Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 July 14

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 14

Volume of questions at reference desk

This question has always puzzled me. You could ask it of various forums, but let's take Wikipedia reference desk as an example. I read somewhere that there are 536,000,000 English-speaking Internet users. Suppose that 1 in 100 has heard of the Wikipedia reference desk. Suppose each of those asks one question per year. That would make 14,700 questions per day. In fact, to arrive at the 50 questions per day that might be typical across all the boards, we need to make some assumption like 1 in 1000 has heard of the ref. desk, each of whom asks one question in 30 years. Obviously those numbers can be cut in various ways, but the point is that the activity has to be incredibly minuscule and rare, and yet still non-zero. I would expect that any tremor of activity at all across a potential user base of 536,000,000 would instantly swamp the desks. I would expect either nothing, or a flood. The fact that the number is say about 50 per day, and hence non-zero but manageable, strikes me as being like one of those physics conundrums where a phsyical constant is exactly the right value for the universe to exist, and if it was different at the eighth decimal place then nothing could exist, and no one can explain why it is that way. 86.179.4.226 (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit like the Drake Equation, but it seems to me you missed some important factors, like the portion of those who have heard of Wikipedia who ever go there, the portion of those who know of the existence of the Ref Desk, the portion of those who actually go to the Ref Desk, the portion of those who know how to ask a Q here, and the portion of those who would ever want to. StuRat (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, but however you express it, the degree of fine-tuning necessary to get a non-zero yet non-overwhelming volume seems to me to be remarkably improbable, yet it happens. It would be a bit like saying there are five instances of life in the universe, when most people™ think the answer is either one or countless billions. 86.179.4.226 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This shows a limitation of such formulae. They really are useless to predict anything, since there are so many unknowns. It's far better to just measure the results. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

An interesting question.

I don't know whether there is any way to test this, but I have a suspicion that the number of questions in such forums tend to be regulated - or at least held within reasonable limits - by the number of people available to answer them. A forum where few questions show signs of being answered will attract few new questions, whereas one that seems to respond quickly will attract more - and given that there are relatively few people active in answering questions on a regular basis here, if the volume gets tooo great, the number that get answered quickly must decline. One could describe this as conforming to a rule of 'supply and demand' were it not for the fact that it doesn't explain why anyone would answer questions in the first place, given that there is no obvious reward. There are probably several feedback mechanisms at work here - but trying to figure it all out might be rather difficult. Anyway, it works - like Wikipedia does in general - almost in spite of what simplistic logic might imply. And if it works, don't fix it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we've all had conversations with non-Wikipedians who insist it couldn't possibly work if it's organised the way we describe it to them. They know best, of course. I'll be resigning my wiki-membership any day now. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the questions are generated by people who frequent the desks as answerers, so you've got to take that into account too. I think it will tend to regulate the number of questions as they are more bored and likely to ask questions themselves when there's few questions on the desk, and less likely to when there's a steady stream of questions being asked to keep them occupied. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works with me. Most often a Q here makes me think of a related Q I'd like to ask. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The big problems I see in those assumptions are: 1. presuming that 1/100 users on the Internet have heard of the Ref Desk (this seems absurd to me; I imagine it is more like 1/1000 or even 1/10000 or even less). This is probably responsible for most of your error, and I'm sure the analytics are out there to tell you how many people actually access the Ref Desk on anything more than an accidental basis. 2. Modeling it on the idea that each user who knows of it posts one question in 30 years. This seems radically divorced from behavior, in which a relatively small number of heavy users ask a great deal of the questions. There are certainly more sophisticated (but still rough) models for how users actually use sites of this nature (e.g. what % are heavy users, which ones are one-timers, which ones are occasional askers, etc.).

Fermi problems can certainly get you interesting and useful answers but if your initial assumptions are not at all correct then it's just garbage in, garbage out. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think some of your reply is rather missing the point. It is easy to put together numbers that multiply up to the correct answer according to some model, and clearly the numbers that give 14,700 questions per day are wrong. That was just an example of how minisculely fine-tuned the numbers have to be to give an answer in a feasible range for the desks to be practicable, which is where the interest of the problem lies, no matter how you model it. 81.159.106.86 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The RD is not very interesting for most people. There are lots of things that are not acceptable here: medical and legal question, offenses, political discussions, and much more. Most people will tend to prefer to go to Yahoo Answers instead. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people prefer to just lurk and read, or answer the questions instead of asking them. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You ended with: "The fact that the number is say about 50 per day, and hence non-zero but manageable, strikes me as being like one of those physics conundrums where a phsyical constant is exactly the right value for the universe to exist, and if it was different at the eighth decimal place then nothing could exist, and no one can explain why it is that way".

I don't think there is anything special about having a "manageable" number since the range for this would be large in practice. If more people knew about the reference desk then there would probably both be more people asking and answering questions. And we can set up our pages to each get a manageable size by changing the number of pages and the archive time. We have seven reference desks for non-Wikipedia questions and many help pages for Wikipedia questions. If activity was much lower then everything could be done in one page and seem the "right" size to the users. I'm guessing there are foreign language Wikipedias like that, if they even have a common page to ask questions. If activity was much higher then we could make dozens or hundreds of specialised reference desks, or place each question on its own page like Yahoo! Answers. The experience for people answering questions might be a little different but it would still seem "manageable" to most if they can just search for their main interests (we would need faster search indexing). For example, I often search Yahoo! Answers for recent questions about prime numbers. This is pretty specialized but lo and behold, there is a "manageable" number for me to read all of them and choose which to answer. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the most important factor missing from this equation is that there are also something like half a billion websites on the internet, many trying to get a slice of your attention pie. Vespine (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a very important question. I have, sporadically in the last 6 months or so, asked friends is they have heard of WikiPedia. Atleast 90% say yes. I have then asked if they use the articles to find out things. Atleast 80% say definately yes. If yes, I then ask if they are aware of Ref Desk. I have only 3 say they are aware of it - I think this is because most people land on an article from a Google search - they never get to see the Wikipedia home page. Maybe Wikipedia should promote Ref Desk - say by a banner at the top of every 1,000th article service. You don't want a sudden flood we can't yet handle. I tell each person who tells me they use Wikipedia, and is a technocrat like me who should at least see value in Science Desk and Misc Desk, as a reference to have a look at Ref Desk, & maybe give it a try. I have had 2 come back to me and say more or less "The question are an odd mix of interesting, esoteric (eg astrophysics), and the stupid. Some answers are excellent, but many answers appear to be the first thing that came into someone's head, or they went off on a tangent, or even got into a debate unrelated to what the question is. So we don't think there's much point in submitting intelligent questions." I largely agree - that about sums it up. Ratbone120.145.168.216 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested that the section How to answer a question be amended to include clause "Don't rush in and answer a question unless you know the topic - allow time for a knowledgable peron to answer. However, if nbody has answered within a few hours, by all means, please contribute. I aslo think the How to answer guide should be included in Project Page so you have it in front of you when answering. I think if these two changes are made, answers will be temporaily a little slower to come, but they will be better quality. Better quality answers will both encourage more questions, and encourage a larger pool of people willing to answer. Ratbone120.145.168.216 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about Big Bang theory.

Transcluded to the Science reference desk. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

today in the morning i asked some questions regarding the 'Big Bang' theory but forgot to write my name and address. so i am repeating the questions. my questions are:- 1. where was the 'tiny ball'? kept on something? floating some where? or hanging over something? 2. where from the 'tiny ball' came? 3. how is it possible that a 'tiny ball' had so much of matter of billion of galaxies with billion of stars? 4. who had created that 'tiny ball'? 5. if the universe is expanding like a balloon it must has a starting point and an ending point or an edge then what is there out of the edge or within which or where the universe is expanding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.105.197 (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lily, I've removed your name and address because we don't need to know them and you don't want your address visible on the Internet, believe me. Your questions are being answered on the Science desk, where your original question was transferred to. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lily, pick the first link, right under the title, to go there. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody ever claimed to have seen the ghost of a caveman?

There are plenty of television shows about people claiming to be haunted by ghosts. Has anybody ever claimed to see the ghosts of primitive cavemen? I'm just curious as to why I never hear such claims. Why don't ghost hunters search in caves? Thanks for any and all info. InforManiac (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Without even looking I can guarantee that somebody has claimed to have seen the ghost of a caveman. I will now go and look. Looie496 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193899/Caught-camera-Is-eerie-caveman-image-Britains-oldest-ghost.html. Looie496 (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. InforManiac (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Define caveman. Ramtha is a Cro-Magnon. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Anybody claiming to have led "an army over 2.5 million strong" would be far more advanced than any caveman I was thinking of. I'm thinking more about primitives like mentioned in the above article Looie496 posted a link to. But thanks. InforManiac (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck looking for a psychic consistent with science or known history. What I'd like to know is , why has no psychic translated our texts of the Etruscan language or Linear A?μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Stig of the Dump is a caveman, not sure if he's a ghost. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that "Stig" character the source of the mystery driver's name, "The Stig", in the TV show Top Gear? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Some say, he lives in a cave, and that he is actually a ghost. All we know is, he's called the Stig. 90.214.166.145 (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Our article (The Stig) says that the name comes from the name given to first years at Repton - the school that Jeremy Clarkson went to. I guess that would be like a fag at other public schools. Trouble is, although that's the story that Clarkson gives for the name's origin, I can't actually find any confirmation anywhere of young boys at Repton being called Stigs. I suspect that it does actually come from the book, which would have been published just around the time Clarkson was growing up. The naming is probably also influenced by Stig Blomqvist - a famous rally driver not know for being particularly talkative. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind, the Daily Mail article says that the face appears to have a helmet with a noseguard, which is hardly representative of palaeolithic culture, so this apparition cannot be a caveman in the most commonly held conception. IF it is a ghost, it would be one from the Anglo-Saxon or Viking era, or later. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)