Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Trolling removed from misc. desk

I removed this trolling. - AMP'd 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, yeah, it's not April 1st in my time zone yet. I have apologized to the OP. - AMP'd 02:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Day

We seem to be getting a lot of reasked questions today, at least in the misc desk. Is this an April Fool? Skittle 09:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything particular in mind? I have to say there is one anonymous user whose questioning seems to me to be a cover for a rather persistent agenda. I do not think this has anything at all to do with 1 April. Clio the Muse 09:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking of 'That stuff from your nose', 'Tattoos' and 'Catholics- not really christians?'. I thought there might be others I'd missed, since this seemed like a bit of a coincidence, and I wanted to check before I wasted time taking people seriously.... :-) Skittle 09:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I had the latter in mind. This theme usually appears, sometimes in variations, on the Humanities Desk. I do not know about the others. I personally could read no further than the title of your first example! Clio the Muse 10:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Day Removal

The following User:Dreftymac/Scratchpad001 was posted as an attempt at holiday-appropriate humor. Someone removed it though, which I can't justifiably complain against. If anyone's curious, it simply consists of computer-generated samples generated from legitimate RefDesk answers by various contributors within the last ~24 hours. Hope no one is offended, it's all offered in good humor and respect toward the various contributors. Cheers! dr.ef.tymac 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the Humanities RD, with an explanatory message on Dreftymac's talk page, to which he responded very politely. I felt that in the light of the current debate about behaviour on the RDs, this contribution, although intended to be humorous, could have been seen as a bit ... ummm ... incendiary. Gandalf61 16:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Answered it would have I, never or today. Me O'TheClues, also known as Clio the Muse 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, come on, someone may have had a good answer for that one! This reminds me of the time I only wanted to know how I shot web and these jerks wouldn't help. If only Wikipedia had a tradition of ignoring the rules when they get in the way! Friday (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules, Friday, what rules? Surely this is all just a free for all, and if I say the moon is made in part of Camembert (I'm not quite sure which part, possibly the core) and Elephants bury their dead by eating their bones you would really have to prove me wrong. And we could, of course, debate these questions at endless and tedious length, since both of us insist on having the last word, and really I think there is at least one more angel than you do dancing on the head of a pin. Clio the Muse 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can't produce a reliable source to confirm the existence of a pin head, I see no reason to believe you. I'm quite familiar with angels so you must bow down to my superior expertise. Friday (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Friday, Friday, you know I am always right, and your pointless request for sources only serves to undermine my integrity. This encyclopedia has only one point of departure, and it moons above the onstreaming always in Uqbar. Clio the Muse 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Back-Up Memory on DK64

How much space do the adventure files take up each on the Donkey Kong 64 game cartridge?--Mathsexpressions 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This question belongs on the Computer Ref Desk, not on the Ref Desk talk page. StuRat 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Being Sworn in to Testify before Congress or in a Court of Law

I removed some responses from the Humanities desk, see: User_talk:Nunh-huh#Being Sworn in to Testify before Congress or in a Court of Law. While it might be possible to find a source which states that the Congressional subpoena is "essentially without limit", all i've been able to find so far are sources which describe some well known limits to Congress's power to subpoena and compel testimony.—eric 07:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Eric, you seem to be on a bit of a campaign at present. I have a few comments:

1. Nunh-huh's posts do not seem to be offensive or dangerous in any way. The thread was not going off-topic or getting too long. You don't say so explicitly, but I am assuming your only reason for removing these posts is that you believe they are inaccurate. I don't think that is sufficient grounds on its own for removing posts from the RDs. Apart from anything else, it is impractical to double-check every unsourced statement on the RDs and remove every dubious answer.
2. Rather than removing Nunh-huh's posts, it would have been better to have added your information and your sources on the RD as a response to the original question. In that way, RD readers can be informed and enlightened.
3. If you are going to dispute the accuracy of someone else's response, I think you ought to say exactly what your sources are. Otherwise it is just one editor's word against another.

I'm not going to restore the posts, because edit warring isn't my style, but I just wanted to explain why I don't agree with your call on this one. Gandalf61 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored this somewhat bizarre removal, with the citation that EricR couldn't find. - Nunh-huh 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's completely inappropriate to remove a post just because you disagree with it. If you disagree, add your comment saying so, and any evidence that you have. It's up to the readers to decide who is right, not up to you, Eric. StuRat 16:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove the material because I disagreed with it. I removed the material because it conflicted with Wikipedia's article on the subject, because it conflicted with the sources i found when attempting to verify the claim, and because when i asked for a source, none was provided[1].—eric 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

g l.w4knesmrtdg'54wmerf;pygjmqpo3l4.etjg0o93l;.qzz@75Janice@75Janicez 69.58.36.118 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Responding to Nunh-huh:

...these cases establish two basic aspects of the constitutional backdrop to congressional investigations. On the one hand, they make it clear that when conducting their investigations, congressional committees must act in accordance with the constitutional rights of individual witnesses. On the other hand, it is also clear that the judicial branch has a significant role to play in setting the boundaries of Congress's powers. Tomkins, Adam (1998) " Congressional Committees, Reluctant Witnesses, and Constitutional Rights", The Constitution after Scott: Government Unwrapped, p. 240-1

"...nearly no limit"—as your source states— is better than your first claim that there's "... no limit on their subpoena power."[2] If you would have researched the matter before responding on the desk you would have probably found the information given in our article that "Congress can subpoena you to ask you what you had for lunch" if the committee is authorized by it's chamber, if they are pursuing a valid legislative purpose and and if "what you had for lunch" is pertinent to the subject of the investigation for which they have been authorized.

A deeper investigation would have found that witnesses can "claim the fifth", and that if such witnesses are forced to testify then that testimony cannot be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury; that before a committee may pursue a charge of contempt they must make clear to the witness that they consider their questions have not been sufficiently answered; and that there are open questions in the area of executive privilege and Congressional subpoena power.

Thank you for providing a source with some qualification and explanation of your statement. "no limit", "essentially no limit", and "to ask you what you had for lunch" are very misleading. Please take the time to ensure you can back up claims made on the desk before responding.—eric 17:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't bother to discuss your mischaracterizations in detail. That witnesses can claim the fifth, oddly, is no surprise to me, nor is it protection from a subpoena. Your reasoning (that Congress's own rules on issuing subpoenas are somehow a limit on Congress's power), is, of course, wrong. You appear to be on quite a little quest, Eric. May you have much happiness from it. - Nunh-huh 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, EricR is wrong on this issue, which clearly demonstrates why we shouldn't go around deleting anything we think is wrong, but should instead say we disagree, and provide any evidence we have. I have done this many times, and never remove someone's claim just because I think it's wrong. I am not the final arbitrator of what is right and wrong, and neither is EricR. StuRat 18:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you "won't bother to discuss"—and if you don't restore the material—then i guess there's not much more to be said. I will point out however that you are not objecting to my reasoning but that of the sources i have available. If you do bother to read Wikipedia's article you will find that these limits do not derive from "Congress's own rules" but from Wilkinson v. United States, a case which, (among others and according to the above quote) "make it clear...congressional committees must act in accordance with the constitutional rights of individual witnesses...[and] that the judicial branch has a significant role to play in setting the boundaries of Congress's powers."—eric 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's rather inane to do selective quoting when the full quotation is visible on the same page, and to so obviously misrepresent what I have said: I said I would not discuss your mischaracterizations in detail. I did not, as you seek to imply, refuse to discuss anything pertinent to the answer on the RD. And despite your understanding of what I said, I am, in fact, objecting to your reasoning, for it is your "reasoning" that causes you to believe that these particular sources are pertinent. Wilkerson, of course, places no significant limits on Congress's subpoena power, nor does the article in Wikipedia which you cite claim it does. - Nunh-huh 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Then add that info to the Ref Desk and leave the original responses. You don't get to decide that you are right and they are wrong. StuRat 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia so excuse any lapses. I am an American lawyer with a background in constitutional law. I worked on several briefs on civil rights cases before the Supreme Court. I volunteer at the National Constitution Center. If I wanted to properly research Congress' subpoena power, the role of Congress as a constitutional actor and the role of the Court, it would take months to read all the pertinent cases, law review articles, treatises and lectures. It is a fantastic research paper. We tend to forget that the President and Congress have areas where they define their proper role and the Court refuses to intervene. Nevertheless, the Reference Desk posts replies in short order which means that the answers may not be as accurate as Wikipedia articles where time is not so urgent. The best and brightest lawyers write briefs for the parties they represent. Lawyers do this all the time in good faith. If every answer is posted, people are exposed to all sides. I don't think Wikipedia articles are great as a rule. I find the Discussion page far more informative. Readers can see the references cited and decide for themselves. I have never litigated a case where only one side was correct and pure.75Janice 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said. StuRat 04:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

About NPOV

For anyone who doesn't know, on Wikipedia we achieve neutral point of view not by making sure the opinions of all editors are represented, but rather by making sure that significant viewpoints as described in reliable sources are presented fairly. This is a perhaps subtle, but very important distinction. The opinion of some well-known commentator may well be appropriate for inclusion, but my own opinion is not. Friday (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying that only the opinions of "well-known commentators" are worthy of inclusion is an argument from authority and assuming that all policies made for Wikipedia articles, like this one, apply directly to the Ref Desk, without alteration, is unreasonable. StuRat 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars. Friday (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(After unnoticed e.c.) Particularly agree on Friday's last sentence. It may be worth thinking about how to present the references "fairly". Adding contradicting or controversial references, even in the case of extreme fringe-views, can enrich the answer's scope, much to the reader's benefit. How do we weight the references? Do we ourselves comment on the reliability or bias of sources? Do we comment on the quality or scope of wiki-linked articles? When qualifying external sources, do these comments have to be referenced as well? (In the form of criticisms, scientific or other, by notable people, organizations and so forth). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, I think we'd present arguments approximately in proportion to how accepted they are (this works pretty well in article space.) Someone asking about "How could the WTC have collapsed on 911?" could be directed to September 11, 2001 attacks as well as 9/11 conspiracy theories. Someone asking about the solar system should not be told that the Earth is supported by a stack of turtles, even if this is the honest opinion of a ref desk responder. Basically we should remember that we're trying to be a useful information resources- this needs to take precedence over our desire to spout off about our own opinions. Friday (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguments which Friday and at least one other user claim are safe to disregard

In the interests of more productive discussion, I'd like to ask everyone to be careful not to spend time discussing positions that nobody holds. Much time can be wasting objecting to things that nobody is suggesting. The arguments I can think of so far (and those others have noticed) which fall into this category include:

1. some people think they should remove content just because they don't like it
2. some people think all policies apply to the reference desk exactly as if it was an article
3. some people think sources should be required only for replies, and not for challenges to those replies.

These are, as far as I can tell, not accurate descriptions of anyone's position. Anyway, just wanted to throw this suggestion out there- there's enough we do disagree on, I hate to see us spending time arguing about positions that nobody actually holds. Friday (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think some of these come from people almost-but-not-quite-getting what others are saying. So please everyone be careful of misunderstanding. If someone says you're misrepresenting their position, stop and actually listen to what they're saying. The strawman argument might be an effective debate technique, but please keep in mind that our purpose is not to score debating points, it's to move toward some acceptable resolution of disagreements. Friday (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

some people think they should remove content just because they don't like it

EricR does this, unilaterally deleting responses because he thinks they might be incorrect. StuRat 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

some people think all policies apply to the reference desk exactly as if it was an article

Friday makes this argument all the time, by assuming that a random Wikipedia policy applies to the Ref Desk, as is. StuRat 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

some people think sources should be required only for replies, and not for challenges to those replies.

Friday does this, as when he/she challenged my Ref Desk statement that hunters could kill dozens of passenger pigeons with a single shotgun blast, then said it was my responsibility to provide evidence or remove the statement, and felt no need to provide any evidence that the statement was false. StuRat 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My God! You're right! Friday obviously holds the views that he just stated he didn't believe anyone held. It's a good thing that you haven't misunderstood his statements above, or chosen to interpret them in a way which allows you to try to score debating points, instead of resolve the conflict here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cited a specific example of where Friday does exactly what he claims he doesn't do, so what are you complaining about ? StuRat 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Three debating point to StuRat, proof of principle to Friday, who is now entitled to add Q.E.D. to the end of his signature. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain the point of WP:DICK to me? I don't get it. Why can't we be a dick when we want to? Surely that rule was not meant for talk pages, such as this one and the reference desk.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No surprises here - when you throw a poodle in a pirahna pool, we all know what's going to happen. What I really don't understand is what enjoyment you folks get out of this sport. I just can't see where the fun is. Gandalf61 19:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But what to do when a poodle has spent months walking along the edge of the pirahna pool, making faces at the fish and egging chihuahuas on to dip a toe in the water? Skittle 20:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Skittle, I think you misunderstand my metaphor. The "poodle" is the bait that Friday posted above that provoked a completely predictable response. An alternative aquatic metaphor would be "shooting fish in a barrel". Gandalf61 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was aware that it didn't quite fit, but the image was too strong in my mind. Skittle 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that StuRat has a long history of oversimplifying other editors' statements and positions to the point of misrepresentation and absurdity. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat 2.) Please see also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2#TenOfAllTrades' response for a concise and detailed summary of what most reasonable participants in this discussion actually believe; feel free to compare with StuRat's inaccurate and divisive caricature. As long as StuRat treats this discussion as a battle to score points against his perceived adversaries rather than an attempt to resolve our conflicts and improve the Ref Desk, his contributions will continue to inflame rather than illuminate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I like how you say "most reasonable participants" agree, but not "most participants". That is, you define anyone who disagrees with you as "unreasonable", and you can then justify ignoring them, even if they are the majority. I don't believe either of those RFC's formed a consensus that I had done anything wrong, and I don't think anything as silly as saying I can't call those who favor nonconsensus deletions on the Ref Desk by the term "deletionists" ever would gain a consensus. StuRat 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it take two to tango, and Friday's provocative posts (like the one that started this thread ... and "About NPOV" ... and "Some conflicts are really objections to the pillars of Wikipedia" ... and "Chat desk unilaterally deleted!") and his frequently sarcastic tone are not helpful either. Awww ... what's the point. We're going round in circles. Again. Gandalf61 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And Friday is an Admin, so I would expect a higher level of behavior than the average user. Unfortunately, I've been rather disappointed in this regard, and not just with Friday. StuRat 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem we have is that no one can agree how to use the reference desks to answer questions. We seem to tend to remove questions that we don't like at all. *Sigh* I'm better off asking questions about fire and contributing to the delinquency of youth. - AMP'd 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dare I say this whole conversation is indicative of people taking things a little too seriously...? Vranak

You may dare but i suspect that many will disagree. After StuRat commented above to the three 'miunderstood arguments' he then replied to one of my edits with the following:

"the challenger wants the response removed, unless a citation can be found to support it, even though they have no citation to support their challenge." [3]

That quote is about a very specific issue where that happened: [4]. I would like to keep this type of thing from happening again, hence the proposal to formally state that an identical burden of proof exists for someone who makes a claim as someone who disputes it. StuRat 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

StuRat has a problem. He always uses extreme examples to frame the debate. He implies that every editor who disagrees with even one of his opinions holds ALL the extreme positions. (See the "the're all deletionsists" RfC). These misrepresentations, that we've seen for so long now, can only be wilful and is a sign that he wishes to poison each discussion.

Yeah, it's a fact: you guys are taking this way too seriously. Vranak

Here is why i think we need to take this seriously. It is a real problem when a well meaning editor removes soapboxing or other objectionable posts from the ref desk and then StuRat edit wars over it everytime, rather than discussing the issue on the ref desk talk page (I'm not going to rehash the details of these issues a 90th time). It is a real problem when StuRat waxes philosophical on issues that he know little. Sure, i am picking on StuRat here but my patience is wearing thin with the politics here. For three months or more, many have tried rationale discussion. The result is no improvement.

There was no need for Lightcurrent to be banned but egged on by StuRat, it happened. This is real fall out for the project and all because one editor refuses to sway on ANY issue. The best we can do is ignore him from now on and just do what we, as a group, think is fair. He has marginilised himself and his opinion by being intransigent and his strawman arguments. Why should anyone bother to listen to him? David D. (Talk) 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have given in on many things. For example, I personally would never allow removal of anything that fell short of the "disruption of Wikipedia" standard, but have given in and agreed to allow consensus removals, AFTER DISCUSSION HERE, if the authors are notified, in cases less than disruption. On the contrary, it's the deletionists who demand the right to unilaterally remove anything they personally think "violates the rules" (usually misapplied general Wikipedia article rules, not Ref Desk rules), but then demand that a lengthy discussion and consensus be reached before putting anything back. I also admit to my mistakes, as I did recently on the question about how much water could be vaporized in a 50 Megaton atomic blast. When you refer to RFCs that failed to garner a consensus, you don't help your case, that just shows some deletionists like to attack me, nothing more. I do find myself a frequent target of deletionists because I am one of the leading inclusionist at the Ref Desk. Where do you find an example of LC being "egged on" by me ? Quite to the contrary, I tried to restrain him from getting into trouble. I believe he had been blocked many times before I even knew him. Also note that LC himself denies that I "egged him on", although his comment was soon deleted by User:Rockpocket: [5]. StuRat 03:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As Jack says, "the rules apply to everyone". LC's Ref Desk contributions are tolerated in anonymity. If he self-identifies then he can expect to be reverted on sight. WP:BAN states that Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Rockpocket 06:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't reinstate them. Nonetheless, whether LC thinks I "egged him on" as accused, is entirely relevant to this conversation, and thus people have the right to read LC's response, if only in the history. I do think you go too far when you revert LC's edits to other user's talk pages, however. It's up to those users to decide if those edits should be reverted, not you, and I'm apparently not the only person who thinks so: [6]. StuRat 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter to your apparent editing philosophy, what you "think" does not over-ride our policies. LC has no "right" to contribute anything to WP and therefore no-one has a "right" to read his response. If you have an issue with this I suggest you take it to Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, the appropriate place to discuss changes in policy, rather than promoting your opposition here. Rockpocket 00:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to a policy which says we can't direct readers to a comment made by a banned user in the history. If this was actually the case, that would deny me of the best evidence available for my defense that I did not "egg on LC"; his own words saying just that. StuRat 02:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any policy that says that. I was simply stating that my reversions of LC's comments were in line with established policy in case you considered them to be some kind of unjustified deletionism. You are free to make any reference to the deleted edits as you feel appropriate. Rockpocket 03:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

David D, lack of patience with the length of a debate is no reason to suddenly abandon the rules of reasonable conduct. I'm not saying you have abandoned them, but "Why should anyone bother to listen to him?" is teetering, imo, dangerously close to the edge of a personal attack. I think it's best to discuss specific issues for as long as may be necessary to get a win-win outcome for all concerned, rather than sidelining one particular user because of your opinions of his earlier contributions that have nothing to do with this current discussion. If StuRat or anybody else "edit wars over it every time", so be it; each edit war or debate is separate from any other. By all means dislike StuRat personally if you think you have evidence for such a position, but please don't bring that personal opinion into a discussion of principles, here or anywhere else. The rules apply to everyone, or to no one. All of Wikipedia's users in good standing are entitled to participate in how Wikipedia is run. "We, as a group", where it is meant to exclude a particular user based on another user's personal caprices, is not my idea of universal participation. JackofOz 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not remotely a personal attack to criticize someone's behavior. StuRat is frequently disruptive to otherwise useful discussion- we should not feed this behavior of his. If he finds that other editors tire of his diatribes, maybe one day he'll get the idea to change his approach. Friday (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 1000% with your first sentence. However an enjoinder such as "Why should anyone bother to listen to him?" paints him as a person whose contributions are of no worth, either now or into the future. It's not possible to criticise future contributions based on perceptions of past contributions, without it becoming a personal attack. JackofOz 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a great many of his contributions are valuable in my opinion (and, I assume, in the opinion of other editors). If he had no valuable contributions, we wouldn't even be discussing him. However I do sympathize a bit with the "why should we bother to listen?" question. Whether intentional or not (we can't know, so it's not worth arguing about), his contributions to talk page discussions very frequently make it harder to reach an agreeable solution, not easier. This may well cause some editors to disregard his much of his input here. Maybe this is better left as a private choice than an explicitly asked question, though. Friday (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't make it harder to reach an agreeable solution, just harder to reach an agreeable solution which ignores the opinions of the inclusionists. StuRat 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 1000% with your last sentence. JackofOz 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Friday, your bias is showing if you don't consider statements like "he wishes to poison each discussion" to be a personal attack. Had I said that, you would have immediately used such a statement as a justification to threaten a block. StuRat 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Friday's original post at the beginning of this thread: The three (un-)ideal types listed aren't accurate descriptions of anyone's positions here, nor are abstractions of this kind useful for a fair (in the discursive sense) or competent discussion. I also agree with Vranak to a point, though I think replies at the desks themselves deserve being taken seriously. More passion in helping the people who ask questions, by giving them sourced and educated replies, less passion in our efforts to be right or win the debate. Other than that, I have nothing to say. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can get behind that. Anchoress 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we just ignore the edit to the section header. The perpetrator is clearly out to annoy some of us to the point where someone oversteps a boundary. I have to stop here before I do that myself.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll go and read The Neverending Story again! ~ hydnjo talk  23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please fly back one of them luckdragons while you're there. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this make me Atreyu ? StuRat 02:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a chance, Stu. Michael Ende has been criticized for a lot of things, but he was an imaginative author and cleverly chose a catastrophic scenario for the book's onset. In a sense, we're all Bastian Balthazar Bux. We can step into this wikifantasia using our imagination and choosing to see ourselves in terms of saving the empire or fighting the dreaded Nichts. Yep, we can choose to dramatize our efforts here in wikifantasia, but we can't control the results of our imponderable imagination. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, I was rather hoping this whole thing was just a nightmare in which I was caught. StuRat 01:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Forget The Neverending Story, Hydnjo, because it has, well, an end. You really need to look into The Book of Sand, in the full understanding that it may ultimately prove be far less infinite than what appears here! Clio the Muse 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Driving while Retarded

Removed some off topic and some argumentative content from this question.—eric 06:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The content which was removed was not reference desk material. Friday (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I considered it yesterday, but didn't want to stoke any flames. Skittle 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with some (but not all) of the deletions. However, since the deletions were done improperly, without notifying the authors, it was necessary to restore them. Please notify the authors properly the next time you perform such deletions. StuRat 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Friday (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Undoing a removal is not "disrupting Wikipedia". It is entirely consistent with the rules and goals of Wikipedia to undo any removal which you do not agree with. I did not agree with this removal, as you know, because the authors were not notified. StuRat 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the removal for any other reason? That is, do you object to the removal for any reason other than because you feel that a process was not followed, and do you believe that the Ref Desk benefited from the presence of the question and that it was an appropriate post for the Ref Desk?

Might I suggest – for the future – a slightly different approach to this type of situation? Rather than reverting another editor because he didn't provide a notice which you believe is important, just provide the notice yourself. It eliminates any possible appearance of edit warring, and it satisfies any need for 'due process'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, it was not the question that was removed, but only a number of off-topic inappropriate response threads.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider my statement (and questions) suitably amended. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do feel that some of it was salvageable, yes, like this comment on the usage of the term "mentally retarded":

Unless you know a mentally disabled person who's closer to you than a half brother would be, I think here it's the OP's right to decide what is offensive. Damn that euphemism treadmill! Vitriol 03:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

StuRat 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the obvious solution to put back the parts you consider salvagable instead of the whole thing? Surely you're not defending most of the content you restored?!? We should revert only when necessary, and only as much as necessary. Friday (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We should delete only when absolutely necessary and only AFTER consensus has been gained for each contribution to be deleted, rather than engaging in wholesale, reckless deletion, without consensus, and without even notifying the authors. StuRat 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What you're doing is counterproductive to useful discussion. Come back when you're willing to discuss this like an adult, rather than painting thing in such an extreme, unrealistic way. Friday (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Friday, you have a tendency to tell people to leave when you disagree with them. This is not an appropriate way for an Admin to act, and I believe the Arbitration Committee has warned you about that. StuRat 02:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

On reverting removals

I'm pretty sure we're mostly on the same page already, but I thought I'd explicitly ask. If someone removes content for being inappropriate, the only good reason for putting it back is a belief that this content improves the reference desk. We should never revert a removal simply to make a point about how it was removed- such objections should be brought up on the talk page instead. Do people agree? Friday (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Doing otherwise would totally be disrupting Wikipedia only to make a point. A.Z. 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then why did you revert the removals for "Driving While Retarded" -- as seen here?

Because I believe this content improves the reference desk. A.Z. 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines. The ref desk is not for soapboxing. There's no credible argument for how silly political insults improve the ref desk. Friday (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are credible arguments that 1) It wasn't "soapboxing", 2) The removal did more damage than good, 3) Removing things without notifying the author is unacceptable. StuRat 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be a classic WP:POINT. Rockpocket 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. If the removal was inappropriate, the material should be restored. The standard here should be to take whatever actions will improve Wikipedia and the Ref Desk the most in the long run, and that requires that editors treat other editors with respect, including notifying the authors of deletions of their contributions. Failure to do so should have consequences, or we are guaranteed that many won’t take the effort to follow the proper procedure. StuRat 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Consequences? We're not here to punish wrongdoers. We are here to improve pages. Friday (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Respect, as I understand it, is a concept that ought to flow both ways. In the removed portions of the thread we're discussing, editors were using the Ref Desk to

• tell a lame joke about George Bush;
• lob threats ("...there will be consquences...");
• taunt an anon ("...I'm guessing it's Dan Quayle???");
• taunt an experienced editor ("...juding from your arrogannce, spitfullness, and self-righteousness, I'd say you are Hillary Clinton.");
• bicker ("...Another case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Also, couldn't you come up with a better story...");
• make accusations ("...I answer to nobody on Wikipedia, lest of all painfully obvious sock puppets...");
• squeeze in a 'nigger' reference ("Calling a disabled person a retard is like calling an African-American person a nigger..."), which might as well just Godwin the whole thing; and
• make an inconsiderate remark equating bad driving with mental retardation ("...So, apparently the mentally retarded can drive."), which is probably offensive to both groups.

Frankly, reasonable editors ought to be aware that these types of remarks and discussions don't belong at the Ref Desk, and do not help to answer the question at hand, nor to build the encyclopedia, nor to make the Desk a more welcoming and respectful environment. Perhaps it would be worthwhile in some of these cases to warn editors who make these types of comments that they are on the road to probation and blocks if they continue. In most cases, though, I suspect that good editors who get caught up in an irrelevant (and perhaps slightly heated) tangent don't need a lecture, and quiet deletion is the least confrontational and disruptive course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Hillary Clinton an experienced editor? A.Z. 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As for your argument, StuRat says it all: "The standard here should be to take whatever actions will improve Wikipedia and the Ref Desk the most in the long run." I really don't think the remarks themselves help making the Desk a more welcoming and respectful environment, as I don't believe all the imperfections that people have help making the world a more welcoming and respectful place. But not deleting the remarks helps making the desk a more welcoming and respectful environment, the same way not telling someone to shut up when he says something you don't think is good makes the world a more welcoming and respectful place. A.Z. 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we want the reference desk to be a welcoming and respectful reference desk. If it was the "Say anything you want but be welcoming and respectful" page and not a reference desk, I might even agree with you a bit. We don't want to encourage people to think of the ref desk as a "say anything you want" page, for the long-term good of the ref desk and the project as a whole. Friday (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is we? A.Z. 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a rhetorical device, called pluralis majestatis, used quite frequently by Friday to add weight to his comments. Gandalf61 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was (perhaps foolishly) presuming to speak for editors in general. But, if this bothers anyone, pretend I said "I" instead. I don't see how there's really much room for disagreement with the things I said there, tho. We should be able to assume we share a set of common goals- this is a group project to build an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Friday, if you said that the sky is blue, there would be little room for disagreement. There is no need to EVER say that the sky is blue, unless to a blind person who will anyway never know what is means that the sky is blue. If you write to me something that you think is so obvious and has so little room for disagreement, that means you think I am blind about this topic and it really offends me, since people who never understood the most obvious of things will not be able to learn them anyway even when you put them in explicit terms. I do know that we want a welcoming and respectful reference desk.

Do not say "we should be able to assume we share a set of common goals" the same way as you do not say "hey, I am assuming good faith here". To say it implies that the other person somehow missed the whole point of everything, it means that the other person (me) is acting in bad faith or is stupid and unable to participate in the discussion because this person does not realize that we all want the reference desk to be a welcoming reference desk and that inside is the opposite of outside and that the sky is blue.

What you did was using loaded language. What you said above means nothing (it means nothing more than saying that "if A equals B and C is bigger than A, then C is bigger than B") and what you said is very worse than if you were actually using pluralis majestatis. It has a very very strong emotional weight when you say "we want the reference desk to be a welcoming and respectful reference desk". OF COURSE every single person here will agree as to the real meaning of your sentence, but beyond this meaning lies your opinion of what is a reference desk. I do not agree with your opinion of what a reference desk is, but this does not mean that I don't want the reference desk to be a welcoming and respectful reference desk. A.Z. 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure I follow you. But, "reference desk" already has a fairly well-known meaning in English. So, we don't need to invent our own original definitions of this term. See Reference_desk. Now, obviously this is a bit of a metaphor here, since we're not in a library and there's no actual desk. But, if you have thoughts on what a ref desk is and what our scope is here, please participate in the attempt at drafting a guideline. You can see this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines. Friday (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said, Friday: if there were such an unanimous meaning, you would not even have to say it, the same way you don't have to tell me that my arm is not my leg, because it is such an obvious thing. There is no such an established unanimous agreed-upon meaning as to what a reference desk is. It is open to interpretation and I obviously interpret it differently than you do. I know this is shocking to you, but it is the truth. If you do not agree with me that it is open to interpretation, then you either think that I am acting in bad faith or that I am stupid. Which one is it? A.Z. 19:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a false dichotomy? How about ignorant or naive in the literal sense, not meant as a slur? And I'm sure there are other possible explanations other than bad faith or stupid. How about well meaning? Open minded? Your pick. David D. (Talk) 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is completely false. Of course there are other alternatives. I was just really hoping that Friday would think about it and then say "hey, there are alternatives to that" and then say I am intelligent, acting in good faith, well meaning and open minded. Sorry for that attempt at manipulation. It was a real attempt at manipulating his thoughts, since I knew from the start that there were other options... As I said, I thought this would be a way of showing him that. I thought he would somehow be forced to find this by himself. All of this because I think Friday's way of thinking of editors is so unhuman and so bad and I wish he would change... As I said before, I like him and I care about him. I wish he did not think of me as a collection of edits. A.Z. 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately one normally judges from the actions of others. This may be unfair but ones actions sometimes narrow choices a bit. The ref desk has many examples of people either trying to make a point or trying to test the limits. This is where Friday is coming from. David D. (Talk) 02:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What if the person who removed the content was actually doing it just to make a point? Soapboxing is not just saying things. Censoring things that you disagree with can be a way of stating your opinion and using Wikipedia to soapbox, and not even admiting you're doing it. I believe we are discussing this here on the talk page and there are absolutely no credible arguments to delete the content. I don't know why it was deleted. Maybe there are people who really believe that this is so bad to the reference desk that is should be deleted, but this is really an unpolite and completely disruptive procedure. If you want to say your opinion, say on the thread and let people judge it. I now changed my mind and I disagree with Friday. People should not be punished by becoming unable to see the responses just because I don't know yet how to show eric and Friday that they are wrong. I will not wait for you to be convinced and agree with me. I will not wait for the time when (and if) you realize your actions are not improving the reference desk to restore the content. This would be morally wrong. A.Z. 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia were a forum, I would agree with you. However, Wikipedia is not forum, chat room, or soapbox. Please do read the guidelines I linked to above- all this is already well understood. Friday (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The removal was in my opinion less disruptive than these inappropriate and partially offensive responses, having been posted, remaining there, but the winner in disruptiveness, by an order of magnitude, was restoring them.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Friday (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. A.Z. 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and above friday can legitimately say we because I do agree with him. Am i the only other one? David D. (Talk) 22:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you are not. Clio the Muse 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Rockpocket 05:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, here is what I think is a prove [7] that problems can be solved by conversation and without deleting the stuff written by other people that you think is really bad for the reference desk. An editor made some stupid comments on the Reference Desk and then took it back after being convinced that he was wrong. Nothing was disrupted and the sense of community was increased at the end. The reference desk benefited from the whole thing in the long run. Everyone learned something from the experience and we're happy now. What do Clio the Muse, Sluzzelin, David D. and Friday have to say about it? A.Z. 01:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., I too prefer seeing editors being persuaded to remove their own unhelpful edits. I didn't go through all the relevant diffs, but I'm assuming that no one here took out the machete and made any cuts in the thread you linked to. Personally, I think that those who remove stuff regularly here, don't get a kick out of it, and do so conscientously for the most part. Of course there were a couple of premature removals as well, in my view anyway, but they were rare, and resulted in a restoration of the deleted edits.

In the case we're discussing here, however, a nasty clump of offensive (and off-topic) posts had accumulated before anyone intervened, as astutely analyzed by TenOfAllTrades. In the interest of minimizing the damage (i.e. the number of people offended by these unnecessary remarks), I think a speedy removal was warranted. The community doesn't only consist of the vocal and prolific few with many edit counts at the desks and this talk page, it includes all the desk's silent readers as well. Without wishing to take things too seriously, we do have a responsibility toward the project and toward these readers as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., I don't think anyone is saying that trimming inappropriate content always produces the best results. The only reason this is an issue is that some people have objected to any trimming of inappropriate content. We have many tools at our disposal- removing content is but one of them. We shouldn't be afraid to use them all. If someone who makes an inappropriate post can be talked into removing it, this is a good thing. In a perfect world, nobody would remove anyone's posts. Friday (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe EricR ever even tries to convince people to remove or improve their posts, his first action appears to be unilateral deletion, followed by notifying us here. I, on the other hand, do notify people (on their talk pages) when I think their posts are inappropriate, as I just did a couple of times recently. StuRat 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As did I when I removed dreftymac's April Fool's day joke post recently - I left an explanation on his talk page, and received a very polite response. I think this a fundamental part of Wikiquette - making a bit of extra effort to treat other editors with respect and consideration, even if you disagree with their edits and actions. In my book, that's all part of seeing other editors first and foremost as people - fellow human beings. However, I know (from a recent discussion on his talk page) that Friday does not share this ethical stance, so I don't believe this argument carries much weight with him. Gandalf61 11:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This essay explains a bit what I mean when I say I don't think of other editors as people. Really, I don't think is is very relevant- I certainly agree that we should be civil and treat other editors with respect, even if I prefer to see them as a collection of edits rather than as a personality. To do otherwise is just asking for pointless dramatic conflict, which can be a huge time-waster. Definitely, if we can remove inappropriate posts without throwing other editors into a tizzy, this is much preferable to doing it the other way. One thing that doesn't help is some people who automatically object to any removal and then try to stir up dramatic conflict about it. This is not productive. Friday (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Friday, can you explain how "we should be civil and treat other editors with respect" is consistent with "Come back when you're willing to discuss this like an adult" ? It seems to me there may be a bit of a mismatch there. Gandalf61 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, if an editor persists with inappropriate behavior, people end up having to tell him to cut it out. This should be done without passion or namecalling. I explained why his comment was unhelpful, and invited him to return when he's ready to engage in productive discussion. If there's some better way to deal with this, by all means go ahead and try it. Friday (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Friday, that is not what you did. An invitation implies politeness. "Come back when you're willing to discuss this like an adult" is not polite - it is rude and abusive. My relevant point here is that your attempts to claim the moral high ground in these RD behaviour discussions are undermined by your frequent incivility and sarcasm. Gandalf61 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In the specific case that started these threads ([8]), I suspect that a "Please, sirs, could you remove your off-topic and offensive posts? Pretty please?" would not have worked. From a purely logistical standpoint, it would have been impractical.

• (At least) three comments were from anonymous IPs. It's quite probable that they wouldn't even see a request, even if they came back to Wikipedia.
• Several comments were part of nested, threaded discussion. If you remove your own comment, do you remove the responses to it as well? (Is that just as 'bad' as EricR removing the thread himself?) Do you leave responses hanging, where they are confusing at best, and insulting (the wrong targets) at worst?
• If not all of the parties to the discussion agree to remove their comments, what then?
• If some people but not others (again, I'm thinking of non-static IPs in particular) remove their comments and stop participating, how do you deal with the ones who continue to commment, or who start goading and taunting those who have left?
• If new editors (those not part of the previous discussion, and who haven't been asked to withdraw comments) start to participate (in response to obnoxiousness or trolling, or to engage in their own off-topic discussion or trolling) how do you inform them, and stay on top of this?
• I suppose you could leave a note on the thread that you have asked participants to stop responding to certain parts of the discussion and withdraw their remarks, but that leads to metadiscussion on the desk itself, and then we have a huge long thread (like this one, here on the talk page) getting in the way of the Ref Desk's Q & A.

In other words, it's a shambles. When a limb becomes gangrenous, sometimes you have to amputate; it's messy and it's painful, but sometimes it's the best among bad alternatives. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The standard way to avoid causing a disruption in flow by deleting your own comment is to strike it out, instead. This addresses many of your points, Ten. StuRat 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, I agree that sometimes it is necessary to take extreme measures. I just don't think this is the case. I care about the anonymous editor and I care about the experienced editor who were debating there and I also care about the silent readers. I would like the editors to understand that what they did is wrong and take it back themselves and try not to do that again on the Reference Desk. I think that discussing the issue on the thread itself would be the best of all things to be done, the less disruptive of all. It would show to the silent readers that we care about them and we do not wish them to be offended, but it would also show to the silent readers that we're humans and that the Reference Desk is not more perfect than humans and there will be nasty things there from time to time, as there are nasty things in humans. At the end, I think a beautiful result could come out of all of this, a much more beautiful thing than censorship. A.Z. 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion on the thread itself further exacerbates the problem: the reference desk is not a place for debate, yet a growing number of editors appear use it for that purpose. In doing so we send the message to silent reader, anonymous editor and experienced editors alike, that that debate and irreverent discourse is permitted or encouraged. Of course it is preferable to be sensitive on removal of clearly inappropriate content, and individuals should be encouraged to explain their reasoning here or on indvidual talkpages. But when the desk is being, quite frankly, hijacked by inane chatter (and pretty offensive chatter to boot) engaging in further discussion in situ is simply counter-productive. No one is asking for perfection, but is level of maturity from regular contributors in respecting the basic premise of the reference desk, thereby setting an example for others, too much to ask? Rockpocket 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the reference desk is no place for debate. A.Z. 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you go to the reference desk at you local public library and start debating with the librarian? --LarryMac 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A.Z. 22:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That notwithstanding, any good reference desk staffer would not engage in debate with you. "Offer personal opinions, chat, or engage in Scoretic dialogue is not listed among the services they offer. Do you think we should attempt to be good reference desk staffers? Rockpocket 23:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This argument has been used before[9] but does not appear to carry any weight for the "chatters". But at least A.Z. should understand that it is curious to suggest that those who consider the use of the RD as a forum for debate a form of abuse, address the issue by adding to the debate on the RD.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are talking about what I said on the talk page of the guidelines proposal page. But, Lambiam, I did not say that the use of the RD as a forum for debate is a form of abuse, I only said it would be really bad if the reference desk became something like that horrible chatting that someone (I think TwasNow) wrote there. There are many different kinds of chatters and chatting. I wouldn't mind that there were some conversations on the reference desk that I don't like, I would just not read them and read only the ones I like. I really like reading Socrates chatting endlessly in Plato's books, for instance, but the rules of this reference desk don't let conversations like that ever happen.

Using the analogy with how most of the real world reference desks work really is no argument. What if all those reference desks are wrong? You have to say why it is better that way, instead of saying "well, it's always been like that with desks called 'reference desks', so let's keep doing it that way." A.Z. 22:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You really misunderstood what I wrote. But I like your last contribution. Just remove the restrictions on the RD, and the sometimes inane chatter we have now will improve to the level of Socratean dialogue. Excellent.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you think that if people are not censored, they are going to start talking a lot of crap instead of Socratic level dialogue. Even if it is true, the only way to make people stop having ridiculous purposeless conversations and raise the level of the chatting without telling them to shut up is actually conversating with them about it and explaining your concerns in the conversation. A.Z. 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to read it again and try to understand what you said. Maybe it's my stupidity or the language barrier or you just did not explain it too well or I did not try too hard to understand what you meant. A.Z. 23:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I now understand. You find it weird that I suggested that the people who deleted the content would actually insert more content like that on the desk in an attempt to solve the problem. A.Z. 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are certain things that are, for practical purposes, beyond debate on Wikipedia. Maybe the project should fundamentally change its purpose, but until it does, we need to work toward the purpose it already has. This purpose is well documented and well understood. WP:5P is a good overview of the purpose and scope of Wikipedia. If you want to argue against those issues, the reference desk talk page is not the place for it. Friday (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The pillars do not disallow us to debate on the reference desk. A.Z. 23:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My goodness: I see some attempt has been made to draw parallels between some of the tedious verbal excesses which occasionly appear on the Humanities Desk with the subtleties of Socratic dialectics-what an absolute hoot! Clio the Muse 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I really wish Socrates were alive and responded to you. A.Z. 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Given his belief that "knowing that you know nothing, makes you the smartest of all," I expect he would support the idea that we should be only providing reliable references rather than imparting our personal opinions in the mistaken belief they are of inherent importance. Rockpocket 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Socrates viola.jpg

"I know nothing except of my ignorance"

No, he would not. Socrates really wouldn't care for "references", he prefered to find out everything on his own. He would not wish that he himself would become a reference stating that it is good to know that you know nothing: he would wish each person to find this out and realize that on his own. His opinions had no inherent importance to him, as my opinions have no importance and yours don't as well. But they might just be paths leading to the truth, and that's the use I think we should make of them. Your opinion is that we should give references only and my opinion is that what you call reference and what you call not-reference actually are just an arbitrary split that you made and each person sees the difference between acceptable reference and not-reference in his own particular way. A.Z. 00:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunatly for all of us, the opinion of Socrates is as relevent to our use of sources as that of Sócrates (who apparently holds a PhD, though thankfully for the sake of my comparison, not in policymaking). Your anti-intellectual philosophy is interesting, but completely in conflict with the Wikipedian policy. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for finding oneself, its an encyclopaedia. Socrates could protest all he likes, but its not going to change WP:ATT. Rockpocket 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, now ... Behind your verse so masterfully made / We hear the weeping of a Muse betrayed. ;-) ... A.Z.: Considerable leeway should be given and is given, even by the most active desk surgeons, to keep the desks interesting, human, humorous, even silly and trivial occasionally, and allowing for the presentation of conflicting views in society and science. I could quote many examples at the desks to prove this. Testing the system, requesting a codex of rules, looking for loopholes, and finally, attempting to change general policies of Wikipedia from a Reference-Desk point of view could also result in less leeway, an outcome I would much regret. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The weeping, Sluzzelin, has been brought on by gales of uncontrolled laughter. Ah, Socrates, if you could only be with me now! Care for a dialectic, anyone? Clio the Muse 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Socrates is with us in the dialogues. I have read few of them and all that I have read were just translations into Portuguese or English. I am going to learn ancient Greek one day and then I will read all of the dialogues. And then I may write something for you proving that Socrates' opinion would be that what you call tedious boring excesses is actually essentially the same as his filled-with-subtleties dialectics. He would also support ending this ridiculous censorship here. Enjoy what I just wrote to laugh as much as you possibly can for the time being. A.Z. 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me see now, what are my favourite Socratic quotes? Oh, yes, I think this one may have a passing relevance:

If thou continuest to take delight in idle argumentation thou mayest be qualified to combat with the sophists, but will never know how to live with men.

And just to balance that let me add this little gem;

Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior.

Ah, the laughter of the gods! Clio the Muse 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You are a sophist. A.Z. 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Socrates! Clio the Muse 00:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not Socrates, I am A.Z. and you are a sophist. A.Z. 00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok. Clearly the Socratic references piqued the amusement of certain editors (myself included), but lets try and keep this on topic and avoid straying into the realm of WP:NPA. Please remember sophist is considered a pejorative term these days. Rockpocket 01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But surely, Rockpocket, you must know that name-calling is just another part of the dialectical tradition, when rational discourse reaches its limit? Yes, you are right, enough is clearly enough: this is getting boring. Clio the Muse 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This amusing aside distracts from issue at hand. It appears, once again, the problem comes down to fundamental differences in interpreting policy and their relevence to the Ref Desk. I'm beginning to think we need to form consensus within the wider community on the very purpose of the desk and whether it should be exempt from core policies. This seems like a no brainer to me, but clearly there are those that believe there is no good reason our reference desk should be run like a real reference desk (one that provides references). Without this being established, its difficult to see how anything else can be agreed upon. Rockpocket 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As the Ref Desk is not an article, it is obviously exempt from all policies written with articles in mind. StuRat 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is that an obvious conclusion and, how do you know what was "in mind" when core policies were written? The RD is not a talk page nor a policy page, infact no policies were written with the Ref Desk specifically in mind. So, if I follow the logic of your argument correctly, does that make it a complete free-for-all? WP:5P says "Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments". There is no qualifer to this about which types of pages are included and excluded, indeed it explicitly states that is one of the pillars that "define Wikipedia's character". What seems obvious to me is that the RD should be in line with the character of the project and fulfill the role is was specifically modelled on (a reference desk). Rockpocket 02:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The first clue that WP:5P was written with articles in mind is that this rather short page mentions the word "article" no less than 7 times. The only mention of talk pages, like the Ref Desk, is when they state that disputes in articles should be discussed on the associated talk page. Another clue is that some of the rules under the five pillars conflict with what we do at the Ref Desk. For example, "nor is Wikipedia a dictionary" would seem to prevent us from answering questions on word meanings on the Language Ref Desk, which is one of the primary purposes of that desk. StuRat 03:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Those conclusions are complete non sequiturs. The page explicitly says the pillars define Wikipedia's character, not Wikipedia's articles. The specific references to the term "article" presumably because editing articles is the reason that Wikipedians are here (lest you forget) and the purpose of the reference desk is to refer individuals to information. That in no way makes WP a dictionary. Also, simply stating your opinion that the RD is a talkpage doesn't actually make it a talkpage (for example, why would a talkpage have its own talkpage?) Rockpocket 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That last question is really easy to answer: a talkpage would have its own talkpage so there would be a place to discuss the first talkpage, where such discussions are not appropriate since the purpose of the first talkpage is to discuss whatever it is that is the original topic of that talkpage. A.Z. 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd you say that, A.Z., since it appears to be in complete contradiction to your suggestion above that off-topic discussion on deletion of inane chat be held on the Ref Desk itself rather than this talkpage. So which is it? Rockpocket 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No contradiction, Rockpocket. I said "the purpose of the first talkpage is to discuss whatever it is that is the original topic of that talkpage" and I believe the purpose of the reference desk encompasses discussing that deleted content. I think the content is part of the topic of the reference desk. I think you disagree with that, but that doesn't mean I'm contradicting myself. A.Z. 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Some examples from WP:5P:

• All articles must follow our no original research policy - Note that it does NOT say the no original research policy applies to talk pages (or any other type of page).

• Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. - Note that it does NOT say we strive for talk pages (or any other type of page) that advocate no single point of view.

• Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone... - Note that it does NOT say that anyone can change the talk page (or any other type of page) contributions of others.

So, when people refer to the five pillars as "proof" that no original research is allowed on the Ref Desk, NPOV is required in each response, and anyone can feel free to delete anything on the Ref desk as long as they think it improves things, they really don't have a case, the five pillars absolutely say no such thing about non-articles. StuRat 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, and as I said, there is at least two people who believe the Ref Desk should be exempt from the core policies that "define Wikipedia's character" and that it should not not be operated like a real reference desk. I believe there would be a strong consensus against this from the community should we seek it. Rockpocket 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't say that, Rockpocket. I don't think the Ref Desk is exempt. I think the policies aplly to the entire website but the specific guidelines that we are discussing (verifiability and NPOV) concern the articles, not the reference desk. They were made thinking of the articles. WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and other policies and the pillars apply to the reference desk. My interpretetion is just that those parts of the pillars that we are talking about just say we should not use the articles to say our opinions and our point of view.

And, yes, I think it's time for the analogy with real-world reference desks to stop being so important to the editors here. A.Z. 17:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand why you would say that. Wikipedia is an analog of a real-world encyclopedia, so why should the reference desk be something different? Things have names for specific reasons. That is why we do not call this the Wikipedia Automobile Repair Shop, because that's not what it is, nor what we are attempting to replicate within the wonderful world of cyberspace. There is a very slight chance I could be convinced to alter my view on this, but simply saying that I should give up on the analogy is not persuasive. --LarryMac 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a rather poor analogy with a real-world paper encyclopedia. We allow anyone to edit, they only allow a select few. We allow immediate changes, they have a deliberate process to review all changes before they are released. We have millions of articles, they have mere thousands. We make our discussions of the content public, they keep theirs hidden. We reveal the author of each word, they generally don't. Had we limited Wikipedia to the same constraints as paper encyclopedias, it would have been a failure. Similarly, saying the Ref Desk must behave in exactly the same way as a library Ref Desk dooms it to never expand beyond those limits and thus be no better. StuRat 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Larry. I think this comment shows how completely fundamental the difference on opinion is here. If we can't even agree on what a reference desk is, then there is little point in discussion minor specifics. Rockpocket 18:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And, please, let's seek the consensus of the community once and for all! That is, if you mean by community more than the 12 editors who are currently participating in the discussion. A.Z. 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It really seems like i ought to have contributed something to this thread, but honestly, i can't think of anything to say.—eric 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Eric, I know what you mean. Jaw dropping, isn't it. David D. (Talk) 14:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Many Happy Returns" on the Humanities RD  :-/

With what strikes me as a plethora of "Jewish questions" on the Humanities RD at any given time, it seems inevitable that such an event as Easter will stimulate discussion on the Jews' putative responsibility and guilt for Jesus' crucifixion (April 6). I'm not sure what's a suitable follow-up to a response such as that offered by DDB, who in what seems a well-meaning attempt to distance today's Jews from the scene of the crime, writes a smattering of ill-informed, unsourced statements (e.g. "Jewish peoples that went to Western European nations endured persecutions so that today, most Jewish peoples have Russian sounding last names"). I've noted as much to that User, and will write something on the thread as soon as I'm back on line. At present, am just asking for guidance here: is this simply part of the nature of the Ref Desk Q&A dynamic, without any recourse other than what the happenstance next-editor may provide? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 05:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We have been discussing for some time now what should the Q&A dynamic and the recourses be. Almost all of these posts above yours are about this and they are also trying to draft guidelines to the reference desk on another page.

My personal opinion is that this specific situation does not require measures other than the posts that the happenstance next-editors can write. A.Z. 05:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel what I wrote will stand scrutiny. I would point out that Deborah has taken that statement out of context. I had written of a populist view and referenced the extremist source. At no stage have I given my personal view. However, if I'm to be denounced, I would point out that my family is Jewish from my paternal Grandmother (whom I loved much). That part of the family fled Russia in the 19th century and settled in Holland and London. I have loved members that survived the holocaust. I might refer to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice and various laws over the years outlawing Jewry in nations such as England, France, Germany, Spain and Italy so as to make a case of persecution, but others have done that for me. I do not deny the existance of decendants of Jewish tribes from the time of the crucifixion. I do not support, nor endorse antisemmitic propaganda like that of the PLO, and do not believe I am disseminating such. DDB 05:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, DDB, as Deborahjay just gets extremely upset when she sees something she disagrees with, resorting to personal attacks (like calling the other author "uninformed"), instead of just politely adding her view to the discussion on the Ref Desk. StuRat 06:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How does this not qualify as a personal attack?  --Lambiam^Talk 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Clio the Muse 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

StuRat's stated claims here reveal such distorted understanding, based on abysmally inadequate reading comprehension, as well may raise further alarm as to the fitness of that user to respond in the Reference Desks at all. Clearly I stated above that a respondent "[wrote]...ill-informed... statements" — which in StuRatSpeak is transformed into my "calling the other author 'uninformed'" [sic; see above], ergo my (but of course never StuRat!) "resorting to personal attacks." Are we to accept this sort of statement, and treatment? I emphatically do not. In Real Life I'm required to stand up to hooligans all the time; I'm saddened to find them here. You've been presented with a presumptuous claim that User Deborahjay "just gets extremely upset" about something she "disgrees with." The truth, which you may take from me and me alone, is that I respond with indignation and rejection of sloppy reasoning and writing. User StuRat may be incapable of doing any better, but I will not allow that user's opinion-mongering to go unchallenged if I have any say in the matter. -- Thank you, Deborahjay 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How could I possibly mistake the claim that I have "abysmally inadequate reading comprehension" for a personal attack ? It must just be my "abysmally inadequate reading comprehension" that causes me to fail to see that it is actually a respectful way to refer to a fellow editor. Somehow, in my ignorance, it looked like an insult to me. StuRat 00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Continue to reject and expose half-baked reasoning wherever you find it, Deborahjay. My only advice is to keep this frosty and detached in your rationality, if you understand my meaning. Clio the Muse 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, which one of you is the original and which is the clone ? The only difference I see is that Deborahjay's insults are blatant, while Clio the Muse likes to sneak them in. StuRat 00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A clone that takes a different approach from the original? Now that, at least, is an unusual thought! You might consider organising tours of elephants' graveyards. Very educational, I feel sure. Clio the Muse 01:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You apparently think that clones have identical brains and thought patterns. This is not the case, as brains and thought patterns depend not only on genetics but also on experience and (mis)education. StuRat 03:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for that, and am delighted to concede to your intimate acquaintance with the workings of the clone-ish brain, just as I do on elephants' graveyards, the mass murder of pigeons, and other such delights. Clio the Muse 03:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And you should organize tours of the world in your mind, where apparently hunters weren't very efficient at shooting passenger pigeons, so they still exist to this day, if only flying around inside your head. StuRat 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And this, of course, would not constitute a personal attack? Of course not! Anyway, as Plato observed, Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something. What delights there are in philosophy! Clio the Muse 04:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem is with the wording of DDB's response, and I took the time to reply on the thread to state my particular objection of what I feel does not "stand scrutiny"— particularly by lurking readers who are just as likely, or (far) more so, to "take [a] statement out of context." I also deplore these assumptions of my supposed imputation of "personal views" and denunciation, here and there. These contentions reflect DDB's readings, not my own. Providing "populist" and "extremist" views in a response, while not citing them as such, gives the impression that these are "the answers." This seems to me an ineffectual—not to mention intellectually irresponsible—approach, certainly for one motivated as the above reveals DDB to be. It would be difficult for anyone to be more sorry than I when the Reference Desk degenerates into an opinion forum, as I believe it's to be a source of reputable information and guidance on information-seeking. I also sorely regret the amount of time I spend writing in the wake of such discussions rather than as I would prefer, including editing pages. -- Deborahjay 06:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Cyrillic alphabet

Template:Cyrillic alphabet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ✉Hello World! 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Psuedo rfc?

Would something like an RFC be useful to address core ref desk issues? Not necessarily very formalized, but with some aspects of an RFC. Why could this do something the talk page isn't doing? Well, maybe we could encourage the formation of a number of "views" that could be endorsed, and we could discourage lots of threaded discussion except on the talk page. Would such a thing be possibly useful, or would it just be a rehash of what we've done before many times? Friday (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that such an approach might end up like the 'straw polls' debacle a few months ago. On the other hand, it could also be an effective tool to organize discussion and limit the 'wandering topic' problem. I hate to ask you to do a lot of work, but could you perhaps sketch out (on a subpage here or in your userspace) the first few sections of what such a discussion framework might look like? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's an initial stab at this at User:Friday/RD. Friday (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of what I was promoting above, but what I think is really needed is the perspective of editors that exist wholly, or at least partially, outside this little corner of the project. While everyone has the right to participate in that aspect of Wikipedia that interests them, of course, I think part of the problem here is that a significant number of those that endorse a more discussion/opinion-orientated Ref Desk participate here almost exclusively (e.g. [10] [11] [12]. Its not surprising to me that one would consider the desk to be more of a forum than a strict "real-world"-style reference source to the encyclopaedia when their purpose here is not particularly encyclopaedia orientated. This isn't meant as a criticism, but as an observation. But while there is nothing wrong with restricting oneself to the Ref Desk, it is nevertheless true that it is fundamentally an accessory to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia, and does not exist in a vacuum. Many of us (myself included) spend so much time here that I believe, If you'll excuse the clumsy metaphor, there is a danger that the lunatics are trying to run the asylum. So I think we all need to try and get a bit of perspective by asking the encyclopaedia what they want and expect of a reference desk and then act accordingly. Rockpocket 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to assume that somebody with many recent Ref Desk edits lack experience on articles. I, for example, have over 2000 mainspace edits (more than Friday, about 4X as many as EricR, way more than Clio, who only has 3, and more than the total number of edits for Deborahjay), and have even written several articles: [13]. StuRat 00:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, StuRat, but who is making that assumption? I simply noted the current interest of those that tend to support a discussion/opinion-orientated desk is very much focused on the desk almost exclusively. For example, of your last 1000 edits, I count about 5 that are not ref desk related (and those are either minor grammar corrections or redirects). This is not a good sample if you wish to survey the opinion of your average contributor the the encyclopaedia. Do you disagree that it would be helpful to consult the wider community? Rockpocket 02:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would expect that people with a great deal of experience on the Ref Desk would be best able to decide what is best for the Ref Desk. Also having experience in Wikipedia articles is a bonus, I suppose. Fortunately, I have considerable experience on both. StuRat 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

How many push-ups can you do? Anyone who has read my user page will see, as a matter of conscious choice, I do not edit main pages. I have, however, reverted vandalism whenever I have come across it, which must account for the lonely three. Lucky me! Clio the Muse 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that input from editors in general, rather than mostly reference desk regulars, would be highly useful. Also agree that it's totally unsurprising that editors unfamiliar with the project in general aren't going to be magically aware of how Wikipedia works in general. I encourage everyone to get some broader experience, if what they've mostly seen so far is just the ref desk. Friday (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Would this not just be-sigh!-another drone fest? Just imagine: another 'super majority.' Can you cope; can I cope? Oh, my God: words within words, dolls within dolls; world without end, amen! Clio the Muse 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the issue. My preference does not lie on Friday's helpful list (and I've noted the 'leave your suggestion here' space), because I like parts of them all, at different times. I am irritated by the unreplied to postings. I would point out editorial policy and deletions prevent some worthy references being made. Deborah's rather extraordinary suggestion I find a reference for the antisemmitic 'curse' over crucifixion should be a case in point. Such an article would be reprehensible, giving truth to the lie. The truth is, the most experienced editors who are mainstream, not reference desk, have less to offer the ref desk than regular contributors.It is also true that some axe grinders may be very irritating. One needs space to grizzle. DDB 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that if we decide to go this route, it would be worthwhile posting a notice to WP:CENT, as well as to WP:VPP and perhaps WP:RFC. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to "stack the vote" in favor of those who never actually visit the Ref Desk, since they will likely assume it works just like a Wikipedia article (while it really has almost nothing in common with a Wikipedia article or rules written for them) ? StuRat 03:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to get some fresh ideas and fresh blood into the discussion. Some new faces, who haven't built up such reserves of interpersonal animosity. Some people who are interested in all of Wikipedia, and have no more or less right to comment on the project than the rest of us.

My understanding of – and my hope for – a request for comment of this sort is that it would allow for a calm, rational presentation of various viewpoints and perspectives. A limit on threaded discussion would help to keep the process above the interpersonal conflicts that abound on this talk page. If you feel that there are widely-held misconceptions about the role and operation of the Desks, I would expect and hope that you would clearly explain where and how they arise, and how they might be corrected. Be clear, be rational, be persuasive. Most editors on Wikipedia are pretty smart people. If you make a convincing argument about how the Ref Desks are different, you might well be surprised by how many people agree with you. Some of them might well have a novel take on your ideas, and come up with arguments you haven't even thought of.

The Ref Desk is part of Wikipedia. The Desks can't be treated in isolation, and it wouldn't be appropriate to discourage other Wikipedians from participating. On a practical note, you will have difficulty convincing other editors to respect any policies or guidelines which arise from any process which isn't widely advertised and open. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that, if you want opinions on how the Ref Desk should be run, you should ask people on, surprisingly, the Ref Desk. A post at the top of each day on each page during the discussion ought to get the attention of most people who use the Ref Desk. StuRat 03:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In the unlikely event you haven't noticed, the people on the Ref Desk have very different interpretation of how it should function. You, personally, have indicated you will only respect a consensus on what what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable on the Desk. The only way we can reach a consensus is to sample the opinion of the wider community for which it serves. I find the suggestion that this is an attempt "stack votes" a patent lack of good faith (a core characteristic of Wikipedia which does, I hope you'll agree, apply to this page). Personally I would imagine the wider community will interpret a reference desk to be a reference desk and all that entails, but they might equally decide it should actually be a chat and opinion desk, and all that entails. Who knows, but either way I would respect that consensus. What I would hope, however, is that in addition to the disputes we already face here, we don't have to deal with WP:OWNership issues also. The opinion of you or I, on how the Ref Desk should work, is no more or less important than that of someone of good standing that has never visited this page. Do you agree, or would you dispute a consensus if it was formed a significant number of non-reference desk regulars? Rockpocket 05:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a mention on the RD page (perhaps in the header?) and on this talk page would be quite appropriate—indeed, I would have thought that the requirement to place such notices would go without saying. We just don't want to give the impression that we're hiding the workings of the Ref Desk from the rest of the project; providing notice of a policy discussion in the usual places will tend to increase both participation and buy-in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the opinions of those who are actually familiar with the Ref desk should carry more weight than those who have no idea what it's all about. That is approximately what we have on this page, as we mostly have people familiar with the Ref Desk here. However, if we post notices all over Wikipedia, we will end up with the majority of people who decide on Ref Desk policies having no history, understanding, or particular concern for the fate of the Ref Desk, and that will lead to some rather dismal policies. For comparison, if a discussion was underway on ways to improve the military, would you want to mostly hear the opinions of those in the military or mostly those who've never served ? StuRat 05:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd insist on both, no weighting necessary. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So, to be clear, because an editor has greater Ref Desk experience, his opinion carries more weight? I only ask because a week or two back you told me, An "argument from authority" is never acceptable to me. I see this as saying "everything I say is right because I am an expert, and everything you say is wrong because you're not".

Our expertise notwithstanding, I don't see why the average Wikipedian can't grasp what a reference desk is and how it should function. It isn't rocket science. Anyway, there is absolutely no precedent for self-selecting cabals dictating anything in Wikipedia. Every Wikipedian can opine in XfD's without knowing anything about our deletion policy, on RfAs without knowing the first thing about administratorship and they can help form policy without logging any project space edits whatsoever. The Ref Desk is no different, the community may not have the edits to the Ref Desk that you or I have, but its still theirs, not yours. You can choose to circle the wagons and decline to contribute to any wider discussion or you can state your position for consideration, but neither of us have the authority to ignore the community consensus. Besides, I don't think anything the great unwashed can come up with could be any more dismal than the current state of affairs. Rockpocket 08:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't ignore the opinions of anyone who wanders in to this discussion, but going and fetching as many people as possible who know as little as possible about the Ref Desk, in an attempt to find many who will fall for your arguments that the Ref Desk is exactly like an article and should follow the same rules (due to their lack of Ref Desk experience), doesn't seem ideal to me, does it seem ideal to you ? StuRat 05:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer that if you tell me, StuRat, are you still beating your wife? If I was persuasive enough to convince the entire community that the Ref Desk is an article then, believe you me, I wouldn't be wasting my talents here. However, to respond to the general gist of your loaded question, it does seem ideal to me that we ask the - the community at large - how they would like to see it function. Unlike you I have confidence in the community consensus, there are people with the ability to think for themselves outside this little refuge, you know, and a many of them are a lot smarter than you or I. A review of any organization or process should encorage all stakeholders to have their say. Keeping it among the "Ref Desk regulars" is akin to asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. One can't help wondering the reason you don't want to ask the communities opinion is because you know that there is no wider support for your own unique interpretation of our policies and how they should apply to the Desk. Am I right? Rockpocket 07:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you know that your interpretations are so flawed that people familiar with the Ref Desk will see just how bogus they are, so continue the search for somebody naive enough to fall for them. Wikipedians may even catch on, however, so may I suggest you raid a kindergarten in search of votes to support your position ? StuRat 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So other wikipedians are better than kindergarteners but not by much? Besides, it seems there are quite a few ref desk regulars that, in general, side with rockpocket. Listening to you, one would expect there to be a unanimous consensus among those who regularly participate in ref desk. If that is the case why has the argument been continuing for months? (please, no conspiracies led by Friday, type repsonses) David D. (Talk) 07:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If thats the level of discourse you wish to stoop to, then I'm excusing myself from further discussion on this issue with you. You can ignore any wider debate you choose, and you can throw personal insults at those you disagree with, but if you edit in a manner to counter community consensus you are liable to be blocked for disruptive editing. You know where the discussion is, I hope you'll offer your perspective, but if you don't I'll be happy to inform you should any consensus form. Happy editing. Rockpocket 20:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you can't agree on who should be invited to participate in this pseudo RfC. Hell, you can't even have a polite discussion about who should be invited to participate in this pseudo RfC - not assigning blame there, just an observation. So clearly there is no chance that the pseudo RfC itself would achieve anything useful. My suggestion on a way forward is that everyone should walk away from this major dick-fest for a while and do something more productive instead. In particular - Friday, why not stop throwing poodles into the piranha pool, none of them ever make it to the other side - and StuRat, you could stop biting on that fluffy bait, no matter how tasty it looks. Gandalf61 09:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [who, for the record, has 3.5 years experience as a registered Wikipedia editor and trys to contribute equally to the RDs and main articles]

Hey hey now Gandalf, who the heck do think you are to be redirecting all of these harmless keystrokes into the article space where they could do some real damage? The RD corral is a fine place for bluster to be expended harmlessly and we have virtually unlimited archiving space to contain it all. Please, let the dick-fest be and besides, it's much livlier than some of the other so-called fun places.  ;-) ~ hydnjo talk  04:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the poodle/piranha analogy. For my part, I mainly want StuRat to stop with his disruptive reverting. If he doesn't agree with Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point he should take that up on that talk page, not here. I'd also like him to cut out the divisive and unhelpful rhetoric, but I can even live with a certain amount of annoying talk-page behavior. It's the disruption of project space that concerns me more. Friday (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So you only want deletionists to continue with their divisive and unhelpful rhetoric ? I must assume so, since you never have anything to say against such comments, especially when you make them yourself. (For example, your constantly referring to reverts as "disruptive".) StuRat 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see three types of contributors to the discussion, not represented (fortunately) in equal numbers.

1. Editors who feel that it should be possible to delete postings that do not respect the nature and purpose of a reference desk and that are detrimental to the project (sometimes referred to as the "deletionists").
2. Editors who feel that such postings should remain, but won't resort to disruptive behaviour if such postings are removed.
3. Editors who feel that such postings should remain, and are willing to resort to disruption to ensure the "deletionists" lose, no matter what.

 --Lambiam^Talk 21:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Editors who refer to anything they disagree with as "disruption". StuRat 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FMI, see Arguments which are safe to disregard. David D. (Talk) 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with your assessment, Lambiam, but I suspect that we would all be better off here on this talk page if we put this thread to rest. As Rockpocket notes above, once some participants reach a low enough level of discourse, they are best ignored. I'm following his lead, and I hope that others are willing to do the same; I'm tired of the pointless bickering. If anyone has further input into the structure or format of a request for comment type of exercise, by all means continue. As for the question of who should be permitted to participate in the discussion, the matter should be obvious—telling Wikipedia editors not to give their opinions is like telling bullfrogs to stay in a bucket. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You could always cut off their legs? Alternatively just set up a super secret RD RfC and only invite editors from groups 2 +3 to the party. What better than a unanimous consensus to calm everyone down? OK, OK, that's not what StuRat implied, editors from group 1 can have some input too, but no kindergarteners, please. David D. (Talk) 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the need for an RFC, which apparently would bring in persons who have not been active in answering questions here, to determine the nature and purpose of the project or to establish rules, or to move toward deleting it, or some unspecified purpose. Out of 8305 edits, I have answered 820 at Reference desk/Science, 550 at Reference desk/Miscellaneous, 455 at Reference desk/Humanities, and 48 at Reference desk/Language. I have many times been led from this desk to an article which was so lacking that the questioner could not find the info he sought, and have improved the article or added references to it. In this way, RD enhances Wikipedia. Edison 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Going forward

inserted a section break for ease of editing, and as a psychological barrier between us and the bickering above TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC) What an utter waste of time this whole discussion has been. It has achieved nothing except to further alienate some users from others. Haven't any of you ever heard of win-win (the only interpersonal approach to conflict that ever actually works)? I feel like going into Solomon mode and cutting you all in half. JackofOz 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this thread started out as a legitimate attempt at win-win. Fridays and StuRats mediation attempt was also a legitimate attempt at a win-win approach. Both failed. I'd be interested to hear your ideas for getting this win-win strategy off the ground? David D. (Talk) 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not off the ground but more importantly to stay in the air. David D. (Talk) 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to put it real simple: if we were stakeholders and this were a process designed to reach a consensual solution, the first step might be to abandon our positions (whatever they may be) and try to write down our interests (that which is at stake) instead. That way we might be able to find out where we have common interests, and where our interests might challenge each other mutually, and we could take it from there. Oh, but wait, this has already been tried. Sorry, David, I have nothing to offer either. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up a couple of weeks ago (See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 27#Tooting my own horn); it's based on some ideas that I put together back at the end of last year. What I call "guiding principles" could just as easily be "interests".

See User:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts for the full version.

Please bear in mind that my remarks aren't meant to be converted directly to policy instructions; they're intended more to provide a framework for our discussion: an idea of the purpose of the Desk, and how it fits into the Wikipedia project as a whole. Briefly, I believe that the Ref Desk must remain true to three major guiding principles:

1. The Reference Desk is here to provide information to people who need help answering their questions.
2. The Reference Desk should be a useful part of Wikipedia.
3. The Reference Desk must maintain a friendly, open, welcoming environment.

I've also indicated a few guidelines that I feel should flow logically from these principles. (The list of guidelines is not meant to be exhaustive; indeed, an exhaustive list is probably not achievable, and attempting to formulate a complete list would likely just least to ruleslawyering.) I've seen no indication that any of the text there is controversial – please, correct me if I'm mistaken – and I think that document shows just how much we can agree upon. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought The DecalogueOfAllTrades was a good fireside read last December, and I like it now. This may be anti-community, forgive me if it is, but this draft mirrors my own thoughts more closely than any set of guidelines assembled by participatory process probably ever will be able to do. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What I'd like to encourage people to do is to read that page. Fire off a comment here or on that document's talk page if there's anything that is either a) a gaping omission, or b) not agreeable to everyone. I'm not going to edit anything on the main page for a few days; I'd much rather make sure everyone is starting on the same page. People always seem to be in such a rush to formulate a policy, when they're not clear on exactly what they're trying to achieve. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SteveBaker's view

I've tried to stay out of this discussion thus far - but I'd like to interject some points that seem to have been missed.

Firstly, we aren't asking why people come to the reference desk. There are really three kinds of question that I see here every day:

1. The kind that are already well answered in an existing Wikipedia article - the questioner either didn't find the relevent article - or didn't understand it well enough. These are frequently answered a little rudely - which is uncalled for - we are sick of seeing questions that can trivially be looked up in this encyclopedia, but the questioner DIDN'T FIND IT - for whatever reason. But even so, it is not exactly enough to answer with a couple of obvious links - perhaps the questioner already visited those articles and didn't understand them. So adding a paragraph of simplified explanation from someone who DOES understand the articles is well justified. This is especially true on the specialised desks because some of our science articles are pitched at a level too high for some non-expert readers to understand. Wikipedians are mostly very smart people - our readers are more of a cross-section of the population - and lots of them are just not rocket scientists. If we can help, we should.
2. Questions that Wikipedia has no good answers for. Sometimes these are unanswerable. But if we can answer those questions then we have to ask ourselves: Why is that information not in one of our 1.6 million articles?!! Well, very often, the knowledge we have is not backed up by solid references - or it falls into the category of "Original Research". So very often we answer these questions with something we know from personal experience - or something we learned so long ago that you've forgotten where you learned it from - or even something where we can deduce an answer from raw logic. It is certainly arguable that these replies are contrary to Wikipedia's standards for verification of truth - but is it better to leave the question un-answered? I don't think so. Often questions are very easy to answer with 100% certainty. For example - today someone asked whether a reversal of the earth's magnetic field would erase his computers hard drive. The answer is a very clear "NO!" because we know that hard disks spin - and if the earth's field could erase them by a single reversal, it would be erased 10,000 times a minute as the disk spins. Now - can we find a reference to back that up? Nope - there is not going to be any kind of a book or paper written on this subject. Do we know it's true? Well - we can be absolutely certain. Is it a good answer for the questioner? Yes - I think it is. So verification standards for the encyclopedia as a whole cannot be applied to the help desk without destroying it's worth to our readership.
3. Trolls. There are an awful lot of questions of sexual, purient or scatalogical nature - far more than I think likely from people genuinely having a need to know. The odds are good that these are coming from kids who find it funny to get us to talk seriously about how women go to the bathroom or what the ingredients of poop are. I think we should work hard to provide minimal answers that directly answer the question - but which are likely to be unsatisfying to a troll. One line answers only - no followups. "Don't feed the trolls". This may hurt a few questioners - but I very much doubt that many of this kind of question are genuine.

Another matter is that we get bad answers - because we can't provide solid references - and we're answering dozens of questions in each desk each day - there is no time to look them up even if references could be found. So we wind up with answers to some questions requiring discussions between the people who have different answers. This is unavoidable - one cannot allow a 'bad' answer to be all that the reader sees - we have to fix it. Fixing the reply by deleting it is (I believe) a bad idea. The person who wrote that answer thought it was correct - I think it's wrong. What right have I to delete the first answer? Unless I have a solid verifiable reference, it's my opinion versus his opinion. The best one can do is to allow both respondants to write clarification and to engage in friendly debate - and either one of us convinces the other and a clear answer emerges - or the questioner must make his/her own mind up about who to believe (or perhaps to give up and ask someone else!)...but deleting what we consider to be poor answers is an 'no-no' in my opinion...unless you have a solid reference backing your point - you have no special standing.

Humor...well, sometimes it's dangerous. Some answers I've seen that are clearly (to me) of humorous or ironic intent could easily confuse some naive questioners. We should avoid any kind of reply that could be misconstrued as a serious answer. But these responses are not intended to be of encyclopeadic standards - and a moderate amount of lightheartedness helps to make the day go by. There are one or two contributors who do this to far too great a degree though - where almost every reply is humor or biting the questioner...that's got to stop and I see no harm whatever in deleting such responses.

There was some question earlier about whether people who respond here are legitimate Wikipedians - for myself, I have many thousands of main-space edits and two featured articles to my name...I count myself a legitimate main-space Wikipedian.

SteveBaker 03:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the vast majority of what you said here. I don't agree that you should delete another reply if you have a "solid reference" which refutes that response, for two reasons. One is that what constitutes a "solid reference" is highly subjective. The other is that there are often highly reputable sources which disagree with each other. One study says a drug is safe and effective, while another says it's not, this type of thing happens all the time. So, if you have what you believe to be a highly reputable source, which contradicts an earlier answer, then, by all means, list that source, but leave the original, contradicted response, as well. The other thing I disagree with is, of course, the level of humor which is acceptable. I think humor keeps the Ref Desk interesting. Let's face it, answering the same (or what seems like the same) question over and over would get boring otherwise. StuRat 04:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm strongly in agreement with you over not deleting a bad response just because you have a solid reference. (I didn't phrase that part of my diatribe too clearly!) The only thing I think we should consider deleting are bad answers that are bad because they were intended humorously - but which could be badly misunderstood by a gullible reader. I agree that one should not delete that which can be argued against in a coherent manner. I don't see the benefit of constructing elaborate refutations of misplaced efforts at humor - so those I'd like to simply delete because they bring absolutely no benefit to our questioners - and they could very well do great harm. Humor...well, that's a tough one. Given the informal nature of the desk it would be hard to prevent. I'd just plead that people bear in mind that the questioner isn't "in" on the joke when we get the same question over and over. We don't expect them to read through every answer we've ever given - so duplicate questions are inevitable - and every questioner deserves a clear and coherent reply whether we're sick of it or not. SteveBaker 05:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that if it isn't clear that a response is a joke (or parts of it are), just clarify it, no need to remove it. Here's an example: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Adding_to_a_list_of_films_for_1933. StuRat 05:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether this inane response was meant as a joke, but in any case it was a cruel response. How should we "just clarify" it?  --Lambiam^Talk 07:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a joke, but just a cruel response. I'd have posted it to the Ref Desk talk page, notified the author, and removed it once a consensus was reached (which shouldn't have been difficult in this case). StuRat 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Now suppose the addition of an inane and cruel response is reverted before consensus is reached, simply out of compassion because it is painful to the questioner and does not add any value but is only harmful to everyone except trolls. Do you think the right approach then is to reinstate it?  --Lambiam^Talk 09:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do, but you already know that. If we leave it up to each individual to decide what to delete, the result is behavior which does more damage to the Ref Desk than this particular post. There is an exception for "disruption" in Wikipedia policy (WP:DIS), but that isn't just anything you don't like, it has to be something which prevents Wikipedia from operating (say if somebody wipes out the entire contents of a Ref Desk page). The post in question, while cruel, doesn't prevent Wikipedia from functioning, so there is no reason to circumvent the normal process. StuRat 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "inclusionism" you are championing is that it is up to each individual what to add. In articles that (kind of) works, because other users who think an addition is harmful can then delete it. If harmful comments on the ref desk pages cannot be deleted except by going through a laborious process, then perhaps we should not let just anyone answer questions there. I wonder if you could you live with the following: instead of reinstating deleted material, however harmful, solely because some process has not been followed, only reinstate if (1) in your judgement, the removed material is not harmful, or else has merits offsetting any harm, and moreover (2) you feel that there is more than the proverbial snowball's chance that, if the issue is orderly discussed, the consensus will be to keep the material. See also WP:BRD, note the sentence in bold DO NOT Revert back!, and note further that this is about pages and the wiki process in general, not just articles.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a "laborious process", and similar arguments could be made in the criminal justice system: "it's so much trouble to get warrants and have trials, wouldn't it be so much better if we could just imprison anyone we know is guilty without all that bother ?". Preventing the type of abuses that result from the laziness of allowing anyone to delete anything, unilaterally, "so long as they think it improves Wikipedia" is well worth the price of a little time and effort. StuRat 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Stu, you are again framing the "deletionist" position in the most ugly way you can think of, as if they are a bunch of irresponsible Admins and their sycophants who completely arbitrarily, without rhyme or reason, choose to delete valuable contributions, and additionally support each other's deletions, thereby inflicting their collective deletionist Reign of Terror on the defenseless Reference desk. How does your reasoning not apply to contributions to articles, or guidelines, and so on? What type of abuses result from allowing anyone to delete anything there? Why should we not address the laziness of allowing anyone to respond in any way they want on the desks?  --Lambiam^Talk 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought suspects could be held without charge for a certain amount of time? In the same way a deletion can be considered without being in view. I'm not sure the search warrant anaolgy works here as the evidence is already in plain view on the ref desk. How many of all these deletions that have occurred are for anything other than extreme things? It would be interesting to see some example of the deletions of material that you consider to be desirable for the ref desk. My feeling is we're not talking about unreferenced answers here, although, from some of your comments on this page it sounds like you feel strongly that this is the case. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of what Steve Baker says at the top of this section. I have no problem with humour or wit if it is incorporated in providing an informative answer. I don't see any justification for encouraging funny comments that are not informative, and certainly not ones that are cruel or insulting to others. No-one is forcing us to answer the same question over and over, so if we can't conjour up something witty that is also constructive and polite, we should say nothing at all (per WP:NPA).

My other issue is that we need to be careful in being clear about what is an unsourceable answer and what is an answer that is sourceable, but that some instead provide an opinion or personal analysis. I consider this to be a major problem with the desk. Not because analysis or opinions are bad per se, but because they are very different types of information and that should be made clear to the OP. Contrary to the position regularly ascribed to me, I don't (and never have) endorsed deleting any good faith answer that attempts to be informative, sourced or not. But what I think we should all do when faced with a question, is aim to find some source to back up our answer. This is surely the ideal situation. If that can't be found but you still have some insight based on your reasoning, you could answer: "I could find no reliable sources that answers your question, however I would reason that...." If you believe your opinion is of value to the OP, you could answer "My opinion is...." Then if someone else does find a sourced answer, ("According to X [ref]....) the OP can easily distinguish between analyses, opinion and reliable source, and make their own minds up accordingly.

I ask others to consider making such opening sentences in reply because starting with "I believe..." or "I think...", or just making a statement, is ambiguous. Its not clear whether you believe something based on faith or dogma, whether you are almost sure it is a fact, but can't find a source, whether you are reasoning based on your experience or knowledge, or whether you have a source for the info but simply didn't provide it. With these two additions, I appear to endorse the same basic position as StuRat and Steve Baker does. Rockpocket 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll nick a bit of commentary from User talk:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts, where this has come up. StuRat has proposed the guideline No appeal to authority or ad hominem arguments, with the reasoning (and my response, albeit with a minor grammar correction),

If you believe a responder posted an incorrect answer, politely state that you disagree, and then provide any evidence you have. Do not say "I'm right because I'm an expert and you're wrong because you clearly don't know what you're talking about". If you are an expert, you should be able to support your claims with actual evidence. And even if the other responder doesn't know what they are talking about, it's not proper to use the Ref Desk as a platform to inform the world of this fact. StuRat 03:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that this is subsumed in WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and #Sources and citations are a Good Thing. If an editor doesn't specify where his answer comes from, it's absolutely reasonable to ask. If a response is based on personal experience, professional training, learned tricks of the trade, or reasonable inferences (see Fermi problem) that should be noted in the original answer. (Answers drawn from these sources aren't necessarily a problem, but it is worthwhile for the person asking to know.) It's perfectly reasonable to question a response that doesn't cite a reliable source, as long as that question is posed politely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that it's reasonable to (politely!) express doubt if an answer is provided without a source. It's reasonable to warn a questioner if you have a reasonable concern that they're being led down the garden path. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is relevent. I broadly agree with both those points. However, if responders are encourgaged to explicitly state the basis for their unsourced answer in the first place then this should render this situation somewhat moot. I find it interesting that StuRat uses the phrase "if the other responder doesn't know what they are talking about", because if that is the case, the responder shouldn't be answering questions. I guess my point is that we should either be providing references or informed opinion/analysis/knowledge. The problem is that a lot of people tends to think their opinion is informed in everything and so offer it on every subject. That isn't ideal, but its not a big deal either, as long as its very clear that it is a personal opinion (informed or otherwise). As a side note, though I generally support StuRat's proposal, I would like to see an assertion that quoting a reliable source to counter an unsourced personal opinion is not an appeal to authority (as has been previously suggested). The idea that a personal opinion is as useful to a reader as that analysis found in an appropriate reliable source is in complete contrast in character to the project goals. If the OP wishes to choose an opinion of an anonymous person over a source that is up to them, but we should not be encouraging the idea that personal opinions are what we are seeking from responders, when reliable sources are available. If there are no sources, then opine away. If there are sources - and you feel a need to opine - then do so, but make it clear what you are doing. Rockpocket 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, asking for a source from the person who provided the original answer is not an argument from authority. It is a request for more information or a clarification, especially if said request is because that person cannot find a reliable source themselves. I presume people answering questions on the ref desk have some idea of where they originally heard the information. Knowing this, even if very vague, gives the original poster an better idea of reliability.

Now it may well be that an answer is challenged because the challenger happens to know a bit about the topic at hand. If, based on experience, or dare i say it, expertise in the relevant area, an answer is challenged the burdon of proof should not be on the said expert. There is no argument from authority to ask for a source. The argument from authority is to provide the answer without a source with an explicit, "trust me, I know this is correct" disclaimer. David D. (Talk) 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Rockpocket 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

LEAVE! For the love of God LEAVE!

I try my best to stay away from this God-forsaken place, but as a human being, I can't resist taking a peak once and again, not unlike a rubber-necking motorist who can't resist but take a look at a tragic car accident.

But this time, I had to speak.

With the exception of the few logical and intelligent, yet stubborn men and women of principle here who remain convinced that some way, some how, by continuing to present their logical arguments to this ridiculous kangaroo court, if they try hard enough they may ultimately be able to convince the remaining vast majority of logically changelled individuals to see the light, well I wish the best of luck upon them. Nonetheless, I can't see their efforts as being any more likely of success than an attempt at teaching calculus to a cockroach.

I tried. In fact to my discredit I tried far too long. Fortunately I finally realized the utter futility of it all.

Don't any of you people realize the utter embarassment this page is to everything that Wikipedia aspires to be?

As such I'll direct this message to the very few logical and intelligent people here who continue to fight this hopeless battle. I won't mention names, but you all know who you are.

LEAVE! Leave while you still have your sanity intact! Without you the logically challenged remaining majority will be left utterly confused, wandering around like chickens with no heads until they finally lose any sense of purpose for their ridiculously illogical arguments.

Perhaps then this page will finally, slowly be able to regain it's original purpose. Until then, for the love of God, LEAVE! Lewis 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is whatever Wikipedians think it should be. Some of us believe we are here to educate - to pass on knowledge - to better mankind. Providing direct answers to people who failed to find what they needed to know in the body of the encyclopedia is a noble goal. There are certainly flaws in the way this is done - but the guiding principle is a good one. Many people who come here for answers go away with exactly what they need - often more than they need. That's a 'A Good Thing'. So lets fix whatever problems there are and move on with the task we've been set. SteveBaker 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said. The RefDesk you seem to be describing is indeed a wonderful thing. Its goals are indeed noble, as is its guiding principle. However I have to disagree with the second half of your statement. Not the arguments, simply your assessment of the current state of the RefDesk. I'd love for the RefDesk to exist as you describe it, unfortunately, it does not. To me, the RefDesk isn't nearly living up to the goals that you and I aspire for it. In fact, I can't help but describe it as terribly dysfunctional. You say that many who come here go away with exactly what they need. Yes, many do. But as well, many who come here go away with exactly what they don't need, that being an answer they believe to be authoritative, accurate and unbiased, when in fact the answer they get is terribly flawed, biased and innacurate. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sit well at all with me. Better no answer than a bad answer I say. Better no truth than a half truth. I completely agree with you that we should "fix whatever problems there are and move on". If that could be done as quickly and as simply as you seem to believe, I'd be all for it. However I've been here for quite a while, and I've tried for a very long time to help out in doing precisely what you're suggesting, only to discover that the problems are far more grave than I had originaly thought, and fixing them far more difficult than I could have possibly ever imagined. That said, though I know little about you, judging by the nature of your comments above, you would appear to be a great asset to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, many others are not. Lewis 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, you've announced that you're "defecting" from the Ref desk. You say "Should the required [Ref desk] issues be dealt with, I'll be more than glad to return, without hesitation". Urging others to leave as you have is hardly the way to allow issues to be dealt with. Please either be true to your word, or come back. You can't have it both ways. JackofOz 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack, it's only because I see you as a member of the "logical and intelligent" minority here I was speaking of that I'm willing to respond to your comment. You say that "[I] can't have it both ways". How inappropriately logical of you! The very theme of this whole page seems to be based on the illogic inherent in the fact that so many are allowed to "have it both ways". The logically challenged I was speaking of somehow seem to see some sort of perverse logic in the fact that they're allowed to attack others with impunity, while any attacks upon them are utterly unacceptable. Is that not the very essence of "having it both ways"? I must admit, though, Jack, that I'm a bit disappointed in you for not seeming to recognize the glaringly obvious double standards I'm speaking of. I believe you to be an intelligent guy, so I'll just assume that you indeed do see them, yet consciously choose not to comment upon them. However in the unlikely event that you're actually completely oblivious to these double standards, something I can't hardly imagine, then perhaps you're indeed not the astute observer of human behaviour I had always assumed you to be.

It's my honest belief that should the intelligent and logical among us just leave, the remaining logically challenged will be left with no one to pick on. Dazed and confused, and having lost all sense of purpose, they too will leave. Only then can the intelligent and logical return to begin the task of rebuilding this place into what it should be, a talk page dedicated to the improvement of the RefDesk. To be blunt, this page is in desperate need of an enema.

However for the meantime, as they say, "if you can't beat'em, join'em!". With that in mind, I too have decided that here and only here, I'll throw my logic out the window and instead opt for the illogic of "having things both ways". I therefore make the following announcement:

I, Lewis, hereby promise never to return here again, EVER! Except now and then when I feel like it. Lewis 12:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There's really nothing in the foregoing that's worthy of any response. JackofOz 12:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How very kind of you to say that, Jack. Good to finally know the truth. Apparently you too don't take any of my grievances seriously. Perhaps you believe that I'm some sort of lunatic who sees this whole thing as one big joke, and that my purported grievances are mere insincere pretexts used to excuse my otherwise purposeless disruptive behaviour. Or even worse, perhaps you do indeed recognize that I've been wronged and hurt and that these issues have indeed caused me great deal of distress, but you just don't give a shit. Thanks. Lewis 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Diatribes are part of the problem. Practical suggestions for improvement may be part of the solution. Friday (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. I continue to maintain that a) one of the main reasons discourse turns into mutual diatribe of opposing camps here is that b) there is no consensus about what the reference desk IS, and thus c) it is premature to discuss how to improve it. But I also agree that the desk works (slightly) more often than not, and chose instead other than this tiny note to leave the talk page discussion, rather than the desks themselves, until folks are willing to talk on a more fundamental level than "which policies apply", and the ever-too-premature "is this more like an article space or a talk page". That said, I am not prepared to leave the reference desks themselves, as I believe even without consensus about function and purpose, there is still more good than harm in my presence, and further believe there is stil a majority of us here who do more good than harm. Ironically, if those of us who actually listen to each other listened to this urging to leave and DID leave, it would leave a space populated only by those who refuse to listen to others -- a poor volunteer pool, indeed! Also, I'd rather teach than not teach. Jfarber 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, J. I just think that you may be misundestanding what I proposed above. I'll explain with a personal example. Two of my brothers were heroine addicts (at different times). At first we had no idea how to react and kept feeding them, caring for them and providing them with a roof over their head, thinking that our love would be their best hope at kicking the habit. Of course this didn't work. So the rest of the family, including myself joined one of those "support groups" for the loved ones of drug abusers. We learned a great deal there. One of the most important things we learned was that in caring and providing for them, we were actually doing more harm than good. We were, what they termed, only further "enabling" them to continue their drug habits. We were told that in the vast majority of cases, those who recovered from addiction only did so after having, as they term it, "hit bottom". Basically, what that meant is that as difficult and heartbreaking as it was, in order to help them, we had to quit enabling them, lock them out of the house, and let them sink to the lowest depths they can tolerate, be it living on the street in a cardboard box, going hungry because they spent all their money on drugs and couldn't afford food, or whatever. Only then, when they finally "hit bottom" and got fed up with their miserable lives could they then finally realize that they absolute MUST quit, and stay quit, as, should they consider returning to their old ways, they'd immediately associate the needle with that image of starving in a filthy cardboard box, and with that miserable image in their minds, they'd make sure to stay as far away from drugs as possible.

Some of you may find the analogy to be a bit of a stretch, but I honestly see one. I "defected" from the RefDesk because I finally felt that in trying and trying and trying to improve things, I was only enabling it to survive in its horribly dysfunctional state. Instead I chose to leave, and urged as many of the best contributors to leave as well, because I felt that the only hope for the RefDesk to recover and return to the amazing place it was just a year ago, was to let it "hit bottom". Call the analogy silly, or melodramatic, or an incredible stretch, whatever. You're probably right anyway. I can only speak for myself.

I've been contacted by many fellow editors, (some of whom I'd never even heard of and had no idea they actually enjoyed reading my posts,) be it on my talk page, or via email, all basically saying the same thing over the past few months: "Loomis! What the hell's happened to you? You used to be such a great contributor! Articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable, passionate, at times a bit cranky and hot-headed, but generaly a real joy to read (despite being overly lengthy at times!). What's happened to you? The quality of your contributions has dropped dramatically, and all you seem to do lately is keep picking fights with Clio for no apparent reason...what the hell's going on?" What happened was that in desperately trying to get it through to people that the RefDesk was in serious trouble for a variety of reasons, and if nothing would be done soon it would eventually go completely to pot. Yet no one seemed to listen, which just got me all the more frustrated, harming the quality of my contributions to the point that they became virtually useless. So that's basically my story. The atmosphere at the RefDesk has become so stifling that I just can't contribute anything of use anymore. Should the atmosphere finally change for the better, I'd love to come back. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

But I get your point Friday. Quit with the diatribes and replace them with positive suggestions. Fair enough. I strongly suggest that the admins urgently and with all due haste commit themselves to put in every possible effort to enforce WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as fairly and as equally as is humanly possible among ALL contributors. IMHO, if this simple issue were to be finally adressed and corrected once and for all, a great deal, if not all of the constant bickering, name calling and incivility would cease. It's so plainly obvious that certain members realize that they can be as insulting and incivil as they wish, without any fear of reprimand. Knowing this, they freely insult others, inevitably provoking their targets to insult them back. The whole thing then ultimately descends into a flame war filled with nothing but diatribes and demagoguery. If only the admins would redouble their efforts at enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as fairly and equally as possible, mark my words, you wouldn't believe the extent to which the quality of discussion on this page would improve. The answer seems so simple, yet no one seems to be willing to even give it a try. Are you? Lewis 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Enforce? How do you propose we enforce such a thing? There's no way I know of to MAKE people be civilized- all we can do is complain at them about it afterwards when they're not. I don't see that the problem is as bad as you make out, but maybe I've missed something. Friday (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my choice of the word "enforce" was obviously a poor one. Perhaps I should have used the phrase "issue warnings and threats to block". I must have been issued at least a dozen if not more warnings and threats that if I don't clean my act up, I'll get blocked. Yet looking at the talk pages of those users who so viciously attacked me on so many occasions, I see nothing. Not a single threat to be blocked, not a single warning, and not even one single friendly suggestion such as "Listen, maybe you lost your temper or something, but those things you said about Loomis were pretty nasty. I know you're better than that. As a friendly suggestion, please stop doing it, it's not right." Not even that. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Lewis 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well.. If you're looking for Wikipedia to be "fair", you're in the wrong place. Justice and fairness and similar concepts are not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles, so we don't worry about them much. That said, things ideally should not be gratuitously unfair, either. My only suggestion is to put personal disagreements behind you. Making things personal never helps make the encyclopedia better. Friday (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lewis. The Admin bias against inclusionist here is quite obvious and severe. Whenever I complain about it, I get no response at all, as here: [14]. StuRat 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec, reset indent, responding to Jfarber) I think there have been quite a few discussions "on a more fundamental level", about what the reference desk is or should be and how it can benefit Wikipedia. Unfortunately all those comments are now spread about several talk page archives on various pages (and one, i thought, particularly productive discussion lost in a page move). Some of the editors who were engaged in those discussions, editors who in my opinion were doing a good job of moving things forward, have since left the building (probably for obvious reasons). I think one of the most valuable comments made in all these months of tedious debate was by Steve Summit, that all else aside what we want to see is a "gradual improvement to an imperfect but reasonable reference desk." Despite the occasional downward spirals taken on talk page, i think there is reason to believe that we are seeing improvement on the desks themselves. Whether or not the improvement is happening fast enough for everyone involved, and though there is probably a lot of disagreement as to what's "imperfect but reasonable", i don't think the reference desk is the free-for-all it once was and there's general agreement that that is a good thing. So, i hope you don't go the way of some of the other editors who've contributed here, it's a rare few who can actually make a difference in this debate, the rest of us fired off all our powder a long time back.—eric 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You say "Justice and fairness and similar concepts are not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles, so we don't worry about them much." If you're indeed correct, and "Justice and fairness and similar concepts are" indeed "not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles. Why do we even bother with such unnecessary policies as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in the first place? I change my suggestion. I say we scrap WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL altogether, as they apparently serve no purpose. Lewis 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to make one final point clear. The central issue here is not fairness itself, it's the detrimental effect that unfairness inevitably brings about that I'm driving at. Sure, I'm insulted by being treated unfairly (interestingly, Friday actually seems to openly concede that fact), but it's not any insult to me that matters, it's the damage that this type of unfairness does to the RefDesk that's at stake here. Look around! Look at all the bickering, the hostility, the anger, the diatribes and the demagoguery. It's so simple. Unfairness breeds resentment, resentment breads anger, anger breeds hostility and hostility ultimately leads to diatribes, demagoguery, incivility and personal attacks.

In short, I consider fairness to be EXTREMELY important, but many of you seem to be misunderstanding just why I consider it to be so important. Fairness is not the end that so many of you seem to think I'm searching for, rather it's the means that's necessary to ensure decorum and high quality discussion. Does anybody understand at all what I'm talking about or am I merely wasting my time once again? Lewis 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and agree. StuRat 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)