User talk:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts

Immediately below, I've created a section for each section on the main page. Please, comment or criticize here, and I'll see if we can work out any necessary corrections or compromises. There is a section (please create subsections as necessary) at the bottom for new ideas and other comments. Thanks for your participation! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk is here to provide information to people who need help answering their questions

Responses to posts should always attempt to answer a question

Another category?

Not sure if I'm putting this in the right place but here goes. You gave three possible categories that responses almost always fall into, viz:

Direct answers
Clarification of answers
Requests for clarification

I propose adding:

Taking exception to direct answers

If someone posts an incorrect answer then stating so does not fall into any of the three categories you listed. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and citations are a good thing

Refactor subsequent discussion where necessary

...but we can't answer all questions

The wording "We are not qualified to give medical or legal advice ..." bothers me, in as much it does not reflect the truth, and provides a convenient excuse for not bothering to reply sensibly to something which may be of great concern to a questioner. What about:

We do not give professional advice on medical and legal matters. We do not undertake analyses or provide solutions to questioners' health or legal problems. Within our capabilities, we do try to answer scientific, semantic or historical questions, help explain concepts, and point the questioner to possible sources for solutions.

"We do not answer homework questions." The homework problem problem is similarly difficult to define, because in fact we do answer questions related to homework. Once more I find the "we do not answer homework" often used in a rather rude (as in "unsophisticated" and "knee-jerk") response to a question. My way of stating it:

We do not do your homework for you. The work of homework is yours, but we will give assistance with interpreting questions, help with ideas and concepts, and attempt to point to other resources that might help you to solve your tasks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seejyb (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 December 2006

Good ideas. I've nicked your phrases verbatim. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to discourage here is deeply philosophical or "religious" discussions. Those are always going to come up, but since they tend to come up so often, and can so predictably descend into long, repetetitive debates, it's worth trying to say somehow at the entry gate that we'd much rather you ask us about scientific facts, than ask us to help you explore some fasinating aspect of the Intelligent Design question. (Some aspect of this point probably belongs in the advice for answerers section, too: "please be wary of spinning a simple question off into a a long, far-ranging philosophical debate".) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [P.S. I am indebted to User:Hipocrite for this suggestion.][reply]

I'm taking a stab at this now. Additional suggestions for phrasing are welcome. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above seems to suppose that 'philosophical' = 'rambling, interminable and subjective'.

You're right, I did, and that was imprecise of me. —s

It doesn't, or at least it needn't. Philosophy is a technical discipline, and questions within the discipline's remit can be answered succinctly and well. The problem isn't with that particular kind of question, it's with the widespread but mistaken belief that there's no expertise in philosophy, and the resulting tendency for people to pitch in with 'my opinion' (since 'it's all opinion'). A similar problem infests philosophy articles on WP: everyone's got his or her two cents, in a way that doesn't happen so much with scientific articles.

Very good points. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This problem of ignorant responses should be addressed explicitly by 'Responses to posts should always attempt to answer a question'. Cheers, Sam Clark 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to get User:Hipocrite's input here. Personally, I love a good, long, rambling, intelligent, philosophical debate, and I've been guilty of perpetrating them on the Reference Desk. (So if it was just me, I wouldn't discourage them at all. :-) ) But they can get out of hand, and it was Hipocrite's criticism of my contribution to one of them that sparked my note above. But I don't claim to have slanted it perfectly. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a good point here: we need to contain responses so they don't turn into interminable rambles, because this isn't a blog comments roll. And it's also fair enough to point out that some philosophical questions are more likely to do that than some scientific ones (and I've been guilty of adding to that in the past, too). But discouraging questions on epistemology (one of ~~your~~ TenOfAllTrades's examples) seems to me to be a bad idea. I think this is a matter of the common sense and self-discipine of responders, not a matter of discouraging or disallowing questions on certain topics. I should say, by the way, that I appreciate your and others' hard work on these guidelines, which I largely support... Cheers, Sam Clark 14:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above: there's a nice example of a potentially interminable-argument-starting question under the title 'Holocaust Guilt' on the humanities refdesk now. I've tried to give the right sort of answer; I'll be interested to see what else gets added. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good example, and I thought your answer was stellar. The question of whether you should have chided StuRat for offering personal opinions, and whether he should have gotten defensive about it, is also pertinent, and when I have time I'll contribute to the talk thread about it. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask questions just to start a conversation

The Reference Desk is a useful part of Wikipedia

Link to Wikipedia articles where appropriate

Amplifying "wild goose chase", and specifically because I sometimes get the impression that a "quick link" is spat out instead of considered guidance ("Look Ma, I'm first"?):

Avoid linking to articles (that may not answer the question that was asked) by simply linking to key words in the question. The questioner may well have searched for those key words already, but has been unable to find an answer. Check the validity of your links and references. --Seejyb 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems slightly akilter to me about this bullet and the following one; it may make sense to merge the two and then refactor them. In particular, we need to make the same "no wild goose chases" point about external links, too. We also need to figure out where and how to phrase the "don't just tell people to search Google" guideline (taking into account the unfortunate fact that many of our questioners are lazy bastards who really should be doing their own Google searches instead of leaning on us).

Also, I think we should be even more explicit in encouraging answerers to use many aspects of their RD-answering experience to motivate improvements to articlespace. In the extreme, the right thing to do, when you'd like to point the questioner to a particular article except that the article doesn't answer the question, is to fix the article so that it does, then point the questioner at it. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...but when you do alter an article significantly in the proess of using it in an RD answer, it's a good idea to mention you've done so, so that you don't confuse the questioner if they'd already checked that article, and so that you don't confuse previous answerers who might already have cited that article in its prior form. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use external links from answers as sources to improve our articles

Remember that you're an ambassador for the community

Nothing to add, except to say that this is an excellent point, missing from most of the other attempts at RD policy that I've seen, and I want to make sure this stays in whatever final set of guidelines we come up with. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk maintains a friendly, open, welcoming environment

Strive to maintain the highest standards of courtesy

Courtesy for question-askers: "Please ask us for help with your question; please don't instruct us to solve your problem for you." —Steve Summit (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a sensible sense of humour

Don't edit a question

Don't poke fun at a poorly-written question

Take pity on the dial-up user

Please sign and indent your replies

New suggestions go here

Use the Reference Desks as a Guide to Improving Wikipedia.

(This is my ideas on Steve's suggestion at "Links to Wikipedia articles" above, which I feel it is a viable suggestion. It is a practical suggestion. It is not a "rule"; it is something to keep in mind as standard practice. I suspect that many editors do this already.)

I think that the reference and help desks present the most direct interactions between (knowledgeable?:)) editors and the naive (newbie) Wikipedia users (Is this true?). In this sense, every question from a new user is a little poll about how effective Wikipedia is as a stand alone encyclopedia - can the user get what he wants? The very fact of an unanswered question could be seen as a possible "No". This may be used to the advantage of the project.

One can consider two aspects of the interaction:

Did the question arise because the user could not find already existing knowledge? - Presentation and user friendliness.
Was the question necessary because Wikipedia lacks the information? - Content.

As conscientious editors we may identify any correctable factors, and initiate the appropriate changes. We cannot educate users before they start using Wikipedia, but we can improve the format, "findability" and linking of existing knowledge (Presentation), and add missing Content. Examples would be: new redirects, changed links,, clarified grammar, new or expended articles, and raising the issues addressed in the RD question on the article discussion page.

In replying to a new user who has asked a question on the reference desk, education as to how the information was located may be appropriate. This would preferably be formulated as a properly worded "in-use training" reply, rather than just a redirect to a guideline page; Wikipedia articles and guidelines are sometimes obscure, equivocal, and difficult to grasp as one, with information spread out among several articles. I am sometimes surprised at how difficult finding specific information can turn out to be, and have changed a number of links as a direct result of RD questions.

While this process does mean extra effort, it should be well worth it. On would have to forego the thrill of being the first to answer:)

Note that this guideline does not imply that an editor is obliged to undertake the above, nor that one has to provide a reply to an answer before using the question-answer interaction in this way. It is adding value to the desks. --Seejyb 13:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No appeal to authority or ad hominem arguments

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)[reply]

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.) By the same token, 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)[reply]

It sounds as if you support appeal to authority arguments. Does a cloning claim by a South Korean scientist make it true ? Does a WMD claim by Bush make it true ? StuRat 17:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does "You should explain where your answer comes from (experience, training, linked web page, Wikipedia article, journal article, etc.), and if you don't then it's reasonable for someone to ask" become "Experts are always correct"? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see you agree that we should avoid appeal to authority arguments. And "it's perfectly reasonable to question a response that doesn't cite a reliable source" could be taken to mean "a response that does cite a reliable source should not be questioned". StuRat 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Good stuff- I can't imagine any reasonable person disagreeing with this. Perhaps merge to common sense? :-) Ned Wilbury 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's good stuff, inclusive, and nicely structured too. ---Sluzzelin 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the only substantial differences between the current version of the guidelines and this document are the added "Content and tone" section and this passage under "Guidelines for responding to questions":

Our standards on verifiability, neutral point of view, or no original research apply to the Reference Desk as they do to the rest of the project. Answering questions by referring to articles or even reliable original sources is consistent with these key content policies. Make sure that statement of facts in answers can be supported by an article or reference.

Anything i'm not seeing?—eric 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason those were omitted is that many people don't agree that they should be requirements. For example, a computer question is often answered based on another user's "original research", and may also be unverifiable. That doesn't make it a bad answer. A question on "what classical piano piece would you recommend for someone who likes X" requires POV, and that's not bad, either. StuRat 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what i'm working towards here, the guideline page is the working document, Ten's "RD Thoughts" are pretty much what everyone agrees to already, and those are the only significant differences i saw between the two. Do you have any problems w/ the "Content and tone" section? and do you see any other major differences which i missed?—eric 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "content and tone" section does appear to contradict itself: "The reference desk is not censored...We endeavor to remove needlessly offensive material as quickly as possible." Removing offensive material is pretty much the very definition of censorship. StuRat 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really no more contradictory than the way 'WP is not censored' is applied to the rest of Wikipedia. The encyclopedia isn't censored, but we nevertheless remove all kinds of things from it that don't belong. The key is in the qualifier needlessly. Even though we have an article on the word fuck, we tend to remove that word from other articles. There's a picture of a penis in the article on the penis, but we remove the picture if someone puts it in another article. Adding material that is likely to offend and which doesn't serve to improve the encyclopedia – offensiveness for offensiveness' sake – is, reasonably, discouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When censors are employed, do you think any of them would say their job description is to needlessly remove content ? Somehow I doubt it. StuRat 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. If you want to have a serious discussion about developing reasonable guidelines, let me know. If you'd prefer to play word games or misunderstand and misrepresent my statements to try to score debating points, find a new sparring partner. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing out that your definition of censorship as "needlessly removing material" is incorrect. Why must you mischaracterize this as "trying to score debating points" ? That isn't helpful. StuRat 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]