the project a comparison with something tangible. The statement itself it entirely correct (we do attempt to provide comparative services) and its worded in a descriptive, not prescriptive, manner. All good. Rockpocket 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Well, doesn't the name "reference desk" already give a comparison with something tangible, just like the "village pump"? I'm not trying to change the name of the project, I think that "reference desk" is fine, as long as it's treated the same way that "village pump" is. I bet there are no guidelines for the village pump saying "we try to provide gatherings comparable to those of a real village pump". A.Z. 06:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I see the wiki-link to the library reference desk article as adding value, as it provides an overview of the scope and purpose of a reference desk for those not familiar with the concept. Some people might think the Desk is a forum or place to chat - the link is a quick way of dispelling those misguided ideas. Rockpocket 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC) But the reference desk is a forum, just check the dictionary. A.Z. 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC) To clarify, I meant internet discussion forum. Rockpocket 07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC) It's only a matter of semantics. It's all subjective here. Don't say "they'll think it's an Internet forum". Say what you mean! Say what is it that the reference desk should not be for, otherwise I'll just say "well, it is an Internet discussion forum as far as I'm concerned". Accordingly to the article, "An Internet forum is a facility on the World Wide Web for holding discussions and posting user generated content, or the web application software used to provide this facility." All it takes is for me to say that everything on the reference desks right now I shall label "discussion". So, instead of using loaded terms like "forum" and "discussion" which could mean basically anything, strive to be more objective. A.Z. 07:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Once again, its somewhat beside the point. You clearly know what I meant, therefore arguing the semantics is no more than wikilawyering. One is a forum for discussion of topics on the internet, the other is a virtual desk manned be people who volunteer to help provide references. They have similarities, but so do cats and dogs and it doesn't take a genius to tell them apart. Please, A.Z., can we avoid the meta-discussions over every single minor issue and try and stick to the point here? Rockpocket 07:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC) That's really good to read, Rockpocket. I wasn't expecting you to say that. The thing is: I have no idea about what you mean. I mean it, Rockpocket, and you may not believe it, but I'm not playing with words here: I do not know what you mean and this is not a minor issue, that's the entire issue. If you write "this thing is not a forum", I don't have a clue what you're saying. I'll just probably be scared and run away, afraid of the arbitrary removal of content by people who judged my posts to be "forum-like", whatever that is supposed to mean. A.Z. 08:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Ok, then I'm sorry. Let me make myself clear. By internet discussion forum, I mean a website where people will leave messages for each other in threads, thereby having a conversation, either for the purposes of simple social interaction or to carry out a debate/argument on a specific subject. An example might be Popbitch a gossip forum [26] or Politicalhotwire, for political debate. Hopefully you can appreciate that there are similarities between these and an online version of a library reference desk, yet agree that they are also inherent differences. Rockpocket 08:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I don't quite understand what "this is not a forum" means beyond "this is not a chat room". Can you explain the diff ? StuRat 08:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Where did you get the quote, "this is not a forum" from, and what diff are you referring to? Rockpocket 08:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Ok, I see what you mean now (I though you meant diff, rather than difference). Compare and contrast Internet forum with Web chat site. Rockpocket 08:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Why would you send me to two articles to try to figure out what you mean, instead of just telling me ? Or, perhaps I should have sent you to compare and contrast articles on plain talk and beating around the bush. :-) StuRat 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Because I have more constructive things to do than provide trollfood. You really wanted to understand the difference, you would read them and move on. If you wish to argue for the sake of it, you can find someone else to humour you. I bid you adieu. Rockpocket 09:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, this is a fair question, which in the interest of preserving the world's dwindling supply of colons, I'll take up in a new section below. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I agree completely with A.Z. here, we shouldn't limit the services which we provide to those provided at a library ref desk. For example, I can't picture any reference librarian checking a student's math, but that's exactly the type of thing we do at the Math Ref Desk. If we include the comparison at all, we should say "The Ref Desk offers a superset of the capabilities of a regular library Ref Desk, offering those services and much more." StuRat 06:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Isn't that a bit like the thin edge of the wedge, though? It's fine that we say "the reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to a library reference desk", because that's true, and reflects its core purpose. Once we start talking about possible other functions, the question arises - what other functions? and that demands answers. Once we start to enumerate them, we're in trouble. "Comparable" doesn't mean "identical". The sentence doesn't prevent users from asking us to check their maths homework, but neither does it invite such questions, nor, imo, should it. JackofOz 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) If the analogy is imperfect (which it is), and we aren't willing to explain where the analogy breaks down, we shouldn't use the analogy at all, it just causes confusion. StuRat 08:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC) So, we should not invite these kinds of questions at all. This way, we don't have to deal with the problem to determinate what the reference desk is, as we would be in trouble. But we shouldn't stop the users from asking for us to check their maths homework either, because, well, that's a good thing that the reference desk does. A.Z. 07:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC) That pretty much sums up my opinion, A.Z. No matter how expansively we might list all the things we have done in the past and would be prepared to do in the future - and it would be a very long list - someone will come along and ask a curly question of a type we've never had before. It's a futile exercise, because people in their illimitable uniqueness will find ways of regarding a Ref Desk in a way that was never anticipated, but which may be something we take on board. Or not. JackofOz 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) So, don't list them. Don't list any of them. Let's stop engaging this futile exercise once and for all. Or do you suppose that we are trying to do anything different from what you just described? Yes, we are, I admit it. We are being even more futile. We don't want to list all things that we have done in the past: we also want to determine which ones are good and each ones are bad, which ones fit and which ones don't, which ones will be allowed from now on and which ones won't, and all of that summarized in just a few paragraphs. Well, if we do use just a few paragraphs, people will be able to interpret it as it pleases them (yes, the guidelines as they are now can be interpreted to allow everything or to disallow everything, as they are highly subjective). If we start to use a lot, a lot of paragraphs to explain everything in details, here comes the original futile exercise again... A.Z. 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Leave it. The wikipedia ref desk is functionally like other reference desks, and this statement is therefore informative. I don't buy the argument about the village pump, yeah there is no pump, but there is no desk either, these things are besides the point. At the level of description we are talking about it is appropriate to talk about village pumps and reference desks. -- Diletante 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I would write a response myself, but StuRat speaks better English than me, so I'll just copy his post: "We shouldn't limit the services which we provide to those provided at a library ref desk. For example, I can't picture any reference librarian checking a student's math, but that's exactly the type of thing we do at the Math Ref Desk. If we include the comparison at all, we should say "The Ref Desk offers a superset of the capabilities of a regular library Ref Desk, offering those services and much more." A.Z. 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I like the statement in its original phrasing; I feel that it encourages and discourages just what we want. The proposed "superset" turns it into something meaningless. I don't see it as the purpose of either ref desk to check math homework (and thus we should not encourage it), though neither do I see it as so far out of bounds that we should actively attempt to prohibit it, just as I would not expect library management to encourage students to ask for this at a brick-and-mortar ref desk, nor to chastise a librarian who nonetheless did this. Matchups 11:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I would, indeed, expect a real Ref Desk librarian to be chastised for checking a student's homework answers, which is one reason why there is a difference here. StuRat 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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.  --Lambiam^Talk 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)

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. Mad Barker et al!

He is a man. [27] A.Z. 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)